Home ›

EDITORIAL: City Hall is broken. Who will fix it?

by Adrian Barnes on 23 Jan 2013
in
EDITORIAL: City Hall is broken. Who will fix it?

Councillor Kathy Wallace is on the public record as saying the following with reference to the now-famous meeting at the Seniors’ Centre about the Jason Ward Affair:

"I think there is an assumption on Coun. Moore's part that the people who were at that meeting were representative of the community. I do not agree that they are. I am hearing a very strong voice from this community that they do not like the media attention that this has generated, and et cetera. When I hear this presentation that 'We've let the community down,' there are a lot of people in this community who don't hold that perspective."

I’m sure Ms. Wallace is right as far as her thinking goes. But unfortunately, her thinking doesn’t go very far.

I’m sure Ms. Wallace’s circle is unhappy about all the stress she and the other members of council have been put through recently.

But, to put it bluntly, so what?

It’s not the job of a mayor or councillor to do some sort of magic math (‘15 friends and 12 people in Ferraro Foods agree with me and I bet there are hundreds more and only 70-80 people showed up at that silly meeting’) and decide whether or not to listen.

It’s absurd.

Decisions should be made based on rational arguments, not on ad hoc assessments of ‘a very strong voice’. I’m hearing voices as well lately, believe me, and every last one of them is in utter agreement with the views expressed at the meeting and since in these pages: that we must get to the bottom of this disgraceful situation. And that the investigation must be independent of both staff and council. And that the investigation will both clear the innocent and punish the guilty.

So whose voices are right? Mine or Ms. Wallace’s? The answer is this: neither.

Democracy isn't a popularity contest (except at election time). We don’t make major decisions based on popular sentiment when the objective case is clear: bad things happened at City Hall and they appear to have been allowed to happen as a result of either A) incompetence and/or B) corruption. In either case, an investigation is absolutely necessary. Not desirable or undesirable, not popular or unpopular. But necessary.

So why isn’t it happening?

Many at City Hall clearly hope that this issue will go away if they ignore it long enough. We won’t speculate as to why they hold this hope.

We have elected, I’m now forced to say, a bunch of jokers to council who have no interest whatsoever in process or procedure, but who care only about their popularity and the voices of those near them who agree with them. It’s our bad--the rest of us didn’t run and we now have the government we deserve.

However, it’s not too late to begin to fix things.

Council is broken, perhaps irretrievably broken. City Hall is broken. How will we begin to repair the damage, Rossland?

Adrian Barnes is the editor of the Rossland Telegraph and president of Lone Sheep Publishing.

Comments

70 versus over 2000

by Adrian Barnes on 29 Jan 2013 at about 18:50.

If the 'real' Rosslanders aren't showing up at council or reading the paper, how are they getting the information from which they devlop a reasoned support of council's actions in these matters? Ms. Wallace can refer to the 70 who were able to fit into the Seniors' Hall as some sort of aberration all she wants, but the fact is our main piece on that meeting has had well over 2000 reads in a city where only around a thousand even vote come election time.

How long will council feel that their circle of supportive friends and acquaintances are the 'real' Rosslanders while those who, as Ms. Jordan notes, bother to engage public discourse, are meddlesome annoyances?

The mind boggles yet again. How long until the next election? 20 long months. Long, I'm sure for council. Even longer for anyone in this town who cares about the truth.

There has to be a C).

by Andre on 23 Jan 2013 at about 18:47.

You offer two explanations: A) incompetence and/or B) corruption. May I suggest a third explanation? C) fear.

Woud anyone engage a person with no experience at all in the field to assume decision-making powers in a medical office, a school, a grocery store, a bus company, a restaurant, a daycare centre - any organization or enterprise of any kind?

That's what we do in democratic government, particularly so at the municipal council level where education, training, and experience do not hold a candle to qualities such as being a nice person, having lived in town for a long time, and a string of other populist qualifications. In troubled communities ignorance in municipal government can be a particularly valuable asset come election time.

Rookie council members either rely heavily on incumbents on council or on the CAO for advice and guidance. Advice from such sources can take either of two basic forms:

a) reassure newcomers that all will be well as long as you follow my lead which is based on my vast knowledge and years of experience, or

b) present background, legal parameters, financial implications, and a range of options with pros and cons for each, and from that basis engage council in discussions with the aim of helping council reach an informed decision.

For best results the latter approach must be conducted in open meetings. The community needs to see and appreciate just how "easy" it is for the elected council to make decisions in damned if you do and damned if you don't situations.

When new council members start out on the basis of trust, blind trust, in the CAO, senior staff, or more experienced colleagues on council and follow their lead, only to find out that the digested matter has hit the fan, then what? If ill prepared to deal with a matter in the first place, how prepared are such council members to take difficult and decisive actions necessary when, in addition to their lack of experience and knowledge, they have come to realize that their trust has been betrayed to boot?

How does a council member present a thoughtful and considered strategy to (hopefully) work the municipality out of a mess when council members themselves are responsible for getting the organization into that mess in the first place, decisions for which they now stand accused of being a bunch of fill in the blank?

How easy is it to admit to having misplaced your trust, of having made a string of errors, one on top of the other, when you are not even sure which of all the decisions you were party to greased the slippery slope, not sure how it all happened, or even when it all started to happen?

I am not saying that it is impossible for council to clean up the mess. What I am saying is that it does not help to leave those who are up to their necks in it with only two choices, to fess up to incompetence and/or corruption. Best intentions gone awry, particularly best intentions betrayed by incompetence and/or corruption on the part of those who knew full well what they were doing and what they were advising, create uncertainty and lead to fear which is neither easy to admit to nor to cope with. And fear is about as undesirable a state of mind you can be in when you are supposed to start fixing anything. 

Excellent editorial and comment

by PaulPicard47 on 29 Jan 2013 at about 09:06.

I still remember fondly that meeting at the Old Folks Hall. The inspiring quality of the comments and questions unfortunately not matched by a same level of insight or information from the tentative generic answers.

Early in the meeting I wanted to get as much of the facts before proceeding to questions. What was done when, where by whom? Who knew what and when? For each of those actions which are the people with a share or responsability towards supervising these actions?

This is when I was totally shocked by the lack of answers. I did not even proceed with the second question that I wanted to ask to the mayor:

"Please could you describe to us your perception of your role as mayor with a special emphasis on your interface with the coucilors, the CAO and the staff. I would like to be more aware of the interface between all the participants trying to do an efficient job at City Hall".

I am very aware of the extreme unbalance of qualifications regarding municipal affairs between our elected volunteers who do it part time on a voluntary level and the professional who do this full time at least 40 hours a week and often for many years.

Even with good intentions the best of CAO can cross the line.

I remember when at one point when I was making a presentation at City Hall how the current CAO kept interrupting my presentation with sarcastic remarks.

I had to tell that CAO: "Dear xxx, you do not seem to be aware of why you are sitting at this concil table. You are a very precious resource. You are the one with the most intimate knowledge and involvement with all the topics. Your knowledge, experience and guidance is precious. You work at this full time

However  the orientation of the policies and decision making is the responsibility of the council. Whenever they request information, clarification or when you want to inform them about important bylaws that should be considered, you are more than welcome to contribute.

Otherwise please shut up. Do not color or overly influence the decision of the council with your own personal bias or opinions."

And this intervention had to be while we had a very good CAO.

 

 

Astute observations about the CAO's role

by Andrew Bennett on 29 Jan 2013 at about 10:44.

Thanks Paul. I think your point here is very important for the present council to keep in mind. For the two and a half years I have covered council meetings, most of that time Victor Kumar was CAO. He used a variety of means—whether consciously or not—to "colour and overly influence the decisions of council."

In particular, he used everything from ridicule and the appearance of incredulity or boredom to his signature blathering, incomprehensible mumbo jumbo to "convince" councillors that only he understood the circumstances and legal ramifications, and so they would be foolish to think or vote differently from his recommendations.

It worked remarkably well. His legacy is a meek and complicit council that quickly and easily defers to staff opinion on most matters, often open about their fear of legal ignorance, and displaying only very limited independent thought or inquiry.

At the end of last night's meeting, Coun. Kathy Moore raised the spectre of this "council culture" but was roundly and rudely denounced by other councillors, notably by Coun. Cary Fisher.

She must have hit a nerve. Partly it was late and everyone was tired, so Coun. Moore's timing was ill-advised. But I think she struck directly at the root problem that council must repair, even more than the Delegation Bylaw and Officer's Bylaw, to prevent future problems like the arena fiasco.

The truth is often hard to swallow and, as Coun. Fisher said about Coun. Moore's comments, "I'm not going to swallow it."

Timing is Everything

by Andre on 29 Jan 2013 at about 11:54.

"... Coun. Moore's timing was ill-advised."

How about that! Take a look at the agenda. Take yesterday's for example:

Item #6 - Unfinished Business. Anything in there about the arena, the recent community meeting, or anything else related broadly to this stuff? No. One can only assume that everything relating to this stuff is finished.

Item #7 - Recommendations from Staff for Decisions. Nothing at all. Staff has nothing to recommend to council on any of this stuff.

Item #9 - Information Items. Anything on that list that relates in any way to issues regarding the administration of the City? Here again, one can only assume that there are no information items of relevance to this stuff which could or should be placed on the agenda.

Item #11 - Council Member Reports. Ah yes, Councillor Moore. She is concerned about this stuff. How ill advised on her part to wait until the very end of the meeting, just before adjournment, to bring it up!

Makes one wonder who is in charge of setting the agenda, doesn't it.

 

Better timing when there's a hate on for Coun. Moore

by Andrew Bennett on 29 Jan 2013 at about 13:58.

Yes, Andre, it surely does make one wonder! Excellent points. For all the correspondence council has received, there hasn't been one letter in the packages or listed in the agenda!

In the context of last evening, it was clearly a difficult line to walk for Coun. Moore. During the discussion over whether to request the Auditor General's input, Moore needed to curry favour from other councillors to get it passed, so she could not raise her criticisms of council at that time.

Thankfully the motion passed, likely aided by the presence of a packed gallery of citizens who had asked for it to pass, and who had asked that the decision be moved up in the agenda so the audience could be present.

Unfortunately, the public had already gone home by the end, so were not privy to Coun. Fisher, Coun. Spearn, and Coun. Blomme's rude and defensive remarks in response to Coun. Moore's statement on the "culture of council." We will publish these shortly.

Procedurally, you're right, Andre. Coun. Moore had no choice but to wait until the end of the meeting to remind council that their long silence and inaction on this issue greatly exacerbated the problem, and that the culture of defering to staff and not thinking for themselves is as much a root problem as the bylaws that need review.

But I sure wish there had been a way for Coun. Moore to make her comments while the gallery was still full, so people other than myself could witness the deplorable and ungraceful "gang up on Moore" instincts of our council. I can only imagine what goes on in camera—we know that Coun. Moore has been much-abused behind closed doors for raising these issues.

What council still fails to appreciate is that the arena issue would still be well and truly "under the rug" if it had just been up to them. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil must be what Coun. Fisher calls "teamwork."

Luckily, Coun. Moore was not a team player, and luckily the city's attempt to stifle the issue was exposed by our (and Laurie Charlton's) freedom of information request that was ultimately supported by the province.

Council had months and months to take action, but chose to wait until the public were finally informed and, understandably, riled.

Public Engagement

by Andre on 29 Jan 2013 at about 14:17.

Maybe, just as the public engaged in organizing the meeting with the mayor, the public could once again become engaged and, during delegation time, submit a list of items to be placed on the agenda for the following meeting, stating the specific agenda category where they want to see each item included.

The agenda format is likely established by schedule in a bylaw (haven't checked that, just an assumption) so, to make sure that bylaw constraints cannot be used as an excuse, a delegation could submit its request for items to be included on the next agenda using the established agenda format - and then of course remain at the meeting until the bitter end.

If such a request were submitted in the form of a petition signed by a number of citizens, who knows ...

That's a compassionate and

by Adrian Barnes on 23 Jan 2013 at about 19:26.

That's a compassionate and reasoned response, Andre. Thanks. I might quibble over semantics and say 'fear' stems from incompetence, but it would be quibbling. There are clearly many things wrong with our systems of governance and this is only one of them...

That Mythical Silent Majority

by Rosa Jordan on 29 Jan 2013 at about 17:50.

Thanks, all of you, for your thoughtful observations. My own point, referring back to Adrian's  lead paragraph, is trivial by comparison, but worth noting.

Councillor Wallace may well be right when she claims that those who attended and/or spoke out at the Seniors Hall meeting are not the majority. The majority, according to that well-known authority Richard Nixion, is silent on issues of public concern. Not only silent but in support (silently) of the power structure.

At the Jan 28th Council meeting, Ms. Wallace went on record with a further claim that TELEGRAPH readers are not representative of most Rosslanders. 

Perhaps she also believes (or at least hopes) that citizens in the packed-to-overflowing Council gallery (who broke out in laughter at her dismissal of TELEGRAPH readers)  were likewise unrepresentative.

In a way I guess it's true. Anyone who came to the Seniors Hall meeting, participates in discussions on civic affairs in the TELEGRAPH , writes to Council members, or attended the January 28th Council meeting,  would almost by definition be unrepresentative of Ms. Wallace's Silent Majority constituency.

I bring this detail to the attention of the  (unrepresentative) TELEGRAPH  readers so we will all have a better sense of how those who participate in civic discourse are viewed by one of our elected officials, and what those who remain silent are believed to be supporting.

 

Hmmm

by Andre on 29 Jan 2013 at about 18:13.

If the Silent Majority is mythical, only a mystical councillor would be privy to the will of the majority, or am I missing something?