Want To Extend Municipal Elections To Every Four Years? Put It To The Voters
Monday, September 23, 2013 @ 3:44 AM
It would seem appropriate that before you ask the provincial government to change the act to lengthen the term in municipal office from three to four years, you might want to ask the people who count the most, the voter in municipal elections.
You can almost be assured if a vote were held as to whether we should see the municipal term for Mayor and Council extended to four from three years, the voting public would vote it down.
It is another case of those occupying the seats at municipal councils trying to tell the public, who they should represent, how they should conduct themselves. Unfortunately for those same politicians, the voting public, and in particular at the local level, want more say in how their money is spent and how Municipal politicians conduct themselves around the table.
The most recent example of the council telling the public they know best, is the parking meter issue. In fact, they may not, and while they are put there to represent the public, they never the less have a responsibility to the electors. In the past two decades the politicians have moved more and more away from the public interest. Those same merchants find themselves fighting their own tax dollars. In spite of saying they don’t want their tax dollars spent in this manner, big brother is saying you will do it this way.
If the various municipal officials and Mayor’s feel strongly about a four year term, put it to the voters, and at the same time, ask the voters if they would like to see recall brought into local government, because if we had recall at the municipal level, in Prince George there would be a number of openings on City Council.
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.
Comments
How do you know what voters would decide? I happen to think it’s a good idea. It would save money and the difference between 3 & 4 years is not that big a deal.
That wouldn’t change the level of control you have, because frankly, I haven’t seen a lot of worthy candidates come to call for some time. Maybe it’s time for you to put your money where your mouth is and run yourself. I’d be willing to bet it would temper that opinion of yours.
I don’t agree with letting councillors sit for 4 yrs. i have seen a few hard working dedicated people survive elections several times, and the voters reward them. I do believe you have to “flush” the ones that deserve it, and adding a year to do it is only going to drive more people nuts!
I think we should change the term to two years and start the “flushing” come November THIS year!
Haha, well said prince george. I think we’re gonna require some liquid plummer, its gonna be a big flush! Possible clog
I do not mind 4 years. What I mind is 4 years of the same people.
The USA has it right. Every two years they have elections, whether federal, state, or municipal. Half the sitting people get elected each time. Every two years there is a chance to tell the governments whether they have it right.
Can you imagine some of the current councillors sitting for four years….yikes!!!!!!!. Mayor Green and most of her merrily marching men are trying to ram through as much unpopular policy before the end of this year in the hopes that people will forget their autocratic decisions before the election next year. 4 years, not a chance with this council!
Four years, three years, two years… what difference does it make when they all dance to the tunes of finance, and haven’t a clue how to change THAT same old record? They’re in the same spot we all are. They can’t reconcile the ‘facts’ with the ‘figures’ as they’re presently computed. Those ones with the dollars signs in front of them. So they try to do the impossible. Make a ‘sufficiency’ of money through increased taxation, same as we all do through our quest for increased earnings, which only increases its ‘insufficiency’ so far as its purchasing power is concerned. At whatever level of government we’re dealing it’s the same. At some point, at one of those levels, there’ll have to be a move to change before we’re all crushed between pervasive taxation and burgeoning inflation and find no matter how hard we work we’re still going behind. Just look at the continual rise in overall debt levels if you want proof. Are we physically advancing at a faster or slower rate? As efficiency improves in our physical ability as a society to ‘do’ things, the financial costs of the things we do should be falling. Is it? Or is it increasingly going the other way, and at an accelerating pace? Will the tax revenues from increased utility fees, parking meters, etc., solve the financial shortfall and put the government on a sound financial footing? Or will they be back for MORE next budget? Is it a sane system that only transfers debts rather than finds a means to liquidate them? Is it a sane system that argues over how long those elected should hold office when NONE of those elected can, or are willing, to do anything meaningful anyways?
When less than 20% of eligible voter actually cast their ballot it becomes apparently clear the public has just plain given up on local politicians representing the public’s interest. Instead once elected the public is relegated to the back benches and a dictatorial approach of gov’t. Just remember the 10 million dollar dike Stolz and company wanted to saddle the taxpayer with. The purchase of heat from Lakeland mills, the dollars being thrown away on land purchases downtown, IPG, and of course the PAC floating in the wind.
“Just remember the 10 million dollar dike Stolz and company wanted to saddle the taxpayer with”
Yup …. and with the next flood you can be sure that Stolz will remind us all about that.
Just think, if we had a 4 year term, offset by two years, we would have an election this year and we could have the input everyone is talking about; the input of the vote.
The real problem is that we have Councillors who not only have no balls, they do not know that Councillors have a duty to bring independent thinking to the table.
Being a Councillor is not to be a tema player. This is not a sport. It is not Council against the community and who is going to be the winner.
The inner ALWAYS has to be the community!! Councillors are supposed to provide independent thinking to improve the community.
In my opinion, four year terms offset by two years will go a long way to sending Council a meaningful message of how well or how poorly they are doing.
The cost is not the issue in this case. Quality of governance is the issue.
So let us look at the voter turnout issue.
The state of Washington as well as Oregon vote by mail-in ballots. There are no polling stations. Simple.
Time we looked at better ways of voting in today’s environment. What worked for 100’s of years is in bad need of a review with modern methods.
http://crosscut.com/2012/01/20/crosscut-blog/20752/Voter-participation-in-Washington-nears-top-nation
Good lord, look at the damage they have done in less than 2 years in office. What can we expect in the next year and then they want to extend that by an additional year to 4 years. Let the voters have their say but that would not even matter they will do what’s good for them.Sheri can secure the Mayor’s chair fo another year @ $95,000 plus per year right now until the next raise they will vote themselves.
I don’t think the majority of eligible voters care one way or the other about term lengths, considering most of them don’t bother showing up to vote for Mayor and Council.
Blaming the ‘old’ sytle voting system is a cop out. Yes, it could be updated, but I still don’t think too many more would cast their ballots even if it were.
Voting is very easy and takes little effort, but many don’t bother. People just don’t care, despite the heated debates in anonymous comment sections.
We use to vote every year, Mayor and council one time and the rest of the council the other time. It was changed to the total council & Mayor up every two years as the “powers” said there was a problem with more people turned out in the Mayor & council election year than the other year. Then the “powers” said we need three year terms so we can get things done and save the taxpayers money.
So, based on that, I think we should take a young couple and anoint them Prince and Princess of the City George …. Prinve George will thus rule from then on.
They will pass down their rule to their heirs.
They will rule with the assistance of a Prince selected Court.
Going back to our roots may be the best for all. Those who do not wish to vote will have ruled the day.
Naturally if one does not have the opportunity to vote they loose interest in educating themselves about the issues and the people that represent those issues.
Extending the period between votes is simply extending a mandate for issues most voters would have no idea are on the horizon. Local politic can change by the day much less the year.
The way the local politicians are elected today allows them to evade campaign of policy and run solely on name recognition alone. To increase that kind of mandate would only open up local politics to far more unaccountable corruption of the moral good.
My guess is if we did go to a 4 year term then we would need tombstones for the local parks.
Comments for this article are closed.