I have already opined on the recent report putting forth options for the reform of Thunder Bay City Council, but the matter is so fundamentally important to the future of local democracy in our city as well as the effectiveness of municipal government that it is worth another post. This especially requires another post given that the current council will soon move to deliberate and decide on which of the two options – if any – it is going to go with.
To start, there are actually three options: The first, is four east-west wards running parallel from north to south numbered 1 to 4 that basically gives 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. As well, there would be two at-large councillors and a mayor. This proposal is being recommended by city administration. The second option is a full at large system with ten at-large councillors – no ward councillors - plus the mayor. One suspects that some type of ward structure will be retained with at large councillors “assigned” ward representation duties but how that might actually work is shrouded in fog. And third – while not explicitly referred to but lurking in the background – is simply the status quo option of seven ward councillors, five at large councillors and one mayor.
What remains important in the discussion is what the rationale for creating a new structure is. First and foremost, whether warranted or not, there appears to be a widespread desire for change in city council’s composition driven by dissatisfaction with assorted aspects of municipal government in Thunder Bay. A desire for change for the sake of change is never in of itself a good reason to change things but even recent albeit unscientific polls on TBnewswatch suggests that most respondents want change. Past TBnewswatch polls have suggested a desire for a smaller council with eight councillors plus a mayor garnering the most support. When given the two proposed options plus the status quo as choice, the most recent poll finds that over 86 percent want change with only 13 percent supporting the status quo. Moreover, when it comes to the two proposed options – about 46 percent support the 10 councillors plus mayor all at large option, and 40 percent support the four ward two councillor per ward plus two at large and a mayor format.
What type of performance improvements to our municipal governance are these proposals supposed to make? Anecdotally, observation suggests that Thunder Bay City Council meetings appear to be long and drawn out with detailed discussions and gridlock on minor and major matters alike. Yet, how changing the composition of city council will address issues of dysfunction are not really obvious. There is also a desire to save money but reducing council by two members saves at best $100,000 in salaries, benefits, and expenses on a tax funded budget of over $200 million. Indeed, if cost savings are really what you are after, the savings do not come from the reduction in the size of city council but an improvement in the quality of councillors and decision-making on it. There is nothing in either of the two proposed options that lend any evidence as to how a smaller council will be a better council when it comes to decision making.
In the end the three options can be interpreted as follows: the status quo, a modified status quo which shrinks the council slightly but still includes a mix of ward and at-large councillors, and the ten councillors at large option which I would term the “mayor plus ten assistant mayors” option. The attractiveness of an all–at large council to some members of the general public springs from the conviction that such councillors have the interests of the entire city at large while ward councillors are parochial nimbyists who block change. My observations are that ward councillors seem stuck with the grunt work of dealing with specific ward and neighborhood issues while most at-large councillors pick and choose what ward issues to advocate for based on the political benefits while behaving as pontificating prima donnas at meetings with speeches that chew up far too much time.
In the end, an all–at large council favours those candidates with a lot of prior popular name exposure (it is like high school all over again) and/or the financial resources or special interest backing to mount a city-wide campaign. The argument that somehow only at large councillors have the ability to see the whole city’s interests is spurious. The average municipal politician usually puts their political interests first, and everything else is weighed and slotted towards meeting those interests – whether it is in the city’s interests or not. Having no ward councillors at all is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of municipal government which is to provide municipal services to rate payers who either reside and/or operate businesses in wards. Moving to an all–at large system reduces accountability to the mundane needs of ratepayers by creating a council of big picture overlords who will pass the buck on specific local issues when it suits them.
Those that want an all–at large system should consider this analogy. If at large councillors are really better able to see the “bigger municipal picture” than by extension having all MPs and MPPS elected from an at large list would be better at seeing provincial or national interests as opposed to parochial MPs or MPPs who just look after their ridings. Perhaps, one might consider this a straw man argument and a deflection from the real issue but think about it carefully. One may feel comfortable about all at large candidates with no wards because Thunder Bay is a relatively small city and ultimately everyone knows someone who knows someone who is friends with a councillor. Everyone feels that they can have their voice heard. And yet, without the institution of direct ward or riding representation, there is no guarantee that you will always have a direct opportunity to be heard.
So, what is the solution? Well, my preferred option – which is of course not up for discussion in the current set of offerings - is eight ward councillors plus a mayor option. The city would be divided not into four but eight wards thereby ensuring that some dedicated rural ward representation would remain. It is now 50 years after amalgamation and the city has been united long enough that the average ward councillor should be able to see the forest for the trees. If they cannot, it is more a function of the quality of the councillor rather than the ward system. Going down to eight councillors plus a mayor would likely save several hundred thousand dollars – again a small sum compared to a budget in the hundreds of millions – but enough to increase resources available to perhaps attract better candidates. This does not necessarily mean raising salaries for councillors but could even involve providing funds so that they can hire some independent research support so they can better inform themselves on issues.
Of course, the other argument that has also been made in favour of an all–at large council is that there is a lack of Indigenous representation on the current city council. Given that the Indigenous population in Thunder Bay is spread out across the city rather than concentrated in one ward, an all–at large system increases the odds that an indigenous candidate and by extension the growing indigenous population can gain a voice on city council. However, there is no guarantee that having ten at large councillors will ensure an indigenous candidate gaining office. Indeed, if having at large councillors is the best way to ensure better odds for an indigenous candidate getting elected to Thunder Bay City Council, then the best thing to do is to retain the current system with seven ward and five at-large councillors plus a mayor. At least it will be the devil we know best.
