Powell River residents go to the polls on October 20, six weeks from now. What we should be looking for in a new council is an interesting question with a wide range of answers, from having very low expectations about local politicians’ capacity to accomplish much to a real desire and expectation of genuine leadership and a vision for the future.
Will the candidates who put their names forward reflect low or high expectations? Will they present a consistent vision of the future for the community they are committed to or will their platforms be a hodge-podge of personal preferences? Or worse do they have an agenda of personal gain?
We hope for candidates who have actually decided to run based on their conviction that they have leadership ability and on thoughtful consideration about the needs of the community. Yet if we truly want a council that works toward a consistent and progressive vision, that can only happen if there are enough candidates with a common vision to vote for.
And it’s not enough to just get such candidates elected. They have to work consciously together, identify two or three major initiatives that will improve life in the community and work toward getting the community genuinely engaged in embracing and guiding those initiatives.
If that sounds like common sense then we have a severe lack of it at the civic level in BC. This kind of thoughtful collaboration with the community is rare and, as a result, progress toward a coherent and consistent vision mostly falls short. That doesn’t mean we don’t elect hardworking and principled councillors. We do. It means that without deliberate collaboration and citizen engagement they fail to deliver up to their potential.
In most municipalities candidates run strictly as individuals and don’t run as part of slates, which are widely seen in a negative light for having an “agenda.” But an agenda could also be a vision: a thoughtful plan for the future.
In Vancouver there are actual political parties that put forward different visions people can choose between. That means knowing each candidate’s views is not so important; they are reflected in the party’s platform.
The other barrier to co-operation among councillors of like mind is the community charter that governs local politics. It seeks to prevent collaboration among councillors who constitute a majority on their council. In other words, if four Powell River councillors want to meet outside of council to discuss policy questions they would be violating the community charter.
This absurdly undemocratic rule is routinely ignored in Vancouver and New Westminster (and likely other communities) with no consequences. But in Powell River the four like-minded councillors who topped the polls last time on a promise of progressive change declined to challenge an unenforceable rule, which hobbled their capacity to plan and work for that change.
The question of slates played a prominent role in the last election with mayor Dave Formosa accusing the above four councillors of being a slate when they clearly were not. And at the same time, he promoted his own slate who then put up identical election signs.
That answered the question, when is a slate not a slate: When it is defending the status quo. Perhaps it’s time for competing slates each with all their “vision” cards on the table. Then we would have a clear choice.
Murray Dobbin is a Powell River freelance writer and social commentator.
