The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay’s Council
Composition Committee has after a number of months of deliberation and thought
settled on two potential options for the reform of Thunder Bay City
Council. This is a topic with a long
history and I have done several
posts on it over the years the most recent one being in
the wake of the decision to form an arm’s length committee to review the
composition and structure of council.
The desire to look at the size and composition of council is rooted in
the beliefs that there might be cost savings by reducing the size of council given
that similar size cities often have fewer councillors or that council’s
deliberations might be more efficient or effective if there were fewer
councillors. The current proposals if
implemented would not be the first time that City Council has seen changes, but
it is the first time in a long while.
When Thunder Bay was created in 1970 from amalgamation of
the twin cities of Port Arthur and Fort William and the rural municipalities of
Neebing and McIntyre, it began with a 12 councillor plus mayor council elected
evenly across four wards. However,
interurban rivalry between the Williamites and Arthurites was still intense as
was rural dissatisfaction and so in 1976 the four wards were revised to seven. Then in 1985 there was the further revision
that sought to balance north-south neighborhood concerns with the need to take
the overall interest of the city into account known as the Larson compromise –
after then councillor Rene Larson. This
created the current form of seven ward councillors plus five at large plus the
mayor. After nearly forty years, the
proposals seek to change this.
There are two proposals.
The first, interestingly enough, seems like a tomorrow is yesterday
proposal given that it features four wards.
The proposal puts forth four east-west wards running parallel from north
to south numbered 1 to 4 that basically give each ward a rural area, urban area
as well as some industry and waterfront in the geographic and population
composition of the ward. Each ward would
have two ward councillors for a total of eight. Plus, there would be two
at-large councillors and a mayor. This
proposal is apparently also being recommended by city administration and the
committee chair and former city councillor Rebecca Johnson feels it is “quite
exciting” given that each ward combines all aspects of the community. The
other option is a full at large system with ten at-large councillors – no wards
- plus the mayor. There will now be public consultations and information
sessions that the committee will use to narrow down the options to just one and
this will then be submitted to council for approval and then will hopefully be
in place for the October 2026 election.
So, what to make of all this. Well, in terms of cost savings, going from a
current council of 13 members to one of 11 under either option is simply a
cosmetic cost saving. While theatre is
important in politics, pointless cost saving theatre is a waste of time. What is more important is whether the new
format is an improvement on representation and decision making in terms of
having balanced representation of all city interests as well as a more
streamlined decision-making process.
Having fewer members on council is again more of a cosmetic streamlining
as a council of 11 is as likely to have long winded grand-standers as a council
of 13. The savings on time and committee
streamlining is marginal at best. As for
the idea that having wards cutting east west and spanning rural, urban,
industrial and waterfront areas, that is actually more interesting and
certainly an intriguing change. Of
course, one has to ask if any perceived dysfunctions of council currently are
due to having somewhat more homogeneous rather than diverse wards under the
present system or simply a function of personalities and issues.
One item that seems odd is why a vestige of the hybrid
ward/at-large system is still being retained in the recommended proposal? An all at-large system in a sense would ultimately
lead to a lack of democratic representation as the ability to mount a city-wide
campaign \would increasingly relegate council positions to higher income
individuals or those with support from key interest groups. However, the purpose of city government is to
provide services to ratepayers. Having geographic wards with councillors
attached to those wards as focal points and accountable to voters in their ward
is superior to at-large councillors who under the pretense of representing the
“whole” city – which by the way is the mayor’s job – can essentially dodge
neighborhood issues they are not as interested in. Why have a council with eight ward
councillors and two at large plus a mayor?
Why not simply go to eight ward councillors plus a mayor thereby saving
another two councillor salaries – as miniscule as those savings are in a $200
million dollar a year operating budget.
In the end, the preferred option – like all the council
options and changes of the past – is likely going to be a political
compromise. The current council
essentially must approve the final option and going from 13 to 11 means some
dear colleagues must inevitably be bade farewell come October 2026. Council voting to reduce its size and create redundancy for some of its members may be a challenge. The fact that the number of ward councillors
goes from seven to eight will probably secure the votes of the majority of current
seven ward councillors. While that is a
majority, it would leave a bitter taste if all five at-large councillors vote
against the new regime so having a couple of at-large councillors in the new
arrangement should placate enough of them, even if it makes them an endangered
species.
However, what is more interesting will be the public
reaction to the recommended proposal especially in the rural wards. The Neebing and McIntyre wards essentially
have two dedicated rural voices on council.
What the proposed four ward structure does is essentially divide the
rural areas into four bits and place them in a minority position within each of
the largely urban wards. While the
Larson Compromise of 1985 in the end addressed north-south rivalry issues and
the need for “Thunder Bay views”, it also dealt with the interests of the two
rural municipalities that were once independent. Essentially what the compromise did was allow
for specific ward representation including specific rural interests as well as
provide the overarching at-large councillors.
While Thunder Bay has largely come together in the case of the old Port
Arthur/Fort William split, the rural-urban differences with respect to taxation
and service levels is probably still an issue now.
The political mix at the moment is that five of the current
seven ward councillors are most likely to support the recommended model. I would be surprised if the Neebing and
McIntyre councillors supported the new model.
As five councillors is not a majority, this leaves the balance of the
decision to the five at-large councillors to decide if the proposal becomes
reality. It should make for some
interesting Monday night political theatre this winter.
