Tinkering for tinkering’s sake?
By Medicine Hat News Opinon on May 24, 2018.
Would you support term limits to get so-called “career politicians” out of local government? How about a law preventing qualified candidates with experience from seeking public office? To most ears, the first likely resonates, while the second sounds like pure silliness. Yet, those are the same question, expressed from two sides in the debate about municipal term limits that arose recently in Medicine Hat. They aren’t the official positions espoused in chambers earlier this month, though they are the undertones of a growing local debate. The issue arose when Coun. Kris Samraj brought up the issue, saying that he only wants a debate to take place. Since such changes would be the provincial government business, his motion suggested Medicine Hat take it to the Alberta Urban Municipal Association, which lobbies the government. Term limits, he says, will increase participation and give added options to local governments. Three other councillors agreed, though the motion fell by a 5-4 vote as opponents cited local autonomy, practicality, and basic democratic principles. If limits on people seeking re-election are discussed, then what other changes are on the table, surmised Coun. Julie Friesen. “Maybe only people you want to win should be allowed to run,” she said. That may seem dramatic, but it also seems something is being left unsaid. Medicine Hat council saw a huge turnover since a frustrated electorate voted in 2013 to leave veteran councilmen Graham Kelly and John Hamill out of office. It’s been 20 years since Ted Grimm won the last of his eight elections for mayor. Before that Harry Veiner served 20 years in different stretches. As much as Veiner is well-remembered today, at the time, as with Grimm, he had his detractors who grew increasingly frustrated as the popular mayors won election after election. Whether this is still a concern in the long memories of Medicine Hatters is debatable. But it’s certainly a issue in Calgary, where a similar proposal was debated with rancour late last year. It’s hard not to think that term-limit champion, councillor Jeromy Farkas, a former Manning Institute employee, was swayed by the third straight electoral win for popular, progressive mayor Naheed Nenshi. What’s the motivation in Medicine Hat? Samraj says he only wants to have the discussion and discussion is healthy. Indeed, he’s been most willing to bring more weighty issues up at council. Arguing for practicality, Coun. Darren Hirsch, who led a political action committee in 2013 that influenced voters with a call for change, says that political process worked in that case. He voted against the term-limit debate saying that of losing experienced legislators, perhaps on mass, was worrisome. Coun. Phil Turnbull said greater turnover meant new ideas and new vigour in government. A local option for term limits, said Samraj, is still just an option. However, for local councils to enact or remove limits to suit a particular purpose, hardly sounds like a recipe for fair play. Medicine Hat’s two longest-serving councillors — Friesen and Robert Dumanowski — oppose the idea, leading to calls they might be looking out for themselves. That would be more convincing if they weren’t both so successful in recent council elections. Dumanowski was tops in both 2013 and 2017. Friesen, top four in the last three council elections, also placed a close second place for mayor in 2010. Yet, hang around long enough and you’ll hear someone in Medicine Hat talk about changing the system that elects the top eight. A surprising number of local council candidates in 2017 began discussing how perhaps a ward system might be better. Philosophically, we can all support the idea of democratic renewal. Can we or do we support changing the rules just because we may not like the results? Or tinkering for tinkering’s sake? (Collin Gallant is a News reporter. To comment on this and other editorials, go to https://www.medicinehatnews.com/opinions.) 36-35
