Meanwhile, over at The Spec...

An op-ed by yours-truly has been published in today's edition. 

The title assigned to it brings up an intriguing discussion: if a councillor who served from two terms ago is voted back into office, is it fair and accurate to say they were 're-elected'?

Sometime over the past two years, I saw a situation where someone who had served in office (but was not the incumbent) had 'Re-elect' on their signage. Meaning that there were two candidates running with this on their material. 

So The Spec's 'What if there were no re-elections?' put a slightly different spin on things for me. 

Big thanks to Robert Howard for adding to the production. : )

Oh, and here's the piece, MSC-style:

Council Engagement and Term Limits; 

Is There a Connection?

I'm against term limits. Other than the ones we already have: "They're called elections."

Besides being undemocratic, they’re a lazy approach to the background problem that most of the concept's adherents simply aren't willing to address. 

However...

Earlier this spring, I listened to a Laura Babcock 'Laircast' interview with former Hamilton councillor Ron Corsini. He related an exchange he'd had during his first week in office. A longstanding cohort cautioned him about his stance on a particular issue. "Ron, you know, don't vote like that! You can't take that position. Think of your re-election!"

In combination with this, I'm compelled to point out the dearth of Council responses to The Hamiltonian's recent 'Perspectives Virtual Panel: The Best Place to Raise a Child': as of this op-ed's writing, only three of the sixteen had taken the initiative (and opportunity) to express their stance on the City's motto/slogan/vision. Why?

Time constraints? Lack of preparation? Other priorities? 

OK; I'm going to put on my cynic cap and suggest that because 're-election' hovers in the background for every councillor –even those for whom I have the most respect and in whom I feel the most confidence– that they don't want to take the risk. 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Which leads to my 'However...' 

Before I spill: Getting term limits enacted for Hamilton would require a change of the Municipal Act, broad support at Queen's Park, and would affect not just this city, but every city in the province. (Yes, I’m aware of the exception that is the City of Toronto.)

While there are some loudish voices carping about how our very existence depends on getting 'term limits now', the truth is that a) term limits are not part of our governance tradition in Canada, b) there are no instances of term limits in the country, and c) there is no political will in Ontario politics to make it happen. (If only because it would present the possibility of a domino effect: next up might be MPPs, and then MPs.)

So what I'm going to suggest is entirely playful conjecture, and the fact that I'm even bothering, reinforces my belief that The Great Governance Formula really, really needs to be reassessed: that councillors should not be so 'isolated' as to remain mute on such an important issue, especially given its coverage in The Spec, at Raise the Hammer and by CBC Hamilton. 

So my suggestion is that we have term limits. 

A limit of one term. 

Therefore, nobody will be playing it safe. 

Therefore, nobody will be offering up what amount to campaign sound bites to questions that deserve honest, humane responses. 

Therefore, nobody will be staying out of the fray in a situation such as the one revolving around The Hamiltonian's efforts, for fear they're going to appear foolish, or simply not up to the task. 

Therefore, councillors will put everything on the line every day, knowing that there's nothing to guard against, no risk...because there's no hope of serial re-election. 

The expected reaction? 'But the ramp-up to competency each time means that we'd be risking stability at City Hall!' and 'We'd be throwing away experience every time we had an election!'

My responses to these responses? a) Surely anyone who's for term limits inherently acknowledges the risk of a diminution of stability in wanting to get 'fresh faces' in at Council. (Such as CHML's Scott Thompson, who opined during the last election campaign that Hamiltonians should 'Vote them all out!'), and b) See 'a'. 

Seriously, in this imaginary premise of mine, maybe we could have the terms staggered. So that you have half or a third of Council being elected each time. (Yes, meaning more elections. But with less wards affected each time.) And if someone had the sort of conviction that's habitually maintained ('I'm serving the public good, I'm not in it for job security'), then taking four years off as a 'sabbatical', one in which more experience could be earned out in the 'real world', one in which community work could continue, wouldn’t this cancel out any loss of stability at Council?

Think of how much this might change councillors. No need for obfuscation, no need for grandstanding, no need for questionable behavioural ticks commonly displayed. 

Isn’t it a playful conjecture worth pondering?