Council Composition: What Should It Look Like?
Posted by auroracitizen on August 3, 2010
We have had a number of comments about the make up of Council going forward. The 2 that seem to be of interest are whether we need 8 Councillors and whether we should have a ward system.
Total Number of Councillors:
The argument has been put forward that based on our population that 8 Councillors and their corresponding salaries and work load is not justified. Both 4 and 6 have been put forward as options.
On the other hand, our population continues to grow and Councillors are part-time and resultant do not have the time to make the same commitment as a full-time councillor. Particularly those that have other full-time commitments.
Ward System:
The Ward system was debated prior to this election as to whether it should be put to a vote on this coming election ballot. It was decide not to include the question on this ballot. Currently councillors are elected at large. Everyone is put in the same pot and the top 8 councillors become the Council. They have no particular alignment with any specific area.
A key argument against wards is that every Councillor can be called by any citizen and they are not beholden to a specific area.
Against is that a Councillor has too many issues to worry about and they can’t focus on helping a specific ward.
Please use this post to discuss the various merits of these 2 topics.
Aurora Citizen 
Anonymous said
I have ideas about what council composition should NOT look like. I watched the coverage of the council meeting last night and I am dismayed by the puppetry. Councillors Wilson, Granger and Gaertner could not speak without constantly looking to the mayor for approval. It was so pathetic to watch. These people have no backbone. Gallo is even worse because he daren’t speak (or perhaps he just has no interest). Maceachern was her usual abrasive, rude, dictatorial self when she addressed the presenter (where was the Integrity Commissioner then?)
I want a council of individuals who are thoughtful, articulate and confident in what they believe and show respect for others. I do NOT want a bunch of puppet lapdogs who can only perform when their strings are pulled.
I was also disgusted by the Mayor’s attitude towards our Newmarket neighbours as she ranted about not wanting potential roads that linked the two towns other than the major arterial roads. It reminded me of her attitude towards the Neighbourhood Network, which it seems, she is determined to try and marginalize in this town. She is a dictator who wants to isolate her kingdom and anything that might threaten her control is denied. There is no spirit of shared benefits or cooperation, just obstruction.
This is NOT what I want for a mayor.
evelyn.buck said
August 9th at 12.10 Anonymous makes a thoughtful comment and ends it by admitting she is dreaming.
I agree.
The reality of domocracy is that every citizen has a right to vote and ,by the same rule, be a candidate.
Neither the responsibility or the right are n taken seriously by many citizens.
That puts the burden on those who do take it seriously.And they deplore those who do not participate.
But of those who do,many have a rule not to talk about politics in social gatherings. There might be arguments. And that would be unpleasant?
I don’t see why…but I recognise my own bias.
So, I have an idea for people who want to make a difference. It’s not new . Old-fashioned in fact. .
Call the neighbours to-gether and invite the candidate you would like to know better .
You can serve coffee or tea or just lemonade or water . Or just your home or garden. For just an hour or two of your time or however long the chat continues.
Any candidate would be delighted to have the opportunity to join you.
There’s no time like the present. .
You don’t have to organise anything but putting the people together with the candidate and let the interaction happen.
Anonymous said
The only way that democracy has a hope of succeeding is if voting is compulsory.
The rest is window dressing.
evelyn.buck said
When there is no Mayoralty contest in an election, turn-out to vote can drop to twenty per cent.What does that say about the significance of the Mayor’s office to the average resident.
A Council does not run the town The multi-million dollar administration does that…or should.
Aurora Council does not have a benefit package. Only the Mayor does.
What about the hundred people who are appointed to advisory committees? Does anyone have thoughts on that. They are not paid but there are costs. Oh my yes. And there is an impact.
When the Region was created , Councils were given authority to detemine their number, I suggested five. There was a powerful negative reaction.
People associated the number of Councillors with their democratic right to govern themselves. They saw the idea as undermining their rights.
Apart from population and geography, in a normal Council, different perspectives are brought to a debate.
I think the people who vote for me, share my perspective. It’s conceivable, one might find nine different perspectives in a nine member Council. Is that a bad thing?
On the other hand, it is also conceivable one might find only two or three perspectives, while the rest are followers. Or adept at talking at length without stating a position, or with even more skill, speaking out of both sides of their mouths while sounding completely straightforward and plausible.
People are successful in politics for different reasons. Reducing the number elected, reduces the possibility of different perspectives being part of the public debate.
Winston Churchill is frequently quoted ” Democracy is the worst system there is, except for all the rest”
He lived a long time. Was wont to express opinions. Some quoted opinions contradicted others. While he was alive he refused to be interviewed
by authors.
It seems his philosophy was …. if anyone was going to make money out of his life, it was going to be him
If that’s the case, quotes attributed to him might very well have reflected the bias of the person providing the quote.
Still all and all, if a voter wants their views to be reflected in government decisions, there’s a better chance of that with more not less elected representatives.
Your current Council, with a majority elected as a slate and beholden to the person whose organization elected them, is not an example of a normal-functioning Council. It is not democracy.
Hitler’s Party was elected democratically. That’s not how they governed.
It is not a good basis to start from, in considering how Council might be improved. In the current environment, it may not even be the right time to consider it.
Council does not, or should not run the town. That’s not what you are paying us to do. You have a multi-million dollar administration to do that if they were allowed to do it. We pay them anyway even if they are not.
Anonymous said
“Still all and all, if a voter wants their views to be reflected in government decisions, there’s a better chance of that with more not less elected representatives.”
I disagree. Having more elected representatives does not necessarily reflect more views of the voters as we have seen evidenced during the last 4 years here in Aurora. You make a good point about “followers” where, regardless of the number of potential opinions, perhaps only a few ever reach expression let alone prevail.
What I think is key is the quality of the candidates and what they bring to the table. What good are 3 or 33 if they don’t have listening skills and are only interested in hearing themselves talk; don’t know how to string words together in a sentence let alone how to articulate a progressive series of thoughts; don’t understand what consensus is, let alone how to build it; don’t have a fundamental understanding of “team” concept and how one should operate and reach decisions; they don’t have any analytical skills to draw upon to ensure that a vote is based on sense, consistency and logic; don’t know how to run a meeting, not only by the rules but also with the purpose of tabling all perspectives; they make decsions based on personal likes and dislikes rather than what is in the best interest of the town; they may have previous experience but lack any or all of the preceding qualities; I could go on and on…
I am now reminded of interviewing candidates for jobs. My process started with the skills and qualities were essential for the job and then developing a process that would hopefully result in hiring the right person. It was not fool-proof, nothing ever is. However, the successful hirings far outnumbered the mistakes. I favoured behavioural-type interview questions because there is evidence that supports previous real situational behaviours are pretty accurate predictors of future behaviours and responses. The questions have to be answered citing a real situation involving the candidate, there actions or responses and the outcome. It was much easier to identify the desired skills and qualities in this format.
Perhaps such an approach could be applied to council candidates rather than the usual “all candidates” meetings where the questions are general and the candidates just promise the moon to whoever asks the question. If it is televised than of course even more pandering and posturing comes into play. However, such meetings do not provide a solid basis on which to vote or not vote for someone. What good are promises if the candidate does not possess any or many of the qualities in the previous paragraph? I wonder how many voted for Obama on the basis of his skin colour and Clinton on the basis of her sex. Not much of a basis at the end of the day.
Of course voters want to raise issues that are close to their hearts and love a candidate with a seemingly sympathetic ear but what if that candidate does not have any or many of the important skills for the job?
I think it would be great if the town had an interviewing committee made up of residents who could develop a list of essential skills for the job of councillor. They could then interview each candidate behind closed doors, no cameras or journalist’s notepad and ask the key, probing, behavioural questions that would really identify how that individual operates. The interview notes would then be made available to every resident who has enough interest in trying to ensure a skilled, functional, hardworking council for 4 years.
Once the fundamental skills are in place, then it is time to examine the broader issues and how each would handle them.
I know, I dream a lot; but it is important to think about possible solutions instead of just griping about what we have had to put up with for the last 4 years. It may also be time for a paradigm shift in how we approach things.
Anonymous said
Perhaps we should require all candidates for elected office in our town to post performance bonds in an amount of $250,000. The usual asset requirement is 10% of the face amount of the bond which works out to about one year’s salary for councillors. You can do the math for mayor.
Instead of a Code of Conduct there should be a Scale of Performance with a three-person panel to assess success or failure. Pay up and shut up!
I am getting increasingly depressed by all the verbiage.
By the way, what has happened to Nigel and Roger? Silenced for good I hope. And now Evelyn drops an Evel smell as a last minute candidate for the chain.
Elizabeth Bishenden said
I like the idea of retaining eight part-time councillors. I would prefer to have more representation of our population and I think that is best done by having more voices at the table. Having more people also allows the committee and board workload to be shared among more people. I would strongly emphasize that these people need to work part-time at the job of councillor. They need to be grounded in the community with other activities.
I don’t like the idea of a ward system. In my opinion it is equivalent to bringing a fifth layer to our government as we would have ward, municipal, regional, provincal,and federal representatives.
At the present time in Aurora we have only one layer of government in which our vote is uncompromised. At all other levels of our democracy we have to choose someone who can do two jobs. We have to vote for someone who can be both a good mayor and also a good regional representative. At the provincial and federal levels, we have to choose a MPP or MP who can be both a representative for our ridings and also part of a political party that will govern effectively.
I think that at the municipal level, getting to choose eight people who represent our community is democracy at its best.
Augustinius said
If one has watched televised Council meetings over the years, it is obvious that the performance of councillors is to a great extent dictated by the degree of knowledge and professionalism that senior staff – department heads – display and bring with them to the table. Councillors are, after all, part time and there is a huge amount of paper to get through prior to and during meetings. It is the role of senior staff to guide councillors through all this; in my opinion they are more important to the smooth functioning of the town’s business than are members of Council. Any yet it is these latter who are charged with the political decision-making that creates our By-laws and many other matters of importance to all of us.
I feel that the level of competence of many present senior staff is substandard to that which the town enjoyed ten years ago. I really question the motivation of a Treasurer or a CAO who has been hired well into the Morris term. Was there simply no other available equivalent job out there? The reputation of the mayor and the majority of council members must have been known to these relatively recent hires. Are they performing their jobs impartially in the best interests of the town and its residents, or are they slip-sliding along to the tune being hummed by the select six?
local level said
I think you might misunderstand local politics, or at least how it operates. Council is a group that is similar to a board of a company. they make decisions and bring the company/community together. What really keeps the town running is the bureaucrats. So, when the councillors micro-manage into the bureaucratic world, you end up with the current state of aurora. i prefer wards, and council representation is overrated. if council was focused to an area and dealt with issues with the bureaucrats and NOT in front of the camera at Council, you would only need a couple of councillors to represent the people. as soon as council works with staff, staff will work with council, and the result would be a working aurora.
Guy Poppe said
Evelyn:
An excellent comment and articulately stated.
Anon Anon said
Praise for Ev from Guy Poppe? I just saw a pig fly past my window.
evelyn.buck said
Composition of council will not capture public attention during the upcoming campaign. If it did, there needs to be more than just a personal opinion.
Aurora had eight Councillors and a Mayor when the population was 5,000.How does one rationalise there should be fewer when the population is ten times greater.
Eight Councillors cost too much. Check out what other municipalities are paying their Councillors. Show us something less expensive.
We should have a ward system. Check the geographic area and population where wards are in place. Compare them.
Take Markham for example. Each ward has two Councillors. They share an offices and administrative assistants in the ward and office budgets. Salaries are many times more than Aurora.
We should have an extra representative at the region. Every time we made a serious bid for that, the southern municipalities increased theirs and we stayed the same.
Be careful what you ask for. And by the way, do you have any idea what you’re getting from the region?
It’s fun to exchange opinions. The internet allows it. It also allows for research and presenting persuasive arguments to support one’s contention.
If a person does research and presents a cohesive argument, we all learn from it.
The people who know how municipalities function, will not be persuaded by people who don’t. To have an impact, you must arm yourself with facts.
The opportunity is as close as your fingertips. In all history, ordinary people have never had such access to power.
Tim the Enchanter said
I know this topic is wearing thin so I’ll skip the opinions and just pass on some facts I found “at my fingertips”.
Some readers may find them useful.
According to the September 26/2006 staff report to council
TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. CACCR-06-01
(I googled Aurora mayor’s salary)
2006 Salaries (without the extra gravy paid by the Region)
If one wanted to get real technical one could attempt to ferret out expenses for office budgets, personal assistants, therapists, gurus an other expense allowances but this is a basic comparison.
It should also be noted that some of these numbers have been tweaked since 2006.
Markham mayor – about $103K
Aurora mayor – about $48K
Markham councillor – about $60K
Aurora councillor – about $23K
Both towns have a mayor and eight councillors
Markham has a little over 5x the population
ie; Markham has about 33000 people per councillor
Aurora has about 6200 people per councillor
Markham also covers about 4x the area
If we mirrored Markham’s population per councillor stat Aurora would have 2 councillors and a mayor.
The document shows a York Region breakdown of salaries.
Aurora ranks ahead of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Georgina and King and just behind Newmarket and East Gwillimbury.
Vaughan and Richmond Hill are similar to Markham.
All of the councils are listed as having a benefits program.
“Aurora had eight Councillors and a Mayor when the population was 5,000.How does one rationalise there should be fewer when the population is ten times greater. ”
OK. maybe one opinion.
It’s quite easy to rationalize actually.
According to historical census data the population in 1961 was about 8800 so I assume the 5000 figure refers to sometime in the mid-50’s. Regardless, in 1971 York Region was formed, relieving lower tier municipal councils of much of the heavy lifting.
That’s not to say that there isn’t work to do just that post-Region lower tier councils are much less involved in decisions that directly impact the comfort, security and quality of life of the average resident.
Anonymous said
Eight councillors and a mayor when the population was 5,000? This town is and always has been nuts then! And that is my personal opinion based on your fact!
Fred said
Has anyone had a telemarketing call claiming to be calling “on behalf of the Town of Aurora” conducting a survey on community issues?
He couldn’t pronounce Aurora correctly when I asked him to repeat.
Anonymous for a Reason said
I had a call today “on behalf of the Town of Aurora”. When I asked what it was about he said a “Foundation survey for recreational needs of 12 – 18 year olds”.
I guess Evelina’s re-write of the Rec plan needs more work…
Counting Down the Days said
Yes, I had one last night. A summer Friday night around 9, not the best time to catch people at home I would’ve thought.
Anyway, I tried asking a few questions but to little avail. It seems it is a Toronto survey company involved but they didn’t seem to know to whom the information would be forwarded. I declined to participate.
I suppose there’s a rush on to look like something positive has been accomplished before facing the electorate. It’s just more outside consultants, studies, and lawyers. There’s no real work being done, nothing that aids the residents of the town.
October 25th can’t come soon enough.
Knowledgeable in Aurora said
Are we paying for this with our tax dollars? If so, did Council authorize it?
Countdown to Oct said
Yes, more money being spent in the waning days of this council.
Glad to see there are new posters to this blog. Welcome, Counting Down The Days.
Counting Down the Days said
Remember, a Youth Centre was one of the talking points of the last election. There was talk of re-purposing the no longer needed hydro building on Industrial Pkway, or of using some of the proceeds from the sale of Aurora Hydro towards a youth centre.
Four years later what do we – or more specifically, the young people in town – have? Nothing, nada, zilch, bupkus, sweet Fanny Adams – that’s what! No, I tell a lie, we apparently have a study (the MorMac regime do love their studies, don’t they?) being conducted in the dying days before the town goes to the polls. Merely another box ticked for the campaign bumpf.
As with most things with this lot, far too little, far too late.
Anonymous said
Cant we just establish our own mechanism to recall a mayor or a councillor? Most of the issues associated with Phyllis and her “morris dancers” would have disappeared long before now.
silverback
Anonymous said
people – you only have a say on the number of councillors and whether its a ward system!!
the whole province would have to change from 4 years…aurora cant change this on its own. nor can it implement term limits.
again, you need to look longer term. sure our mayor is terrible right now, but what if we had a visionary elected that we could all get behind – then the notion of term limits would work against us.
lets focus on things we can change – this administration!!!
kit kat said
this is like asking 3 kids to split up a kit-kat bar. this is a nice deflection topic, but it de-polarizes the group. best to concentrate on one topic that is attainable, and at hand.
fed up said
Agrred!!!!
Why is this topic even posted here on this blog? The objective here is to rid this town of the blight that has plagued us for the last 4 years not to banter about a topic that the province has control over. WE need to educate and inform those of us in this town who really don’t care about municipal politics and get them out to vote. Mormac is counting on those who voted last time, repeating their mistake and the “I don’t care” people staying at home on Oct 25.
Anonymous said
I was quite aware when I posted that the municipal terms are controlled by the province but when I thought about my ideal, municipal political world, I got carried away.
No need to get into a snit about it. We don’t want to discourage posters do we?
Tim the Enchanter said
I also agree that Council Composition shouldn’t be the only topic but it is something I want to hear discussed by the candidates because we’ve seen over the last few years what happens when you have too many councillors with nothing to do – idle hands are the devil’s workshop and all that.
Raising the topic also brought out a point not everyone is aware of regarding term limits – we can’t change them.
We do need to engage more of the electorate but I don’t think that will be accomplished with the Anyone But Phyllis approach.
We can post all day long about the iffy dealings on the Jazz Festival but let’s face it; to the mayor’s supporters it’s all just sour grapes while most of the town couldn’t care less one way or the other.
So by all means let’s get some other issues out there.
kit kat 2 said
Well, maybe a good strategy is to actually use town funds to get a person to press the people of aurora to vote. sounds strange, but I know Markham and Newmarket had hired a part time person, maybe use the intergity commissioner, to rally all to vote. I think that they achieved about a 45% vote. Not much, but a sight better than the under 20% I believe in the last election.
I am not sure who said this but: the worst enemy of the state is the truth.
Knowledgeable in Aurora said
The fact is although some of the items raised here are under Provincial jurisdiction, changes can be effected at the Provincial level, through local pressure.
If enough Aurorans feel the four year term was a mistake, then approaching Frank Klees and asking for his assistance/support to bring it forward to the P. gov’t is one way to start that ball rolling.
Municipal government is a “child” of the Province by legislation, and with a strong Mayor, that supports a shorter term or Regional reform and has the savy and know how to approach the P government things can change.
Anon Ymous said
3 years is good, and drop to 6 councillors. Aurora still does not need a ward system.
As long as Morris, MacEachern, Gaertner, Gallo, Wilson and Granger are gone, I will be happy for our future.
Anonymous said
I posted earlier about limiting the terms of office for the mayor. I meant to add my support to reducing the number of councillors. Whether they are part-time or not, I think 8 councillors is excessive for a little town this size.
I would support a combination of a ward system plus one or possibly two councillors at large. As a resident of a new part of town it can be quite frustrating trying to raise interest in issues here as the majority live to the west. It is the same one or two who respond and I am not sure they are particularly interested in what goes on in this part of town. A ward councillor would at least be aware of the neighbourhoods and what goes on.
That’s all folks!
Knowledgeable in Aurora said
I don’t believe we need a ward system yet. Geographically we are not big enough. There is no decision that can be made on a “ward” basis that does not effect the entire town, therefore broad representation is still required. The population of the entire town and/or the # of square km’s is less than any ward in the Region I’m sure.
The number of Councillors certainly can and should be reduced. It doesn’t take 9 to run this Town. The City of Vaughan only has 9 Councillors and 3 of them are Regional and the population is 5 times ours. Markham is a bit heavy with 12 Councillors, but again 4 are Regional and the other 8 local. Proportionately, we are way out of balance.
My ideal would be 1 Mayor, 1 Deputy Mayor (and push for second Regional seat for this person) and 3 Local at Large. The benefits are 2 Regional seats (for coverage when the Mayor can’t or doesn’t go), a smaller group (less ego’s), and still an odd number for voting.
The term should be reduced back to 3 years. That’s long enough for any group to accomplish what they can but not the life time that four years feels like.
Tim the Enchanter said
Mayor, deputy and 3 councillors sounds plausible.
As for the ward system.
Pros and cons on both sides I would imagine.
Ward councillors are certainly forced to mind their own patch unlike at-large councillors and I agree that it must be frustrating for residents in newer areas to see the endless tail-chasing over “Old Aurora”.
Some argue that a ward system would be devisive but it may also serve to split up the perceived influence of special interest groups and traditionally vote-rich areas of town.
Wouldn’t it be a nice topic for the next council to start a reasonable and inclusive debate about?
Perhaps a binding referendum?
Just to clarify some stats (from StatsCan)
Newmarket – 38 sq km – about 75,000 pop
and
Georgina – 288 sq km – about 45,000 pop
Both use the ward system.
Aurora – 50 sq km – about 50,000 pop
Anony-nony said
Think about it. If there were only 4 councillors, how would THIS council have looked.
Mayor Morris
Councillor McRoberts
Councillor MacEachern
Councillor Gaertner
Councillor Granger
So, Mormac would still have prevailed, with poor Bob all by himself flapping in the wind, AND, without Evelyn on board to keep ’em honest.
Anonymous said
I would like a limit on the term that a mayor can serve. My preference would either be 2 terms of 2 years or one 4-year term. That would help to eliminate the posturing, pandering and suspect decisions that go with trying to ensure re-election. It would also help to continually bring in new blood and, hopefully, new ideas. Another upside would be that it would help to get us out from underneath dictatorships such as our current mayor’s – at least every 4 years.
Anonymous said
both of the above contravene the municipal act. you are required to have a mayor and the they must be elected by the whole community.
The act also outlines that the term must be 4 years. it was previously 3 not 2. its been many years (2 decades at least since it was a 2 year term).
the only thing the town has a say in is the number of councillors, and whether they are at large or a ward system.
a political system should be thought of for the long term, and not just reactionary to the past couple of years as well.
Augustinius said
My suggestion of yesterday regarding rotating councillors and no mayor was made as a gesture to a more ideal world. Yes, we do have the Municipal Act, and a lot of it is BAD. We have the Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner at a cost of probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars, factoring in external legal expenses. Aurora is one of a relatively few Ontario municipalities whose power-mad mayor felt it in the public interest to pursue this course. A citizen can, of course, file a complaint against the mayor or any councillor under the Code. But such action would be defended at a cost to the town of many more tens of thousands of dollars, and what citizen is prepared to pay the cost of this?
Ontario’s premier is an ass for having bulled through a four-tear term of office for municipalities. This might be acceptable if the Act provided for the voters the right to conduct a plebiscite that could lead to the recall of any of its elected representatives. Many American states provide for this. But four years of bad government is 3.75 years too much.
Wards will come about at some future time, far into the future I hope. In principal I am opposed to them for some of the many reasons that were mentioned in a report by the Town Clerk some months ago. Councillors should have to respond to the needs of the entire town, not just neighbourhood issues in the north or south.
Anonymous said
have you spoke to residents or councillors in towns with wards? i would suggest in my dealings that most councillors are pretty good at looking at town wide issues, and one also could make the arguement that a councillor that is not beholden to a group of residents say hypothetically supporting a ward 1 issue is not the ebst thing for the town the other councillors can do what they know is right for the community and not feel political pressure. albeit, i recognize there are downsides.
that all being said, 4 year terms do make sense. they are in line with other levels of government, allows for a vision to actually be implemented, with 3 year terms year 1 was usually needed to get new councillors up to speed and year 3 was ultra political…only 1 year of real progress…i prefer two years of progress if you ask me.
we may have a power hungry mayor, and im no fan, but, the reality is they are only one vote. the issues with this council do not solely lie with this mayor. look to the rest of the gang too!
someone who loves this town more than politics said
Considering the term has ballooned from 2 years to 4 years I very much like Augustinius concept re: the rotating position of mayor. It does seem more democratic.
No mayor should sit for 4 years. If we aren’t willing to rotate, than lets go back to 2 year terms.
As per ward system, there is no time like the present.
I don’t believe there is a magic number that needs to be reached in order to make a ward system viable.
I mentioned several pluses and minus in a previous blog post here: http://christopherwatts.posterous.com/councilors-at-large
6 councilors should be plenty, enough to effectively represent, and do so with a sense of connectivity, one that is lost with the current set-up.
Augustinius said
There should be seven councillors and no mayor. The position of mayor should be filled on a revolving basis by the council members for terms of six months. The last term can be filled by lottery; this would do away with unseemly politicking.
There should be no ward system until the potential wards each contain 10,000 people.