A clear message

The Citizens’ Assembly has delivered its recommendation. In the view of its 23 members, selected more or less at random, the right size of our next council ought to be 11 members—10 councillors and one mayor. Wards are to be revamped to more evenly distribute population and to generally reflect the urban and rural mix of the County. The Citizens’ Assembly rejected an ‘at large’ system in which every voter elects each representative.

They also want council to act now—to resist the temptation to pass off the issue to another election ballot question or to the next council to become entangled. The CA pulled up before making this a consensus recommendation however.

So now what? Will the CA’s verdict be relegated to a dusty shelf in the bowels of Shire Hall? An interesting diversion? A $25,000 stalling tactic? What will council do with this recommendation?

Already some voices are lining up to brush past the Citizens’ Assembly with their own ideas about how council ought to proceed. Some quibble about the make-up of the panel—too old they say, not enough young people, though that can be said generally of Prince Edward County.

Some argue that since they weren’t elected, the CA can’t represent the wishes and aspirations of the community.

And for some councillors past and present, it is surely galling that common residents who haven’t immersed themselves in the workings of local government for the past decade, who haven’t experienced local government from council table or the campaign trail, would dare express an opinion about how they should be governed. They tend to have a low opinion of the average citizen’s ability to understand the complex business of municipal government.

There are even some who continue to cling to the disproved notion that the residents of Prince Edward County don’t care about this issue.

I used to share this view. In the long list of grievances that have crossed my threshold regarding local government over the last decade, rarely has the inequity of council representation or the number of councillors been among them. It just isn’t discussed or debated. But that does not mean folks don’t care. They made that clear in the last election.

When they were asked, 81 per cent of those who answered the ballot question said they wanted the issue reviewed. Now 81 per cent of a random sampling of 23 County residents, after three days of deliberation, has concluded council should be reduced to 11 members.

It doesn’t matter any longer what my personal views are on this issue. The people have spoken in a clear and undeniable way. Their voice deserves to be respected. If democracy means anything at all, the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly must be heard and weighed carefully. Otherwise we leave the reins of local government in the hands of the loudest voices and those with the most entrenched interests.

There will always be those who consider themselves smarter, wiser and more qualified to make decisions on our behalf. They tend to be more engaged, more involved and have more at stake than the rest of us. There are some who know how the system works and will use its fragility to manipulate an outcome that the citizens wouldn’t otherwise give them. They like the status quo. They gain power and influence in our passivity.

But the question remains: was the Citizens’ Assembly of 23 members a true substitute for the community’s views on the issue?

From my perspective, it was a good and valid process. Unlike council, where each member comes to the table toting a hefty bag of expectations and obligations, the Citizen’s Assembly members were free to ask fresh questions and consider alternative views. Since they wouldn’t bear any direct impact from the outcome of their deliberation the CA was dispassionate and clearheaded in a way that council can never be on an issue that affects their jobs.

In any given meeting councillors must navigate a mine field of issues, trading off values in one area in order to achieve a preferred outcome in another. The Citizens’ Assembly only had one real question to answer—they were free to consider it based entirely upon the arguments and rationale that made sense to them.

In a public meeting, on an issue before council a good turnout is about 100 folks, with maybe a half dozen rotating toward the microphone. This has been the traditional method of gathering public input beyond the council table. And while it is useful for council to hear these voices—it can’t be said these highly polarized views are reflective of broader public opinion.

The CA’s method of selecting a couple dozen folks at random effectively screens out those who seek to dominate the discussion and guide the discussion down a chosen path.

It wasn’t a perfect process. Even the facilitators said it would have benefited from an additional day or two of deliberation. There were aspects of the way council functions that the CA seemed to overlook or gloss over. But no process is perfect or without flaws.

The folks on the Citizen’s Assembly put their hearts, minds and soul into this process. They worked hard and applied themselves diligently to the task they were assigned. They were honest, deliberate and sincere in working together to understand the issues and deliver a recommendation. The facilitators appeared to be taking great care to elicit debate and stoke discussion without straying into the fray with their own views.

I feel entirely comfortable the Citizens’ Assembly have reflected the aspirations of the broader community.

Their efforts and achievements is certainly preferable to the back-room horse trading that created the existing council make up. It is certainly better, too, than the wall council has hit each time it has tried to solve the issue over the past eight years on its own.

For the first time since the County was amalgamated, the people have been given a voice to shape the government they want.

The people have spoken.

It is time for council to listen.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca