Earlier in this election campaign, a clearly well-connected passionate Stew Young supporter on Facebook and very visible poster on local political discussions on that platform implored people in a post to give Young his “votes at the table” and vote for the candidates Young himself has been suggesting you vote for because they are said to share his priorities.
That same supporter on Facebook more recently put out a volunteer call for Young and candidates, ending the post with “Stew Thanks You.” Respect for how passionate they are for local politics aside, read into that how you will as far as how plugged in they might be with the campaign.
Let’s be clear on what was being asked there. It’s in effect “make these candidates our councillors so Stew can do what he wants.” Put another way if at least four councillors are willing to vote the way the Mayor does, the Mayor has an environment where they can function in a sort of autocratic way depending on how open to suggestions and feedback from residents, councillors and administration they might be before a decision is made.
For an example that rhymes with what this strong Young supporter was in effect advocating for, look to the South and the guy who has secured all but automatic votes from the usual checks and balances to support his whims and initiatives. Needless to say, that place to the South would have avoided a lot of pain over the past couple years if voices and votes said ‘no’ when they were out of line. I don’t mean to compare the personalities or political priorities so much as potential for some similarity in unchecked decision-making.
Young himself to my knowledge hasn’t used the Votes at the Table phrase so much as campaigning closely and sharing promotional material with his chosen candidates. Maybe this person is totally out of sync with how Young himself sees council, but I do wonder where this strong supporter got the idea that a councillor is a Mayor’s vote at the table.
From there the question is what does Young want?
We’ve seen the campaigning on taxes. After the work this term Langford now has a detailed financial plan that balances needs, wants, priorities and ability to pay that currently has expected tax increases that would reduce significantly over the coming four years. To bring those numbers even lower would require a decision of what to cut, where to shift priority, where to somehow find money or all of the above.
Another major campaign item has been a new recreation facility. One that creative funding sources would be found for, implying the taxpayer wouldn’t feel the kind of up front and annual financial pain that can be associated with a community making such a major commitment.
In that situation the mind can’t help but drift toward the creative partnership that led to the Y being built on the watch of Young and a previous council. The same multi partner agreement that chickens came home to roost on during this term and the city ended up having to pay $35 million to buy out. That purchase was made through different funding sources and spread out over time, but to give an idea the total amount of property tax collected across the whole city this year was a little more than $70 million.
Ask yourself if one person ends up in an environment where they could make these decisions largely by themselves, knowing that everyone makes mistakes what does their previous body of work suggest on their ability to undertake collaborative decision making. Is there anything that suggests they might at least need someone else truly independent to build on an idea or to play the role of voice of reason and short circuit a mistake before it sees the light of day.
The importance of a cross-section of voices
Normally at the council table there’s a balance of people representing you that makes sure major decisions are properly vetted and that the craziest ideas don’t see the light of day before they impact residents in services or wallet or both. That vetting ideally includes persective from a person or people who know the subject matter they’re talking about, listen to resident feedback and have shown the ability to think and speak independently even if they know the person they’re saying it to won’t always like what they’re hearing.
As an example of how it’s supposed to work, during this most recent term between Mayor and council there have been close votes, not close votes and there have been votes where every single councillor voted different from the Mayor and it was those councillors ultimately making the decision and not a single person empowered as a sort of king at the top.
In the case of Young’s suggested shared priority candidates and their votes at the table, the total days of experience on city council adds up to exactly zero. Only one has even served on a school board with the rest now asking for confidence in a jump straight to council. Having a council with variety of experience including some new blood can be a plus, but when there’s potential to basically give the keys to the city (or at least the accountability role in the city) to a whole group without any experience at this level there’s a real risk of growing pains at a very sensitive time for the city.
No matter whether it’s Young or Goodmanson on the Mayor part of the ballot, when people are deciding who their ideal “votes at the table” are I hope they’re asking themselves which of those votes would be prepared to say ‘no’ to the Mayor if they have a bad or excessively risky idea in their head that they’re pushing with authority that would change what we have or what we pay.
Our future and the future tax bills of the homes we live in might just depend on it.
