Concentration of power at City Hall – Part 1
By Peter Ewart & Dawn Hemingway
Over the last several years, not a few citizens in Prince George have raised concerns about the democratic process in regards to City Council. Specifically, they have been concerned about what appears to be the concentration of power in the Mayor and City Manager positions to the detriment of Council and the citizenry as a whole (1).
The effects of this concentration of power have been manifested in the perception that, not only is the citizenry kept in the dark about various important issues, but also a number of city councillors. Examples include councillors only finding out about important City Hall decisions through the media, such as key administration shuffles and the recent city pool layoffs. For that matter, even a media outlet, i.e. 250 News, has been denied any interviews with or access to the Mayor for more than two years.
Another example took place during the City’s Core Review when the Mayor allowed the City Manager to push forward a number of new or substantially revised proposals at a special Council meeting on July 8, 2013, with little time for public consultation or councillor review, and which effectively bypassed the Core Services Review Committee process (2). Some councillors only read about the new recommendations after they were publicly posted on the City website leaving only two business days before the meeting (3). In her opening presentation, the City Manager made it a point of thanking the “executive team”, i.e. the Mayor’s office, but said nothing about the work of individual councillors who put in many hours of work on the Core Review.
What does the Community Charter (which provides the governing principles for municipalities in the province) have to say about this? The Charter clearly states that one of the key responsibilities of the mayor is “to communicate information to the council.”
In regards to the city manager as “chief administrative officer,” it also clearly specifies that his or her duty is “advising and informing the council on the operation and affairs of the municipality.”
These, of course, are general principles. But the question does arise: Have the duties flowing from these principles been properly carried out by Mayor Green and City Manager Beth James over the last several years? Some citizens and councillors in Prince George would argue they have not.
What is the problem here? Clues may be found in the “Code of Ethics” drafted by the City administration and eventually approved last year, with some revisions, by City Council. Now, under the municipal structure in British Columbia, the city manager and the city administration as a whole are supposed to be subservient to city council which has been elected by the citizenry to be the governing body of the municipality.
However, in some ways, the first draft of this Code of Ethics sounded more like the city manager issuing marching orders to city councillors. For example, the draft stated that: “Questions of City staff and/or requests for additional background information should be directed only to the City Manager”. It went on to say that councillor requests “for a meeting with staff, including phone conversations, must be directed to the City Manager,” that “comments [of councillors] about City staff performance should only be made to the City Manager through private correspondence or conversation,” and that councillors “shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or with the professional duties of City staff.”
The final draft of the Code of Ethics contained some revisions. For example, rather than councillors having to submit requests for information from staff to the City Manager alone, the section now reads: “requests for information from staff shall be directed to the City Manager, a Director, or the Superintendent of Operations.” However, this revision does not change the essence of the provision, i.e. any councillor request for information from staff must go through the highest levels of city administration at the pinnacle of which sits the City Manager.
Such an arrangement effectively chokes off information from democratically elected councillors, and, by extension, the public. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power.
Yet this concentration of power does not appear to have resulted in an improvement of city management or services, an example being the snow removal fiasco last winter.
It seems logical that the issue of concentration of power should be addressed by candidates for mayor and council in the upcoming civic election. More on this subject in the next article in this series: “Concentration of power at City Hall – Part 2.”
(1) Meisner, Ben. 250 News. Code of Conduct for whose benefit? Dec. 19, 2013.
(2) 250 News. Everitt questions Core Review process. July 8, 2013.
(3) Ewart, Peter. Special Council meeting on Core Review – A surprise attack on PG residents? July 5, 2013.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca . Dawn Hemingway is an educator also based in Prince George.
Comments
I agree. The current landscape at City Hall resembles a secret society more than it does an open democratic process. I too speak from experience, where I work there has been a move towards less openness and attempts to have “the chain of command” be the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most important things to remember about how to do your job.
It offers a system for management that has less lose ends. But it kills creativity, kills openness, and makes for a very unhappy place to work. I would argue that this type of system drags down productivity because it changes “how” the work gets done. Some might not think it’s a big deal. But think of it this way, do you want your boss watching you like a hawk, or do you want to work somewhere that trusts you to do your work and only checks on you from time to time to make sure targets are met. I bet everyone agrees that having your manager breathing down your neck is no fun.
In terms of what can be done about it, well election time is in exactly 1 month. Problem is we only have 2 options for Mayor. Will either of them offer a more open system than what exists now? Afterall, don’t forget the “City Manager” is still going to be there after November 15th………
“…even a media outlet, i.e. 250 News, has been denied any interviews with or access to the Mayor for more than two years.”
That is an old Stephen Harper trick, and one step on the way to a dictatorship. Not surprising then that Sheri Green is running for nomination with the Conservatives, she’ll feel quite at home there.
As for the mayoral candidates, we need to ensure they will be accountable to the citizens before the election, and that includes the press.
I was surprised that Council passed this so called **Code of Ethics**. Seems to me this (as stated above) was nothing more than a muzzle for Councillors.
Councillors actions are already covered by the Community Charter, so why this additional **Code of Ethics**.
Perhaps the new Mayor and Council will get rid of it.
Very well said and fact based account of what’s really going on at City Hall, especially since Mayor Green took over as Mayor. Thank you Peter Ewart & Dawn Hemingway for publishing this article; hopefully it will be seen by enough citizens that change can happen.
Clearly written, factual article. I like how they have referenced where they got their information. That way, I don’t have to be as skeptical about the truth of their statements. Look forward to the second article. Would be a good read for all mayor and council candidates.
I can say nothing in defence of the mayor because IMO we have reached rock bottom with her and have nowhere to go but up no matter who wins in November. However having a strong and decisive city manager is something that the city does need, Derek Bates being a prime example of how a nice guy in over his head can fail miserably.
There is nothing wrong with the city manager or department head being made aware if someone is poking around under the hood so to speak. A prime example of this is the Skakun affair-sneaking documents out of in camera meetings- we may never know how much this mess cost the city because of non disclosure agreements in the settlements paid out to end the lawsuits. My guess a number or two followed by at least 5 zeros.
To try to connect last years snowmageddon to this is laughable. It was mayor and council who in an effort to save a few bucks raised the amount of snow on the ground before sending out the plows. This might have worked fine if there was a 96 hour period between snowfalls to allow all areas to be done. Mother Nature did not get the memo and sent two systems back to back so the snow removal equipment had barely finished priorty one areas like downtown when they had to start all over again. Surly someone at city hall has a smart phone with a weather app and should have seen that 2 major dumps were expected over the next 48 hours.
The weather forecast last December predicting back to back dumps should have set of alarms in city hall and had the full complement of clearing equipment out much
earlierand not waited till there was 6 inches on the ground. Repairing the Hart weather station is money wasted as it will do little to prevent something similar from happening in the future. Daily monitoring of the forecast and reacting accordingly would be a much more effective way to avoid repeating last winters disaster.
Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 @ 10:45 AM by sparrow
“sneaking documents out of in camera meetings”
Not sure if this is true, I think all councillors get a package of the items to be discussed so they can read up in advance just like council meetings. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I think what sparrow was referring to was that Skakun released documents that were protected under the freedom of information and privacy act to the local media (CBC). He was found guilty on this charge. He also wanted the city to pay his legal costs. I am sure the whole debacle is in the archives on this site.
The new term of office increased from 3 to 4 years only intensifies the potentials for harm…
Back in the 70s the term was for 2 years, with half of council elected every year, providing more opportunity for participatory democracy, transparency, accountability and a host of other positive outcomes.
We don’t need no stinking entrenched municipal governments around B.C.
John Grogan
Robson Valley East (aka Valemount)
Comments for this article are closed.