Incredible

There are good reasons to oppose reducing the size of council. There are no good reasons, however, to ignore the will of the people. There never is. Yet for County council, it is becoming a habit.

It seems evident, after another painful debate, that a majority of members in this term of council—like the previous three—has little regard for the folks who elected them. They believe they know better than you. Better than the 81 per cent who, when asked in a ballot question in 2010, answered yes. In every ward across the County, the answer was a resounding yes.

But once comfortable in their Shire Hall seats, a majority of these elected folks said no. They appear ready to say no. Again.

In a functioning democracy, voters would toss such tone-deaf politicians out on their ears. Indeed last fall, where there were credible alternatives, they did just that. But where the options were limited, voters chose not to go to the polls. Just 34 per cent of eligible voters cast a vote in Ameliasburgh last October. Just 36 per cent in Hillier.

Rather than recognize this terrible voter participation as a rejection of County government and its inability to respond to the needs of this community, our elected officials have instead chosen to take this as a signal that voters are happy with their performance. They’ve become emboldened by their shrunken and withered mandates.

After 12 years of discussion and seven years of near-constant debate and deliberation, there is little that hasn’t been said before. Many times before. Yet council goes over the same old ground year after year like beachcombers looking for a nickel.

Occasionally, they blurt out absurdly uninformed comments like “rep by pop is just words,” oblivious, it seems, to the hard-fought principles that formed this nation.

What they don’t realize is that the debate has already been decided. By the people.

Later, a duly constituted Citizens’Assembly of County residents determined council should be reduced to 10 councillors and a mayor.

All that was left was for a majority of council to honour the legitimately expressed will of the people.

“Aha,” they exclaim. “Fewer than half of eligible voters answered the ballot question. So we don’t have to act upon the result.”

Saved by a technicality. This narrow view of democracy, however, undercuts their own legitimacy as council members. Here’s why.

In 2010, 42 per cent of eligible voters answered the question on the ballot. Thirty three per cent of those eligible to vote, said yes.

In 2014, only one of the council members currently opposing the downsizing of council received a greater share of the vote than those who answered yes in 2010. And that lone council member who earned more 33 per cent of the eligible vote, when asked in the Times survey last October, said he was in favour of downsizing. He has since changed his mind.

So the question becomes: How do you ignore the will of the people on the question on the ballot, yet claim your seat at Shire Hall? Steve Graham represents Hillier by virtue of just 18 per cent of the eligible vote. Dianne O’Brien, the top vote getter in Ameliasburgh, has the support of just 23 per cent in her ward. Jamie Forrester was elected with just 25 per cent of the eligible vote in Athol.

How can they ignore the clear expression of the people on the size of council, while claiming their Shire Hall cheque with lower share of support?

With each passing day that council ignores the will of the people, they erode the credibility of the local government they have been elected to serve. When people are ignored, they stop participating. This is a tragedy—particularly in a community with so many able hands willing to help out. That suits some around the council table just fine.

Yet council members continue to ask themselves with doe-eyed naiveté why so few people attend council meetings—why so few participate in the debate about the size of council.

The answer is staring at them when they look in a mirror.