Is a ward system a panacea or a distraction?
By Lethbridge Herald on June 17, 2022.
Editor:
Whatever the problems and issues we are faced with as residents, there was little attempt to correlate these with the concept of switching to an alternative system of representation with any perceived benefits. In other words, what are the problems a ward system could be expected to solve, to what degree, and at what cost. In business, the is called a cost-benefit analysis so that decision makers are sufficiently informed to make intelligent decisions for the greater good.
In Lethbridge’s case, instead of doing the job they were hired to do, the City dumped the burden of due diligence on taxpayers without the benefit of proper information. Only now, after the referendum, has the administration decided to slam taxpayers with several hundred thousand more dollars in expense instead.
Maybe if this had been adequately researched beforehand the issue wouldn’t have even reached the ballot.
Instead, the path to slowly shape the discussion and guide the public towards an outcome that will likely drive the numbers of full-time staff higher, demand the added expense of renting additional facilities, and create further divisions in a community that is already severely polarized. Remember, the very idea of a ward system is to elect councillors whose primary purpose is to represent the interests of their ward.
The notion of horse-trading with other wards is inherent to this concept.
All one has to do is look at how (in)effective ward systems actually function in the minority of municipalities that have taken this route.
Yes, Lethbridge has its issues, but the current system has gotten us this far. Can we take other measures to achieve improvements on a case-by-case basis instead of rolling the dice on another expensive study? If Council thinks we have issues that need to be addressed, then I strongly suggest they task staff with doing the homework on each of them before throwing expensive darts at the board to find out if a ward system is the preferred solution. Otherwise, this may well turn out to be little more than an expensive distraction that may prevent delving into the real problems KPMG found during its audit. Otherwise, I’m no lawyer, but I think it’s fair to ask exactly whose interests are being served here?
Dale Leier
Lethbridge
11-10
One, it would make the current horse trading more obvious. Along with the ward system recall is needed.
Spot on Dale. A true case of cart before the horse putting the question to voters before providing sufficient information or doing adequate reserach on the merits of even asking the question. Point of illustration: One of the pitches for a ward system is that a ward is represented by someone living in that ward and thus supposedly having the interests of that ward and knowledge of its needs in hand. BUT, per the Municipal Government Act this restriction is prohibited. So, a westsider or southsider who finds he/ she is polling well on the northside can run in a northside ward and so on. Candidates would run where they think they can win , links to that ward being secondary and incompetent incumbents would be hard to displace.
I put this referendum question on par with the one about the 3rd bridge, asking if it’s wanted BEFORE providing information on cost etc .
And now we have to see monies wasted reserching something not to assess its merits but to save face for those on present and past council who mouths were engaged before their brains.
Many are not aware that the ‘ward system’ WILL cost $300,000 to $500,000 more per year. No one has bothered to emphasize that. Happy you brought that up!
The ward system should go to a Citizen Assembly it is a citizen issue not school; boards or whatever City Council committee. The Assembly took care of Councillor salaries. OK.