Future on the line

The issue of council's size and the existence of board of control come to a head Monday when councillors debate the options. Free Press City Hall Reporter Joe Belanger gives an overview of the situation and answers key questions on the issue.
Joe Belanger, Free Press City Hall Reporter 2005-06-11 02:14:41


Business as usual or big change?

London city council debates Monday whether to eliminate board of control or stick to the status quo.

"I've had almost no telephone calls or e-mails on the subject," Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell says, echoing other controllers who want to leave things as they are.

"There's no interest out there. (Voters) are much more interested in results . . . Restructuring is not going to solve the problem of council not getting along."

The lack of interest comes from council burying the issue after a referendum in 2003's municipal election, counters Coun. Fred Tranquilli, who's pushing hard for change.

The referendum found 55 per cent of voters ready to get rid of controllers, 76 per cent for shrinking council size.

"I don't know how (fellow politicians) intend to run for re-election when they've voted against what the voters asked them to do in the referendum," Tranquilli says.

"I think that just fuels cynicism . . . I don't think they're accurately predicting the degree of backlash at the polls" if nothing changes.

Council must make any changes by June 30 for them to be in place for the next election.

Municipal politics expert Andrew Sancton is for the status quo -- but as much for what council has done with the issue since the referendum as anything. The issue has become a "finely balanced dilemma of (council's) own making," he says.

The referendum result wasn't binding because voter turnout was only 35 per cent, not the required 50 per cent.

Sancton says a "very peculiar sequence" of events has led to Monday's vote, starting with the fact the referendum wasn't binding. That gave council members who don't want change an easy out.

"They . . . just left it hanging out there," says Sancton, a University of Western Ontario political scientist. "After the election was over, they did nothing about it until recently and now it's too late."

Still, Sancton says he's not convinced change is needed. "Nobody's shown that the current structure is disastrous or caused any great harm."

If he was on council, Sancton says that's the position he would take. "But I'd certainly lose sleep over it."

Council held a few meetings in April and May to discuss the issues and alternatives. But on May 17, after hearing a dozen presentations from the public, debate was abruptly halted when council, sitting in committee of the whole, passed a motion recommending the status quo.

That may no longer be an option.

A group called Imagine London, backed by the Urban League of London, proposes a 14-ward system and axing board of control.

The group has submitted a 987-signature petition -- a move allowed under the Ontario Municipal Act -- that council must consider or risk an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which could order new wards.

The new wards, each represented by one councillor, would encompass so-called "communities of (common) interests," such as the core area, or Old East Village.

Imagine London spokesperson Sam Trosow, a University of Western Ontario law professor, says he's optimistic a majority on council will support ward changes.

But he says it's unlikely council will abolish board of control, which critics have tried to eliminate since it was introduced in 1961.

Although was once popular, London is now the only city in North America with a board of control.

The board oversees city finances, contracts and tenders, personnel and legal issues.

Estimates put the cost of the board at more than $500,000 a year, including salaries of $37,744 each, office space and equipment, support staff, parking and meals.

Q Why is council looking at cutting its size and abolishing board of control?

London's support for a board of control has never been strong since the system was imposed on the city by the Ontario Municipal Board during annexation of London and Westminster townships in 1961. And, in a series of council votes and referendums since, support for the board was lukewarm at best.

Critics say the board, elected city-wide, creates two classes of council members. To finance city-wide campaigns, critics worry board members become too dependent on donations from interest groups, especially developers and consultants. They also say the board is costly (about $500,000) and unnecessary since other cities operate efficiently with executive committees appointed by the mayor or council to handle financial, legal, contractual and personnel issues. Finally, some say abolishing the board is one way to reduce the size of the 19-member council many consider too unwieldy and cumbersome.

The current move to reduce council's size began in 2002 when Coun. Fred Tranquilli pushed to abolish the board and reduce the size of council, leading to a referendum in the November 2003 election in which 78 per cent of voters favoured a smaller council and 55 per cent wanted to abolish the board.

While the result wasn't binding because voter turnout fell short of the required 50 per cent, council agreed to visit the issue, leading to Monday's key vote.

A majority of council members have said they don't support abolishing board of control. So, if council wants to cut its size, it would have to reduce the number of councillors. To achieve that would mean electing one councillor in each ward instead of two, with the option of increasing the number of wards.

Where did board of control come from?

The first board was established in New York City in 1880 on the basis it would provide "effective leadership" and savvy financial management, overseeing policy, strategic planning, budgets, contracts and tenders and key hirings.

The concept soon spread to Canada, with the first board appearing in London in 1914 after a series of referendums. The board system lasted just five years in London before it was abandoned.

As boards of control began disappearing from the municipal landscape across North America, the OMB forced London to adopt one when the city expanded in 1961. Since then, efforts to abolish the board have failed, mostly because of the required two-thirds majority vote of council.

Supporters of London's board of control say a controller can bring a city-wide perspective to issues and give constituents more options to get help with their issues and concerns, especially if ward councillors aren't available or aren't supportive. A key change in the Ontario Municipal Act that has muted criticism of board of control is that a two-thirds majority vote of council is no longer required to overturn board decisions, giving it no more power than any other council committee.

What is the alternative to board of control?

When cities abandoned the board of control system, they opted for executive committees.

In an April 14 report to city council, intergovernmental affairs manager Grant Hopcroft, a former controller, said there are three options for choosing an executive committee:

- Appointment by the mayor, which some fear puts too much power in the mayor's hands.

- Appointment by a vote of council.

- Committee chairpersons serve on the board.

Hopcroft said one potential consideration is that councillors, who only face ward elections could be tempted to put ward interests ahead of city-wide interests.

What about more wards with one councillor in each?

Few if any have argued to reduce the number of councillors. Several presenters at a public meeting suggested the city could use more councillors, each representing smaller wards.

Imagine London, a coalition of citizens that includes the Urban League of London, suggests the city be split into 14 wards from the current seven with boundaries trying to reflect "communities of interest" based on common interests and/or demographics.

One councillor would be elected from each ward. Imagine London spokesperson Sam Trosow said the key issue is "effective representation," in which councillors have smaller, less populated (average of 25,000 people) and easily identifiable constituencies.

The smaller wards would make councillors more identifiable, accessible and accountable, Trosow said. In turn, voters may get more involved during elections, increasing voter turnout.

Trosow and others argue the current system of two councillors representing larger wards, with populations of 50,000 or more stretching over a number of different communities of interests, makes politicians less accessible, less recognizable and, therefore, less accountable.

The lower cost of running elections in smaller wards might encourage more candidates to seek election, again attracting more voter interest.

Others argue a two-councillor ward system splits the workload and makes it easier for constituents to contact a councillor. When one councillor is out of town or on vacation, the other can be available.

As well, some say having two councillors encourages more diversity on council.

Wards should be based on a diversity of interests or a community of interests?

Ward boundaries can be determined by several factors, including relatively similar populations, topographical features such as the Thames River, railroad tracks, hills or major roadways and community interests.

The existing seven-ward system is based on a diversity of interests, most stretching from the core area to the city's boundary, almost like a pie.

The wards cut across communities with councillors representing the interests of farmers, residents with varying income levels and a variety of business interests, from the small business operator in the core to large industrial operations.

One distinct advantage to this diversity, supporters say, is that councillors become more sensitive to city-wide issues.

Critics, including Trosow and Urban League of London president George Sinclair, say diverse wards can put councillors in conflict with constituents.

Large wards make campaigning difficult and more expensive, discouraging candidates. As well, councillors become less recognizable, further fuelling voter apathy.

Trosow's major complaint about larger wards is that minority groups, or communities of interest, can become smaller and fragmented, giving them less influence.

Trosow says court rulings and decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding wards routinely favour wards based on communities of interest to give minorities more of a voice.

Trosow says councillors would be more familiar with and sensitive to the needs and views of constituents in a ward based on common interests.

W hat must be done to abolish board of control?

Getting rid of board of control will take more than public wishes and political will. Since it was created by order of the OMB, the OMB must also approve its demise.

Before taking the issue to the OMB, two-thirds of city council members must also agree. That's the required majority set out in the Municipal Act and a major roadblock to eliminating the board.

Board members can also vote on any motion to eliminate their jobs. That means proponents of abolishing the board would need support of 13 of the remaining 15 councillors.

What does it take to change the number and boundaries of wards?

A simple majority of council, preceded by a public meeting and followed by public notice, are the requirements under the Municipal Act. Changes can be appealed to the OMB.

But, in an unexpected twist, Imagine London supporters pushing for the 14-ward, 14-councillor system have submitted a petition to council.

The petition is a little-known, seldom-used option contained in the Municipal Act that requires council to seriously consider the proposal. If council fails to act on the petition within 30 days, petitioners can appeal to the OMB, which has the power to order ward changes.

Sources say it's unclear whether the petition is binding since council has already examined the issue and rejected the 14-ward option.

How can you influence Monday's vote by council?

Several members of council, including all controllers, say they seldom, if ever, hear from the public on this issue, which is why they support the status quo. So, if you're looking to weigh in on restructuring, contact your councillor, or a controller, by calling city hall at 661-2500.





Copyright © The London Free Press