London Free Press 2005-05-28
Voters still not engaged in council size debate

GEORGE CLARK, London Free Press

If one could compare Ward 3 city Coun. Fred Tranquilli's efforts to do away with board of control to the originally well intended but eventually fruitless efforts of Don Quixote in La Mancha, then that lance must be getting not only very heavy right now, it could also be showing signs of rust.

Like Quixote, Tranquilli has not been alone in his efforts. City council and board of control minutes show that, three years ago, it was usually then Controller Joe Swan who initiated many of the attempts to abolish board of control -- with his usual seconder being the Ward 3 councillor. Without reflecting on who was Sancho Panza to whose Don Quixote, we do know now that it has been Tranquilli who shouldered the burden and carried on the fight long after Swan opted to leave the municipal fray and enter the lists for elected office at higher government levels.

It is now getting down to crunch time once again. City council is being asked, at its next meeting, to take its own members' advice and abandon attempts to change or reduce the size of city council before the next election.

Meeting as a committee of the whole, council members voted to recommend that city council, meeting as city council and not committee of the whole, maintain the status quo. I realize it can get to be confusing for those who don't follow council on a routine basis. But the bottom line is that years after the governance review committee meetings, after the decision was made to put the question on the election ballot, after voters said yes to downsizing council and abolishing board of control in too few numbers to force action, city council will vote at its next meeting to accept the advice of the majority of its own members and end the cycle, at least for this council's life.

I am troubled by those who have argued in public forums and in the letters to the editor that council had an obligation to the majority of voters in the last election to make changes. I think the point has been missed. The voters had an obligation to turn out in high enough numbers -- at least 50 per cent of available voters casting ballots -- to require council action. All that the vote in 2003 showed was that a majority of 33 per cent of the potential electorate wanted change.

There have been many arguments made both for and against maintaining board of control, which is a structure unique to London in Canadian municipal politics. From where I sit, I lean toward retention, because it allows the voters to cast ballots for the city's executive committee. I remain unconvinced of what advantage voters are offered by letting councillors make that choice among themselves, rather than by ratepayers.

The original discussions back in 2002 by the previous council had also included suggestions that voters be asked if they favoured reducing the number of wards from seven to a lesser number, and reducing ward councillors from two to one. Those suggestions didn't make the cut for questions on the ballot. Not surprisingly, three years later, the public discussions held at council's recent committee of the whole meeting on the issue centred around doing the reverse -- and moving to increase the number of wards. It is reasonable to question whether ward boundaries need changing to catch up with uneven development across the city in the last few years.

I don't suppose that Tranquilli is ready to throw in the towel or put down his lance on this issue yet. Perhaps a change of some faces after the next election might better his chances. But I do think the key ingredient that will be necessary is a much wider public discussion and understanding among the electorate of the potential benefits of making change. It needs more than disenchantment with municipal politics in general to chance throwing the baby out with the bath water.