The recent 'Laircast' with Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead was an interesting listen. I liked his candour, his honesty, his very humanness.
But I do have to say that once the 'term limits' subject came up, things got a little more interesting. (The Hamiltonian has the Term Limits Edit of the show, while the full version can be found over at Laura Babcock's site.)
As you know, I'm against term limits. As I said in a recent Spec op-ed piece, "Term limits? We already have 'em: they're called elections." The private sector doesn't have term limits, arts, entertainment, sports... None of them do. And yet...
I was –essentially– taking the piss when I proposed the notion of a 'rotating one-term limit'. And yet despite fervently believing that the answer to what ails us has more to do with 'us' than 'them'...ie, vastly increased community engagement...I have to concede that there's some real cogency in the idea. (!!!)
And Councillor Whitehead's contributions to the conversation quite frankly had me doing spit-takes, and mentally wandering over to visit with The Term Limits Society.
I'm not going to deconstruct his responses; listen to the broadcast. But I will decant my reactions down to this: there is an underlying sense of entitlement to how the councillor (and I'm going to assume that he's not alone in this) sees the idea of continuation of service at City Hall on the parts of fellow (can't we have a gender-non-specific term?!?) councillors.
Which to me, sets up a fascinating parallel: many residents feel they're entitled to vote every four years, provide no input or feedback towards their own governance over the term, and expect to have things looked after to their satisfaction. There's no involvement, there's no 'stewardship'...there's a huge disconnect going on.
And on Council, seemingly, you have this attitude about service, that, to my ears, comes down to 'We should be free to be re-elected for as long a time as we deem we're capable and the voters are inclined to return us to office.'
To me, these are examples of entitlement.
(Never mind how I reacted to the fears about balancing out the City Staff 'corporate memory'...which in itself begs a very disturbing question about the inner dynamics at 71 Main Street West.)
I don't believe in mandatory term limits. But I also don't believe in non-engagement or anything resembling patronization.
To paraphrase Roy Scheider: "I think we're going to need a bigger discussion."
M Adrian Brassington
As you know, I'm against term limits. As I said in a recent Spec op-ed piece, "Term limits? We already have 'em: they're called elections." The private sector doesn't have term limits, arts, entertainment, sports... None of them do. And yet...
I was –essentially– taking the piss when I proposed the notion of a 'rotating one-term limit'. And yet despite fervently believing that the answer to what ails us has more to do with 'us' than 'them'...ie, vastly increased community engagement...I have to concede that there's some real cogency in the idea. (!!!)
And Councillor Whitehead's contributions to the conversation quite frankly had me doing spit-takes, and mentally wandering over to visit with The Term Limits Society.
I'm not going to deconstruct his responses; listen to the broadcast. But I will decant my reactions down to this: there is an underlying sense of entitlement to how the councillor (and I'm going to assume that he's not alone in this) sees the idea of continuation of service at City Hall on the parts of fellow (can't we have a gender-non-specific term?!?) councillors.
Which to me, sets up a fascinating parallel: many residents feel they're entitled to vote every four years, provide no input or feedback towards their own governance over the term, and expect to have things looked after to their satisfaction. There's no involvement, there's no 'stewardship'...there's a huge disconnect going on.
And on Council, seemingly, you have this attitude about service, that, to my ears, comes down to 'We should be free to be re-elected for as long a time as we deem we're capable and the voters are inclined to return us to office.'
To me, these are examples of entitlement.
(Never mind how I reacted to the fears about balancing out the City Staff 'corporate memory'...which in itself begs a very disturbing question about the inner dynamics at 71 Main Street West.)
I don't believe in mandatory term limits. But I also don't believe in non-engagement or anything resembling patronization.
To paraphrase Roy Scheider: "I think we're going to need a bigger discussion."
M Adrian Brassington
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'm always interested in feedback, differing opinions, even contrarian blasts...as long as they're delivered with decorum...with panache and flair always helping.