ROBERT BISH is professor emeritus at the School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, and a leading academic on the subject of local government and local governance. He was the lead author of the recently-published paper “Governing Greater Victoria: The Role of Elected Officials and Shared Services” (Fraser Institute) –

Here he answers some questions from Saanich Voice Online about a subject that is rarely out of the news in Greater Victoria.

1. Would you summarize for us the recent report in which you were the lead author – Governing Greater Victoria: The Role of Elected Officials and Shared Services (“B.C.’s unique model of local government makes amalgamation unnecessary”)?

The referenda that were included in the fall 2014 municipal elections where voters were asked their views on governance and possible reductions in the number of municipalities pretty much ignored the role that the Capital Regional District and other sub-regional and regional governments play in Greater Victoria.  Professor Jim McDavid, Brian Walisser and I decided that a monograph describing how local government services were governed in Greater Victoria under British Columbia’s unique regional district was necessary so residents and councillors had the knowledge to discuss the issue of amalgamation seriously. The study provides that description and an explanation as to why the governance and production of local services has evolved the way it has. We thought it important to include Elected Officials in the title because it is only in BC that the municipally elected officials make up the committees, boards and commissions that govern all local services at the municipal, sub-regional and regional levels. This has facilitated greater sharing and integration of local services at the sub-regional and regional level that appears to have happened in any other metropolitan area that has been studied. Within the report only about 8 pages are devoted to amalgamation directly, and those are placed into the context of how the existing system works—not posed as some alternative exhibiting a religious-like faith in large bureaucracies.

The basic issues we are dealing with: representation, adjustment to geographic scale, production efficiency and financing all pose problems because of the diversity in local government services and the diversity of communities in Greater Victoria. Neither small governments nor regional governments with large bureaucracies can accommodate all of these problems easily. What a regional district does is provide a forum whereby smaller governments can move the governance and administration of services to the sub-regional or regional level as is appropriate for any particular activity. Within Greater Victoria over 30 municipal activities have been moved to the regional district through this process. Our examination indicates that the system has worked well to get activities where there are interdependencies and economies of scale governed at appropriate levels. It is not perfect but the results of 50 years of evolution are very good. We do have recommendations for improvements, but they fit within and are intended to improve the existing system. They do not entail radical change.

2. It seems counter-intuitive to favour multi-municipalities rather than a single authority. How do you answer that counter-intuition?

I will offer an answer and then point to a real problem with arguments for amalgamations. Based on the fact that local services have different characteristics (some capital intensive and some labour intensive), not all services can be provided responsively and efficiently by large governments with large bureaucracies. There is lots of research that indicates that large organizations tend to be less responsive to different neighbourhoods within large cities and that many of their services cost more to produce because there are diseconomies of scale, especially for labor-intensive face-to-face services like police patrol. These arguments based on an understanding of production and empirical evidence; however, do not seem to change the minds of those who have no comprehension of how coordination can occur without someone in charge can work to achieve both local political control and regional service efficiencies. What we see again and again is a belief (really a faith) that somehow one government and corresponding large organizations will be better. At some point, evidence does matter and communities that have been amalgamated can provide us with opportunities to see whether amalgamations, once we look at the actual costs and actual benefits, make sense to taxpayers.

3. Does democracy decline for residents if, for example, this region had an amalgamated city (rather than 13 municipalities) with eight councillors and one mayor?

With any simple approach the answer is yes, but if we look at the issue of representation for residents we recognize that the issues faced range from community to regional (and even larger). And as governments get larger the elected officials will tend to focus only on broad policy issues leaving a lot of decisions up to employees. We describe what a district-based electoral system for Greater Victoria would look like with a council of 11, the maximum size permitted in B.C. legislation. The problem is to have representation that can act at the scale of the issues. For example North Saanich, Sidney and most of Central Saanich would be entitled to one representative on a council of 11, while currently each has a council of 7. Each municipality has different issues and each has a reasonably full agenda for their community. At the same time each is represented on the commission that governs the Panorama Recreation Centre but that commission does not need all 21 members as a couple from each municipality will provide appropriate representation for sub-regional activities. Likewise, a single councillor represents each municipality on the CRD Board. Thus the regional district system has the capacity to adjust representation for governance from the bottom up. Being from the bottom up also means that campaigning for office is inexpensive and does not require collecting campaign funds from special interests. This highly representative system costs less than one-half of one percent of local government expenditures.

There is a problem with this system, however, in that it is heavily biased to local communities and may not always provide appropriate representation on truly regional issues where there may be differences among the municipalities and some may not benefit from a regional decision. Looking more closely at how to increase responsiveness on regional issues is one of the recommendations contained in our report.

4. Does the public get misled (however inadvertently) by the media which concentrates its focus on problems/negatives rather than solutions/positives?

Problems and disputes are always going to get more attention than the over thirty CRD activities that run very well and for the most part are out of sight to both the media and to citizens who may not even realize their local service is coming from the CRD and not directly from their municipality. I do not think that reduces the opportunities to seek solutions to problem areas. When solutions are proposed, however, all of the existing services that work well need to be recognized so a proposed solution does not have overall adverse consequences. This is why having a better understanding of how governance in greater Victoria really works is essential background for understanding how problems arise and what solutions are likely to work without creating adverse effects. We cannot expect every reader to understand this. We do depend, however, on journalists and editorial writers to understand the system well enough to put problems in context and be aware when proposed solutions will have adverse effects—without expecting articles that are so long readers quit reading part way through. In some respects, we do not expect that Governing Greater Victoria will be read by many citizens. We do hope, however, it is read by enough journalists and editorial writers to raise the level of discussions about local governance and amalgamation compared to that discussion in the past. We also wrote it to be sure councillors and others in decision-making positions have a fuller understanding of the system they work within because it is not only an unusual one; it is unique in North America.

-30-

UPDATE  – Regional Governance Presentation

The governance committee of the Capital Regional District will host a presentation on Wednesday by Dr. Robert Bish, lead author of the recent report “Governing Greater Victoria: The Role of Elected Officials and Shared Services” (Fraser Institute) – (meeting agenda)

Dr. Bish will appear via teleconference with Dr. Jim McDavid and Brian Walisser attending in person to take part in the presentation and discussion. Both men assisted with the report.

 Here is a link to Dr. Bish’s UVic background – and Dr. McDavid’s background. Walisser retired from the provincial government’s Local Government Department in 2010 after serving for many years as executive director, policy and research.

UPDATE  – Regional Governance Presentation Podcast

HERE is the link for those interested in watching/listening to the podcast of the Capital Regional District’s hosted presentation by Dr. Robert Bish.

FURTHER UPDATE

 The next meeting of the Saanich governance committee will be on Wednesday May 11 – here is the agenda posted on the Saanich website — http://www.saanich.ca/living/mayor/boards/pdf/2016/GRCAC/2016-05-11-governance-review-agenda.pdf

-30-

NEXT MONTH’S SVO will look at Dr. Bish’s four recommendations for the Capital Region.