I get asked the question all the time, "Why is Council so dysfunctional?" To which I reply, "Oh, really. Well give me an example."
That usual gives pause, but the complainant generally collects (his) thoughts, and then asserts he has heard that Council members argued all the time, or the Mayor stopped someone from talking, or that certain Council members had an 'agenda', and that at Council those things were rubber stamped over others' objections.
But when one digs down to the actual events that have led to those accusations, they generally are not a Council meetings at all- more likely to be at BICS gym when a contentious subject such as the National Park, or a hearing for the OCP/LUB bylaws, or going back to CRC or even the turf field were up for discussion.
Two questions arise. Does a vocal and engaged citizenry mean that things are not working well? Does dissent on Council, or plain old divergence of opinion, also mean that things are going wrong?
I'd say no, on both counts. After all, Council members are elected by everyone, and there is bound to be an array of values, beliefs, interests, etc represented.
To me, things are off the rails when Council simply does not function because of divisions within, or the conduct of one or more members impacts normal process.
It doesn't take much to find examples. To wit, go to White rock 2009, where a Councillor was removed from the hall and office after he was found to have faked emails. But not before there were threats of suits, counter allegations and so on. Not long before, a Councillor stabbed another with her pen. Or perhaps Coquitlam, where Mayor Scott Young was convicted of assault in may 2008, refused to step down, and the rest of Council ignored/obstructed him for the balance of the term. Or Langley Township, where the mayor has accused staff of involvement in a development scheme, and some of Council have turned on him, a crown prosecutor has been appointed, and by accounts,everything has ground to a halt.
By comparison, Bowen is a piker. We are generally civil, collegial, and if resolution votes are a measure, we generally agree on a lot of things. Never has council business been interrupted because of procedural discord, or personal vendettas or anything else.
Take last Monday. In 3 1/2 hours in Committee, we nearly unanimously passed most of the 'elements', and selected two of four 'schemes' coming out of James Tuer's Snug Cove work (referenced earlier in this blog). Considering that we've been at this a long time, I'd say pretty good that there was consensus on what has been a pretty divisive issue. No screaming or yelling either...Too bad there weren't many people in the room, but one can catch the proceedings (they're riveting!) on the Phorum, as posted by Andrew Stone.
I'd say those that are promulgating the idea of a dysfunctional Council are more upset with outcomes than process. To be blunt, they need a lesson in Civics, as it is often the same people who complain about lack of transparency, or nothing getting done, or an emphasis on the wrong issues- characterized as 'diversions'. In fact, lots gets done. It just isn't to their liking.
I think we have a pretty healthy democracy on Bowen.
Oh- One last thing. This idea that Council rammed unpopular legislation down the throats of the community.
It bears looking at the record, and unless passing the OCP counts as that (which it patently is not), or the Watershed Protection, mandated by the Province and pretty well boilerplated from RAR , or maybe the ESA and Steep Slopes- reading rescinded, or the Belterra rezoning?, or was it the firehall rezoning, or the three budgets, one pretty quickly runs out of even potential actions that might have been heavy handed. Or maybe it WASN'T doing something, like not passing the CRC Neighbourhood Plan, that counts as riding roughshod.
More correctly, these were all contentious items that were labouriously debated, and a decision made. Different hands went up in the affirmative or negative in all of these, so it can hardly be a cabal.
No comments:
Post a Comment