There seems to be a pretty simple message coming out of this years municipal election in Ontario. People are frustrated. They want change. Some are looking at the candidates and thinking, that's the person who will change things and thats fair enough.
But I've been thinking about what happens after election day.
I recently came across a reflection from a newly elected municipal politician who described coming into office as a “system disruptor.” She wanted to do things differently. A year later, she was asking herself, “Who did I become?”
Was it a choice, a lack of knowledge, or the realization that the changes she thought she could bring were outside her ability to deliver?
She described getting caught up in group think. New to the job, surrounded by experienced politicians and staff, trying to understand an incredibly complicated system while being expected to make decisions almost immediately. Over time, she realized she had become part of the system she had originally wanted to change.
That raises a pretty important question for anyone voting for change.
What happens if we actually change the entire council?
A few new councillors, or even a completely new council, doesn't automatically mean the system changes with them.
The new people will still walk into the same municipal structure. They'll still have the same staff, policies, procedures, reports, history, operational framework and many of the same assumptions about how things are supposed to work.
If they haven't already done their homework, they'll have to learn all of this while making decisions. And that raises another question: what kind of change can they actually accomplish within the framework that municipal councils operate?
That's where the taxpayer's job gets a little more complicated than simply finding the candidate who talks most convincingly about change.
Because wanting change and being able to produce change are two very different things.
Will a new councillor keep asking questions once they're sitting on the other side of the table? Will they understand the issues well enough to recognize the questions they should have had answers to before taking on the job? Do they have the knowledge and expertise to dig into the numbers instead of simply accepting the explanation? Do they understand what authority council actually has within the existing municipal framework? And perhaps most importantly, will they understand when changing something is likely to make things better, when leaving it alone may actually be the better choice, and when a seemingly good change could create consequences nobody intended?
There is another side to this as well.
A new councillor who arrives believing everyone who has been there before is wrong isn't going to get very far either. There is knowledge and experience around that table that has real value, and eventually every new councillor has to figure out how to work with the people who remain.
And perhaps the biggest question of all:
Will they remember why taxpayers elected them in the first place?
So if change is the reason for the vote this October, perhaps the question shouldn't end with “Who is offering change?”
Perhaps it should be:
“Who has already done the homework, understands what can actually be changed, understands the potential consequences, and has the knowledge to make informed decisions?”
Because changing the names around the council table may be the easy part.
Changing the way the municipality operates is something else entirely.
