“the longer terms will give local governments more time to consult, plan and achieve community goals”

I do not think longer terms will accomplish those goals. As we see from pour experience, there are good Councils and bad Councils.

If longer terms are going to be the order of the day, some procedures to increase the checks and balances will have to be included.

Improved recall legislation?
Ward systems?
Party systems?
4 year offset terms with elections every second year for half the Councillors with Mayors getting elected by the Councillors for two year terms.

I’d feel more comfortable with this if there were a provision for the voting public to deal with members of Council who are unsuited for the office.

The election costs are quite miniscule in comparison to the damage these people can do to the financial health and sustainability of a community in 3 years, never mind 4. What did last years election costs run, $50k? Really insignificant given the scope of their powers to incur debt in the $10’s of millions on “our” behalf.

I don’t see a compelling reason to change the term. If they want to be engaged for the longer term and through consecutive elections, then they should act accordingly. If a Councilor is voted in one term and then out the next, there is generally a reason for it. I think the extra $50k or so is well served by a more democratically inclined term of 3 years.

I’m with Gus on this one and agree that if we are going to four year terms, then a good recall system needs to be in place. We could have used it already and we are still nine months away or so in concluding a three year term….a four year term and no recoarse…yikes!

Like we really have a say in how long the pigs (who make the rules) get to slurp at the trough, right.

exactly!!!

In Britain they are starting to move from Mayors selected by their Councils to directly voted Mayors. It is a question posed on the ballots and some cities are going the new way, others are staying with the status quo …..

There are many other systems which would be worth looking at in the English speaking world that has a parliamentary tradition.

They all have one thing in common …. none are perfect.

So, with that said, we really should not care, should we? It is what it is and it will be what it will be.

I just have to smile at the “…. time to consult, plan and achieve community goals…” part. Even 8 year terms will not guarantee that.

The BC Government was in favour of 4 year terms a number of years ago, then they changed their mind a decided that 3 year terms were sufficient for municipalities, and they are now back to suggesting that 4 year terms are the way to go.

3 years terms are (in my opinion) sufficient to get the job done. Anything beyond that is probably a waste of time.

Any chance of getting a vote on this issue in the next Municipal elections????

As Counicillor Koehler stated last night when they took about an hour to figure out what 13% funding guarantees to the three arts groups would do to expectations for them as well as others ….. “this has been very entertaining”.

And with that he introduced an amended motion which got rid of any mention of 13% and simply put in $ amounts.

However, during that debate I discovered once more how little Councillors really know about the issues in front of them and how unprepared the recommendations coming from the Finance and Audit Committee were.

Four years, eh? …. LOL

So what if all other Provinces hold Municipal elections every 4 years. If they all bayed at the moon, would it be necessary for us to join them.??

Does anybody remember when they use to have two different terms for councillors? There were one year and two year terms. I was to young to remember how it worked, but maybe we should be getting our brains wrapped around something like that. Four year terms with a two year recall vote. Just saying!

They’ll never go for staggered terms. The main reason they want to go for 4 years is to save on election costs. With a 4 year mandate and 2 year staggered elections, the costs would go up, not down.

The problem here in PG is not council, or even so much the Mayor, although she is Atrocious….this Citys problem is BETH JAMES!!! PERIOD, if folks knew half the crap that gal has pulled and is pulling they would revolt!

I think both Gus & Sine Nomine have good points. Put in recall initiatives that have some teeth. Knowledge88, you have the floor. Let’s hear what Beth James has done.

Gus, if what you posted about last night’s council meeting were on any other stage it would be a comedy. Given where it was & what it is it’s almost criminal. Reminds me of a finance talk show I watched years ago, the commentator remarked of the politicians at the time; ” If you put these people in a room with $1 & asked them to make change, they would come out in about an hour & ask for a calculator.”

4 years? Not without proper (functioning and achievable) recall legislation!

If there is longer terms, then there needs to be a way to hold a referendum or whatever to vote out those doing a poor job. Why should the city be run into the ground a further 2-3 years if after a year you can tell the elected officials aren’t doing their job,

Heaven help us putting up with a mayor like Green and an under performing council for 4 years. There will be a mass exodus to the out skirts of the city if 4 year terms take place. 4 years of Green and Gaal and their snow removal plans is enough to give me a migraine.

As for being the same as other provinces that argument does not hold water. Other provinces don’t charge seniors MSP premiums but I don’t see the Lib’s following that lead.

Four year terms would make it more like how the provincial governments run.. For the first three years they gouge us like crazy..then kiss our butts and tell lies to get back in.. Same sh@t diff level if they go to four yr terms..

If it means keeping Doltz and Green OUT for 4 years, I’m all for it

I don’t think there is any doubt what so ever that the fine hand of Beth James is behind a lot of the problems we have had lately.

One should keep in mind that everything goes through her desk. The report to Council on Jan 2nd, and again on Jan 28th, was signed by Gaal, however in the bottom right hand corner was the signature of Ms James, and we can of course conclude that she was fully aware of everything in the report, and could have made changes if she felt necessary. Why would she allow such a report to go to Council.

At the very minimum the report admitted that Management, Staff, and the Union were responsible for a big part of the problem. Why would she allow the request for a further $6 Million dollars for new equipment and staff?? Especially knowing the financial situation of the City, and the fact that no such request was mentioned in the Jan 2nd report.

Were they trying to divert Councils attention from the snow removal problem, by bringing in the new equipment request. That’s my guess, and thank God, it didn’t work.

I cant help but feel, that certain Councilors, the Mayor, and some administration people, spend most of their time in manipulating situations, to get what they want, and they will do this by any means possible.

We need to stay alert, and closely watch what is taking place at City Hall. I will guarantee you that most of it is not in the best interests of the average citizen of Prince George, and is in fact to the benefit of vested interest groups.

If you snooooooze, you looooooooose.

Did Coralee Oakes determine herself that the way to sell a 4 year term was to mention reduced election costs?

This City has an annual revenue stream of about $160million with about $125million coming from taxes and user fees.

So over a three year period it costs us $375,000,000 to run this City. I understand that a Civic election costs under $100,000 every three years.

That means $1 out of every $3,750 given by the citizens of this community is spent on the obviously useless task of electing people to give this city some sense of direction. By doing this every 4 years we spend $1 per $5,000 with no guarantee that we will receive improved governance.

I would rather move the other way. Pay $1 out of $2,500 to have elections every two years and thus protect us from our own poor choices.

If Coralee wants the cities to save money change the charter to reduce the number of Councillors. This City is allowed to reduce them to 6, but is not doing that.

Go to 6, give everyone another $10,000 to allow them to spend more time doing their “work” and the travel money we save from sending the whole lot to municipal conventions alone will pay for the two year elections.

Beth James has little material to work with. She cannot fire the whole lot of the upper management and go on a head hunting expedition. Any prudent person would take it one bite at a time.

I think she made a poor choice in who she fired first. Perhaps she is setting others up to fail. It sure looked like it at recent Council sessions.

If that is her tactic, it is a potentially dangerous one. Council is certainly not helping by patting people like Bill Gaal on the back for a job well done.

Political correctness has no place in chambers at times like these. If people think that Gaal’s report was an example of excellent work, they are putting their own credibility on the line.

Just one example. People in Gaal’s position need to bring solutions to Council, not problems. To spend $6million in a one shot deal is not a realistic proposal. He failed to show how getting new equipment could be bought over time. Not only that, he failed to show that new equipment would have significantly changed the way this year’s events would have ended up differently.

Again, another incompetent report with several incompetent Councillors making the firing of Gaal more difficult for James. They helped strengthen a dismissal without cause case for Gaal.

Nice gift that is probably worth an extra $100,000.

And we are supposed to elect these people for 4 years instead of three. Utter stupidity.

Good, functioning, and achievable recall is an oxymoron, it will never work, especially with a majority political leaning group.

Changing from 3 years to 4 years is only a change for change sake and a work project for bureaucrats!

Don’t forget: Four year terms will also benefit candidates who welcome financial support from certain individuals or groups who can see the gold at the end of the rainbow and vice versa.
If we think we are in bad shape now, LOOK OUT – if we end up with four year terms. But if so, this can only be instituted IF we have an effective recall process and a ward system – as mentioned above by Gus and Co.

Oh, and consultation by Council members should not be considered as a given in a Four Year Term system.
Of course, we are referring to the Prince George but I would guess that similar situations also exist in other BC municipalities. DOWN with Four Year Terms!