Loading ...Should councillors live where they're elected?
- Yes (95%, 19 Votes)
- No (5%, 1 Votes)
Total Voters: 20
Loading ...Out of Town Councillors
Author Editor
Author: A. Furtado, Citizen Journalist
Do you know where your municipal councillors live? Naturally, people would assume their councillors live in the same district in which they hold their seat. When asked where they call home, however, the answer is sometimes surprising.
At the last Central Saanich Town Hall meeting held on May 25 2011, residents discovered that Councillor John Garrison had moved to Duncan and Councillor Terry Siklenka had moved to Saanich. When this type of revelation becomes public, more questions may follow: Is it legal to be a non-resident councillor? And why would someone seek office outside their own community? Would you vote for a councillor if you knew the candidate was from outside the municipality?
Central Saanich Mayor Jack Mar explains, “The Local Government Act allows you to run anywhere in BC. You do not have to live in the community; that’s the way The Act reads.” Ironically, ‘The Act’, also states you must be a resident or property owner in order to vote in the municipality, but you do not have to meet either of these requirements to run for council.
Former Central Saanich Mayoral Candidate Sean McNulty weighs in, “I think it is a travesty. I do not think you can do your job properly if you don’t live there. Your number one priority should be fulfilling the obligations of a council person by living with your constituents.”
In contrast, however, non-resident Central Saanich Councillor John Garrison says, “Whether I live down the road or across the street; it doesn’t matter to me… I think I can still represent the people.” Garrison also mentions that this kind of situation is not unusual in places like Victoria.
Is it common for a municipal council member to be a non-resident and the public just doesn’t realize it? The answer is ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and it appears to depend upon where you live. In more urbanized communities it’s slightly more common than in rural communities. In the City of Victoria, Councillors Marianne Alto and Charlayne Thornton-Joe currently live outside the City of Victoria boundary; in Saanich all of the Councillors live in that district; in Sidney, Marilyn Loveless is the only non-resident, and in North Saanich two councillors, Cairine Green and Anny Scoones, recently moved out of the district.
It’s understandable that councillors could move out of their area during their term, but the bigger question is, should they seek re-election as a non-resident? Saanich Councillor Dean Murdock says, “In my experience it is a benefit for a councillor to be familiar with the community he or she represents. Living in the community gives you a good context for the impact that decisions will have on residents.”
Murdock also points out that in the City of Victoria non-resident candidates may be motivated by issues that are relevant to the city, “…In that case, the person has a familiarity with issues that affect the community.”
Victoria Councillor Charlayne Thornton-Joe, who lives in Saanich, explains what motivated her to run. “I just wanted to make a difference on issues that were important to me – I listen to those who I am representing and make decisions based on what is best for the citizens I am representing.”
Non-resident councillors can vote on land issues and spending even though they don’t live and pay taxes in that community. Should this be a relevant consideration when voting for councillors? Staying connected to a constituency takes work and commitment regardless of where you live.
Voice your opinion; Saanich Voice Online wants to know what you think.
Share/Bookmark
Posted in Community News
36 Responses to “Out of Town Councillors”
Post a Comment
Interesting topic. Never thought councilors Garrison and Siklenka represented me, no matter where they lived.
However, the contempt of our Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy
does raise the question that perhaps we should join Saanich, and I am not sure that I am there, yet, but I am willing to open the conversation.
We left in the 40′s, but perhaps it is time to return to the fold. Saanich has maintained its urban containment boundary. They have a very sophisticated municipal police force (not RCMP) that could absorb the Central Saanich Municipal Force. We wouldn’t need to spend millions on a fire-hall as there is an adequate professional facility at Royal Oak. The municipal facility would be a satellite and the role would be determined by needs.
I have never been a fan of amalgamation. I felt I had a better chance to be heard before my own council, but the current empire building administration in Central Saanich makes me think that this is a topic worth discussing. The skill-set and professionalism in Saanich is a valuable resource. There was a time that we could have negotiated a return to Saanich as a debt-free municipality that paid its own way. That is no longer the case.
I am tired of the administerial flip-flops in Central Saanich. It’s very challenging to find representative candidates. Perhaps it is time for some little fish to play in a bigger pond. It would probably save home-owners some tax dollars down the road.
Let’s have the conversation.
Reforms to the Local Government Act (LGA) will be necessary to make local councils work for the benefit of their citizens.
It is a quirk that the CRD with its 300,000 pop. has 13 councils with its 13 mayors and 76 councillors and then another layer of oversight with the CRD directors but who needs this inefficient model if council members can move out of district? Isn’t local representative one of the few arguments against Amalgamation?
It’s time to strengthen the LGA for the benefit of communities.
To live in Saanich and be a councilor in Victoria is one thing – they are the same urban area. One often does not know if one is in Saanich or the city. But to live in Duncan and be a councilor for Central Saanich? This is ridiculous. Mr. Garrison cannot possibly expect us to believe he has the interests of Central Saanich at heart when he lives in Duncan. We have to ask whose interests does he represent? Perhaps he represents the interests of the developers who fund his campaign and whom he supports at every opportunity. Hopefully the voters of Central Saanich will not re-elect Garrison this Autumn.
The comments made by Bert Slater are right to the point. How can John Garrison pretend to represent the residents of Central Saanich when he lives in Duncan? As far as I am concerned, I think you should be resident in the municipality before you seek office there. Carol Pickup, former Saanich councillor and resident of Saanich.
Perhaps we (Centrlal Saanich) should play a role (food sustainability) in a larger more professional municipality? What do you think?
If you would like to hear the responses of Councillor Siklenka and Garrison regarding this issue, start at 02:40 in this video:
http://www.vimeo.com/24369355
Thanks Ed Johnson. That is a very interesting link. The attitude of many councilors is appalling.
Councilors Siklenka and Garrison still represent their, constituents – as they recognise them. Unfortunately neither think that a normal resident in Central Saanich has any rights -even as Garrison has demonstrated in the past they right to speak at a council meeting. Big developers are of course welcome. Ed do you think either of them care enough about what the people think to bother reading articles like this.
The video is an important example to show how ineffective it is to personalize the issues. Of course when the questioners ask argumentative questions anyone is going to immediately going to go on the defensive. This tactic literally forces people into entrenching themselves into the very position you are trying to get them to alter. The video likewise shows how the questioner is completely uninterested in the answer to their question because the point of their question is not to obtain an answer but to make an accusation.
The pattern of endless questions and no interest in answers is usually an indication that the askers are actually conspiracy theorists. At some point it’s just not enough to ask questions — you must provide the answers or the facts or the proof. The question is not proof. Accusations are not facts. However, there seems to be a lot of narcissism going on with many of these public speakers who believe their point of view is the only one or the most important one and that any decision they disagree with is a conspiracy to suppress democracy.
For instance, someone could stand up and ask, “How can we change the Local Government Act so that you must live in the community you represent?” or “Would you support changing the Local Government Act so that you must live in the community you represent?” Something like that might have got the ball rolling and possibly made some progress toward achieving a goal…
As I mentioned when I was asked for a comment, I was speaking about what should or is done in other municipalities. I believe it is the decision of the voter to decide whether they want an individual to represent their concerns. I had mentioned that at the time I was concerned about the issues of homelessness, our downtown, Tourism & a few other issues. I am a 3rd generation Victorian & many of the issues that I have been involved with are regional. Even if one lived in Victoria, I do not believe that someone in Rockland can understand the issues of those living in the Burnside Gorge, nor someone in James Bay, understand the issues of those living in Fernwood. As a learned as a Board member of ICA, Women’s Transition House, Lion’s Society for Children with Disabilities, it is important to listen, get all the information possible, & make the best decision with the information that I have for those who are most effected.
I applaud any Councillor for running on issues that are important to them, as Ms. Charlayne-Thorton-Joe. However, that still does address the question, should a Councillor vote on land issues, spending and many other vital decisions, when they do not have to live with the consequences of their votes by being a non-resident? Are there not worthwhile issues to support in their own district? I am sure there will always be non-resident candidates running for the the “right reasons”, but we really need to change the Local Government Act to protect communities from candidates running for the wrong reasons.
We need Stu Young to run for Mayor in Central Saanich. There isn’t much growth even possible in Central Saanich since 85% of the land is first nation or government owned or in the land reserve. We can’t sprawl even if we wanted to. We need rules about the exterior aesthetics of a business, but otherwise let them operate freely. Most people here vote for the person who will give them the most government assistance, complain about what the government does or doesn’t do, and pay no taxes at all. With 85% of our citizens in this category, it’s no wonder some of our leaders live out of the area.
In the context of this article, the July 8, 2011, issue of the Peninsula News Review reports (page 6) on Central Saanich Councillor Ron Kubek complaining about CRD Directors outside of Central Saanich deliberating on Central Saanich matters. In the interests of consistency, perhaps he should consider applying this philosophy to two or three of his seat-mates on Central Saanich Council who don’t live in Central Saanich.
I think there’s a difference between someone actually elected to represent Central Saanich and having the CRD Directors second guessing or over-ruling council decisions. How many layers of bureaucracy do we need and will having more layers make things better or worse? Kubek is a lot smarter and way more personally successful than most elected officials and past success is the only reliable indicator of future success. The dismal track record and consistent record of poor decisions by a lot of these elected officials regardless of where they live is a the best indicator of their future performance too. But, in spite of this, they keep getting elected. The voters themselves are ultimately to blame. It’s probably a good idea to amend the local government act to require residency in the district you want to represent. Now try to vote in someone who will actually amend the law. How’s that working out?
Is it time to join Saanich?
Get the big fish in a little pond into a big pond with Central Saanich little fish. I have been a long time foe of amalgamation, because I always thought that I had a better voice in my own community. However, the empire building at the Central Saanich Municipal Hall is changing my mind.
I would invite studies regarding amalgamation with Saanich.
Perhaps it is time to go back to our roots in Saanich, if they will have us.
4 years ago we were a no debt municipality. Under the current administration we have debt.
The big question is how much, and we are now looking to incur significantly more debt. I guess, as a homeowner, who manages any debt very carefully, incurring large municipal debt for self-interest is not something that I am willing to do.
I never thought that I would say this, but Central Saanich may be better served through Saanich. We have municipal (not RCMP) police forces that could be amalgamated. Saanich has one of the best served police services in the province/on the continent. Saanich has a professional fire service that could absorb Central Saanich, using the current facilities plus a few bays in the mostly vacant industrial park.
I have never been comfortable with a big CRD amalgamation. I always looked at an urban/rural divide, but perhaps the city needs us and we need the city. It’s time to open the conversation and perhaps we can reduce 13 municipalities to 11. It would be a start, it would be leaderships and it would be worth a study.
Food for thought everyone, Look forward to comments.
I think that the debt was preferable to a 65% tax hike that would have been imposed had the money been spent up front /pay as you go. The interest rates have never been lower in history and inflation marches on while the payment remains the same. There is not much vision in just staying the same never changing, never growing never progressing and being against every new idea.
Karla is correct on one point. The voters are to blame for our current council. But didn’t the voters elect Kubek?
Right, silly people
Again, you guys love to personalize the issues. I don’t know any of the council but during the time Kubek was elected there has been lost of progress. As much as the last 20 years. If you prefer stagnation and to be unaffected by progress all around you then you can blame Kubek and his cohorts. Fortunately most residents of Central Saanich disagree with your insults and personal attacks and appreciate how far Central Saanich has progressed in so short a time.
Thank you for covering this topic which raises many good questions.
I will not be running again in North Saanich, believing that for a smaller rural community, it is appropriate that candidates reside in the community when seeking election. On the other side of the issue, however, it can be argued that s long as one lives in the Capital Regional District (CRD), the quality of their service to the public is not necessarily determined by their street address.
My hope is that your article generates a broad community discussion about the greater importance of local government. Unfortunately, many municipal elections are still characterized by a dirth of strong candidates, not to mention related factors of poorly informed voters and low voter turn-out.
I believe that an engaged, informed and aware electorate is the best defense against inadequate local representation. I am convinced that local government is closest to us and, therefore, has the greatest impact on our quality of life. I have never forgotten what one resident said to me years ago: “Small communities like ours are always just one election away from disaster.”
Very well said.
Love that comment!
I believe the support that is shown by the voters towards the gift of a vote is based on politicians past performance and accountability. When politicians create a environment of distrust based on their performance, it is difficult if not impossible for the voters to go back to the polls.
In the case of Central Saanich, the Councilors are their own worst enemies. Five major projects have transpired during this council’s tenure. 1) The Vantreight subdivision which could ultimately add 57 more houses which will put further strain on the infrastructure (traffic/Water/Sewer) and is not in the OCP. 2) The Senanus Drive project driven by a small group of landowners. 3) The Co-op rezoning of the West Saanich Road property, which is not in the OCP. 4) New Fire Hall.
These people were elected in good faith, by people who pay taxes to their municipality believing that the elected official would act for the majority of the community not just for a few squeaky wheels. The most difficult part is that these elected officials are only elected for a specific term – after they leave – there is no long term accountability – the next council will have to either continue the same path or try to deal with the fall out.
Communication and engagement of the community. How do we get more voters involved? This Council will tell you they had this open house and that open house to garner feedback. I did not attend any of these meetings. Why – just didn’t get the importance of it until things were well underway. So I plan to get engaged with this council as I do not like what is happening.
Funny, I didn’t like what I saw at the McTavish interchange so I voted for Elizabeth May!
Power to the People.
A truly excellent summation of the current state of affairs in Central Saanich. Thank you for sharing Mary!
I would like to aplaud Saanich Voice Online for giving “the residents and taxpayers of Central Saanich” a VOICE. In my recent presentation at the CRD Board meeting I pleaded with the baord to give my community a voice. One which would not be ignored as has been the case within the confines of Central Saanich’s current council. I unfortunatley had a hand in voting in several of the business orientated members of council which currently reside around the table. It was my philosophy that they would bring some level of balance to the decision making which a council is subjected to. However, I did not know that they were bullies! Subseqently, enabling them to manipulate the decision making around the table in favour of themselves and oh, I don’t know maybe, every bleeding heart crony developer that they have ever aligned themselves with since the beginning of their career.
It is my opinion the real issue is not whether they live in the district or not as long as they do a service for their consistuents as a whole while representing the electorate who has given them the honor of sitting at OUR COUNCIL TABLE. Fortunatley, based on that opinion , I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WILL SEE TOO MANY OF THEM AT THE TABLE AFTER OUR FALL ELECTION. Once again allowing me to sleep well knowing that the communities values are not abandoned for the greed driven mentality which prevails today.
I, too, applaud that Saanich Voice Online has provided a voice.
I think that the bullies are within the CRD identified issues in Central Saanich — Coop, Woodwynn, Vantreight, Senanus Drive water, etc. Lots of money, lots of lawsuits, and lots of money to be made.
I don’t think that small resident groups who care about the evolution of their community can be classified as “bullies”. It costs and there are no financial benefit.
People really care about this place, not about the millionaires — who are quite capable of looking after themselves, if they want.
Good Comments, Donald Bottrell. I wish we have amazing slates of candidates in November. It can be easy or it can be hard. We continue to work with what we get.
Four years ago, I ran for Langford municipal council, but I was not elected. At the time, I was a Langford resident. I now reside in Saanich and work in Victoria.
I would not consider running in Langford or any municipality I do not live or work in, as it would be unfair to the people I am suppose to be representing. How could I effectively contribute to solving the traffic issues in Langford, including the bridge to nowhere, if I am not part of that community?
To run in a municipality that you do not live, work, or own property seems very selfish, as you are mainly serving your own goals. In that case, why not run in every B.C. municipality in the upcoming elections, as you will likely be elected somewhere by acclamation?
Absolutely Brilliant! Clarity, what a novel idea. Thankyou Mr. Hinton.
Good comments R. Hinton. You raise a very interesting question and I don’t know the answer. Is it possible, theoretically, for a politician to run in several municipal electoral areas and what happens if this candidate is elected in 2 or 3 municipalities?
Considering the amount of money that could be involved for some interests and sometimes fairly weak candidates, this could be a concern. After all, the Province gave away the TFL Lands.
Under the LGA, a politician does not have to be a resident to be a candidate for Council. It is also possible for a candidate to seek office in a number of communities. Perhaps, we could use this approach to amalgamate and reduce the number of councillors. Could we share the costs of one mayor and one council with Saanich, North Saanich, and Sydney? Perhaps. We could also eliminate some senior managers for more cost savings.
The important question to be answered is could positions be eliminated under an amalgamation scenario? While I certainly understand and agree that there are benefits to amalgamation some questions need to be addressed for the public. Most important of which is how will efficiencies affect services (ie are there improvements to be had or potential interruptions that would have to be addressed to maintain public confidence?).
Division 5 — Qualifications for Office
Who may hold elected office as a member of a local government
66 (1) A person is qualified to be nominated for office, and to be elected to and hold office, as a member of a local government if at the relevant time the person meets all the following requirements:
(a) the person must be an individual who is, or who will be on general voting day for the election, age 18 or older;
(b) the person must be a Canadian citizen;
(c) the person must have been a resident of British Columbia, as determined in accordance with section 52, for at least 6 months immediately before the relevant time;
(d) the person must not be disqualified by this Act or any other enactment from voting in an election in British Columbia or from being nominated for, being elected to or holding the office, or be otherwise disqualified by law.
Only one elected office at a time in the same local government
68 (1) At any one time a person may not hold more than one elected office in the same local government.
(2) At any one time a person may not be nominated for more than one elected office in the same local government.
(3) A current member of a local government may not be nominated for an election under section 37 for another office in the same local government unless the person resigns from office within 14 days after the day on which the chief election officer is appointed.
Thank you. I appreciate your replies on so many levels. For clarification, I understand that a person cannot be elected twice in the same municipality, however, I’m not quite clear on the definition of “local government”. Am I correct in understanding that a candidate could run in 2 different municipalities and should that candidate be elected could legally represent 2 different municipalities?
That’s my interpretation. You could run in two or more communities. However, you could not be a mayor and councillor in the same community. The problem is “what do you do when the two councils have their meetings on the same night.” We could have one Mayor on the Saanich Peninsula! The candidate would only have to win three elections. It’s a back door to amalgamation! Can you imagine all three councils in the same room!
Thanks for thinking outside the box. It’s a fascinating scenario and we have councilors who have barely attended every other meeting, so two council meetings on the same night may not be an issue!
Could be a very interesting loop-hole in the municipal act, will have to think about it. Of course one would need a “super-candidate”.
Thanks, all three councils in one room makes me smile.
Of course, I would not vote for any candidates who did not live on the Peninsula. If you had one mayor and 6 councillors, the savings would be over $200,000! Although, I suspect the remaining 7 politicians would want a raise, but even if you doubled the current council salaries for one council, the savings would still be over $100,000! I would also elect the Councillors on a “ward” basis. I also wonder if you could reduce the bureacracy – one poilce chief, one fire chief, etc.?