Opinion

Democracy Unplugged at City Hall

The risk Vancouver runs by killing citizen advisory committees.

By Herb Barbolet, 15 Dec 2005, TheTyee.ca

plugsockets123

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

In his inaugural address, Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan announced that he is calling for a review of the roles, responsibilities and relationships (three Rs) of city councillors and bureaucrats "to ensure that both groups understand both the limits and the powers of their jobs". Apparently he thinks that they do not.

His call for a 3 Rs review could reinvigorate democracy in the city, or it could close it down further. The review is certainly timely and appropriate. The manner in which it is structured and conducted will tell us everything about the outcomes.

Engaging the public

Although municipal government is closest to where people actually live and affects us most directly, voter turnout indicates most people are not very engaged in the democratic process.

Voting is not the only way in which citizens engage with the political process. In Vancouver, there are twenty-four citizen advisory bodies and taskforces. The city conducted its last comprehensive review of advisory committees only two years ago.

Hundreds of people concerned with the welfare of the city donate many thousands of unpaid hours a year participating in these councils and commissions. Sullivan, as part of the review, is asking city council to determine if these advisory bodies are the best way to get input from citizens. In the meantime, 13 of these bodies have been discharged - i.e. not reappointed - pending the outcome of the review.

Last November, the city held a wine and cheese party at the Orpheum Theatre for the city's volunteers. Mayor Campbell acknowledged that advisory committee members (many of whom are highly paid professionals) donated time and experience worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for the city.

Bureaucrat or civil servant?

Now, Mr. Sullivan wants to suspend the activities of all of the city's citizen advisory committees not mandated by law. Is that a good idea?

It really depends upon one's vision for the city. Maybe, as some say, there are two types of people - those who divide people into two types and those who don't. By this typology, there are some people who believe that city hall should ensure the garbage is picked up and the roads are repaired - and little or nothing more. "Let the free market prevail", they say. Others want the city to be involved with issues that concern them, whether it is the arts and culture, heritage buildings, food policy, or a long list of other issues.

Some people believe that once we elect the politicians it is the beginning and end of their democratic responsibilities. Others want to be able to participate in decisions about issues that may affect their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

Perhaps, by the same typology, there are two types of municipal employees - bureaucrats and civil servants. Bureaucrats, by my definition, are those who want to enact clear and efficient rules and regulations and enforce them. Civil servants, again, my definition, seek longer-term creative directions, a more open and Chaordic model - Chaordic being the word assigned by author Dee Hock to a mix of creative chaos and order.

But, of course, the world is not made up of only two types of people. The world is shades of grey and the rest of the spectrum. So, some civil servants and bureaucrats think that the fewest people make the best decisions possible - as long as they are included. Others believe wisdom comes from the people who have to live with the consequences of decisions that civil servants and politicians make, and therefore they want to involve as many people as possible in making those decisions.

The need for transparency

This then is the debate about how direct or representational democracy ought to be. After sufficient beer and a philosophical discussion that goes on long enough, one usually winds up at the same place:

People are basically good, and therefore democracy should be as direct as possible with the broadest possible public participation. Or,

People are basically evil, and therefore there should be strict controls set out and decisions made by a select few - benign or otherwise.

On the issue of Wal-Mart, some, including the mayor, wanted to take a narrow legalistic approach - this is about zoning and no other consideration should be entertained. A legitimate position.

Another approach, argued by others on the city council at the time, was to struggle through the gut level issues (What is a good corporate citizen? Are big box stores good employers? Do they destroy the local economy?), and work toward solutions. With sufficient process, even though some people will still not agree, the expectation is that they will at least understand and respect why the decisions were made as they were.

Mayor Sullivan has already expressed his views. "We (city council) have the role of setting policy and staff has the role of managing and implementing our policy." (Vancouver Sun, Dec 6, 2005, pg B5). If this statement is made quickly, and the conversation moves on, then it would appear on the surface to be reasonable.

It is not. How many great ideas and policies have there been that, when managed and implemented, turned to the organic waste Sullivan, rightly, wants to compost?

Politicians cannot, nor should they be expected to, manage the implementation of their policies. But left entirely to the bureaucracy, more red tape or different objectives often manifest.

I believe that the answer is more openness and transparency in government and many more opportunities, earlier in the game and throughout the process, for citizens to share their expertise and experience.

With the suspension of so many advisory committees, city hall's decision-making process is going to be less open and transparent. Presumably, any staff attached to the various advisory committees will be kept in place during a review. They will be no longer guided by members of the public on the committee, and thus, they will be only answerable to the bureaucracy - less democracy, not more.

Toronto does it better

I was hired as a consultant by the city to help them create the Vancouver Food Policy Council. City council passed a motion supporting "the development of a just and sustainable food system for the City of Vancouver".

Toronto created a Food Policy Council 10 years ago with basically the same mandate. However, in Toronto, the food council was equally responsible to citizens and to the bureaucracy. In Vancouver, the food council is answerable to the bureaucracy. Toronto's model is more powerful and dynamic.

Advisory committee members must be accountable. Most are expected to submit annual work plans, with concrete, achievable goals on matters within the city's jurisdiction, and to report annually to council on what they have achieved. They are also expected to integrate their work plans with the work plans of civic departments, to make effective use of everyone's time.

City council also expects advisory committees to work effectively with civic staff. The work plan should be integrated with staff work plans and programs. Staff can help to keep members informed about city initiatives and priorities, and members provide staff with advice from a community perspective. That is what happens with a truly open and transparent advisory committee process.

If city council and the staff are the only ones reviewing roles, responsibilities and relationships and creating a vision for 2010 and beyond, we will have missed an opportunity to reform and revitalize democracy in the City of Vancouver.

The NPA motion regarding the suspension of all Citizen Advisory Committees to City Council will be heard at the Committee meeting this afternoon (Thursday) from 2:00 on. To be put on the speakers list call Diane Clairmont at the City Clerk's office, at 604-871-6371.

Herb Barbolet is a member of the suspended Vancouver Food Policy Council. He has been an organic grower and is founder and executive director of Farm Folk/City Folk. [Tyee]

14 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • dangrice.com

    6 years ago

    Comments on "Democracy Unplugged at City Hall"

    I hope this is a temporary measure but I do believe some of the advisory committees need to be reworked. I think some, such as the peace and justice committee that were out of civic jurisdiction will likely be dropped as council was unable to do anything but pass "call upon" motions. I actually found it really difficult to find out what all of the 24 committees were. The closest link I could find was this: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/civicagencies/civicindex.htm, but the food committee seemed to show up someplace completely different.

    However from talking to Sam in the past, he said he was a strong supporter of citizens committee, and attended the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform and was a big supporter of the democratic process. He also indicated during the election that he wanted to add an advisory council to oversee police reforms.

    Advisory committees at all levels of government are one of the best ways to make recommendations, as they bring together a wide variety of interests from people who have no desire to otherwise muck their hands in politics.

    It will be interesting, with this and the proposed 311 system, whether we will actually get a better city hall.

  • dangrice.com

    6 years ago

    This is the last advisory review.

    http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20030116/pe4.htm

  • Martin

    6 years ago

    I agree with having a look at these. I've been a member of one of these committees in the past in my community. The problem is that some of these committees get taken over by people who are not representative of the whole community (not me, of course): neighbourhood busybodies with either nothing else better to do, or ones with their own agenda.

    Anyone who's ever been on a strata council has met them.

  • burner

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    After sufficient beer and a philosophical discussion that goes on long enough, one usually winds up at the same place:

    People are basically good, and therefore democracy should be as direct as possible with the broadest possible public participation. Or,

    People are basically evil, and therefore there should be strict controls set out and decisions made by a select few - benign or otherwise.

    you needed a few more beers.

    you could have come to the conclusion that politicians are basically evil, and therefore there should be strict controls set out on decisions made by a select few.
    democracy should be as direct as possible, with the broadest public participation.

    the misleadingly named npa is socred dominated, tho they call themselves liberals, and are not in favour of honest and open govt on any level.

  • DPL

    6 years ago

    Let's face it folks, by one means or another Sullivan won, COPE got chopped, some Visions Vancouver guys got in, and the NPA are back in the drivers seat. Bike lanes on the Burrand? Forget it. waht else did those awful folks under the new senator, and COPE do we can chop?

    Two weeks ago the Chief of Police was talking about Sullivan buying drugs for assorted adicts, would he be suitable for chair of the police board? So who showed up on TV last evening talking about Sullivan as a person who will fit right in. Might have something to do with the mayor's ability to drop a chief.

    Shut down a few committes, heck Gordon Campbell did that when he was mayor as well.

    If you got the numbers you can do anyhting.

    During the previous council, it was often said. "We support the Olympics and have the abilty to write bylaws to prevent removal of folks if the owners want to do as in Expo. Kick em out and gouge the tourist. Well just wait and see!

    Politics is weird and folks seem to forget who is screwing them the most. The NPA are drinking fancy stuff to celebrate their power over the city. If it means ignoring some poor folks, who cares, they don't normally vote NPA anyway. I wonder who Larson the guy who claims he invented Crab park was supporting? Maybe James Green. Get mad at Jim Green and vote somewhere else to get even even if it hurts yourself.

    Tommy Douglas used to talk about the mice and the cats, the mice knew the cats were going to treat them badly but still voted for the cats.

    Way to go Vancover voters.

    Why not a freeway through town to get the folks on the North Shore home a bit quicker.
    Let's get rid of the needle exchange and the safe injection sites, why not.

    Just ask Sam and he will deliver for you

  • Working Man

    6 years ago

    The title of this piece says it all; socialism is all about committes that yak and yak til midnight without getting anything done. Actually doing something would mean accountability and that is what socialists fear most. That is why socialist governments tend to be status quo in every respect. Even if the system does not work only the status quo can prevail. Leading is not very popular in the leftie scene.

    Have a read of this if you want a clear cut example:

    Cars: Analysis, History, Cases
    by Karel Williams, Colin Haslam

    It is a history of British Leyland Motors. Cars were once England's greatest export.

  • Stump

    6 years ago

    Working Man:

    Usually your posts have some good points. The previous example doesn't. Don't fall into the intellectually lazy trap of applying stereotypes just because they suit your ideology. Around here that's known as Erwin-itis.

  • Grumpy

    6 years ago

    The few number of posts indicates no one really cares about this subject. Samwise will do exactly what the people who paid for his election tell him.

  • Countrytype

    6 years ago

    I volunteer on one of the advisory subcommittees - not supposed to discuss which.

    Over the year, we have done a lot of information gathering from community sources to help inform council. Generally a lot of talk goes on, but there are decisions to be made and we educate eachother about the scope of each of our specialties and find ways of teaming up to get our work done. Roberts' rules of order are followed, and minutes are taken and submitted with suggested resolutions to our advisory committee.

    Without our volunteer time, staff, council and representatives from other civic bodies (police, school board, library) would know a lot less about our area of focus - they just don't have the time to get the information, and we help them connect across organizations with other champions and specialists of the topics they are investigating. They get more context than they would otherwise by having us around.

    We are a diverse group of people and each of us has been involved in our area of focus for quite some time. And we even have disagreements in the subcommittee - it proves that groupthink has not caught on yet!

    Best wishes to any other civic volunteers out there.

  • nightbloom

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    I volunteer on one of the advisory subcommittees - not supposed to discuss which.

    I find that interesting. Civil Servants are entitled to be faceless (except at the top, where they receive delegated executive powers), and politicians are not enitled to be faceless (because they are *responsible*)...but where do you fit in, I wonder?

    The article doesn't delve into a crucial issue: who decides the compostion of these committees? Are they selected from the professional bodies of a given sphere (with one or two token 'citizens at large'?) If this is the case, aren't we really talking about a form of veiled Corporatism (i.e. bureaucratized group interest moderation), not increased democracy? In what way are citizens' committees democratic - simply by virtue of employing the word 'citizen'?

    I can think of several glaring examples where the committees simply provided the 'moral authority' city managers needed to rubber stamp a policy they were already endorsing. Since these committees lack such moral authority in the first place (they are not elected, their selection is not transparent, and they are not known to the public), why perpetuate the fallacy? Just one example: I've poured over every scrap of information publicly available regarding the city's policy of licensing of non-alcohol cabarets (which effectively circumvents national drug laws in the absence of any legislative amendments to provide for standard law enforcement procedures) yet I couldn't find any evidence that any concern was ever expressed or articulated regarding the impact this would have on hard drug useage within a concentrated and insular community like the downtown community. 'Real' citizens had no input. There's no mechanism to appeal, and the city still refuses even to defend its policy (for the simple reason that they don't have to - it's an unquestioned fait accompli).

    So are these citizens' advisory committees really democratic bodies, or is this just another obscure pocket of authority where decision-making power is removed from the effective reach of the electorate?

  • nightbloom

    6 years ago

    ...Hmmm...looks like the local oligarchy is going to foil the review of these committees after all.

    My point stands - how are these committees democratic? ...Especially when their selection, composition and proceedings are a mystery to the public. Somebody enlighten me.

    Might as well call them Citizens' Star Chambers (to overstate slightly).

  • sabocracy

    6 years ago

    I'm a planning student who just finished a project evaluating the usefulness of citizen advisory boards and public participation in Toronto. In short: very useful! I'm dismayed that my hometown is considering suspending them indefinitely.

    In the case study I looked at, ads for citizen participants were taken out in newspapers. Applications were collected, and an interview process was conducted to ensure that the participants had "open minds" and would not benefit monetarily from the outcome. There were a few hiccups, but the two-year consultation process was viewed postively by all involved.

  • allan

    6 years ago

    Citizens's advisory committees, as long as they are carefully chosen to ensure honesty, diversity and understanding, are a crucial part of the democratic process.

    People who think citizen involvement in city hall begins and ends at the ballot box have a dangerously narrow understanding of democracy.

    If you do come across a committee that is populated by only one special interest group, whether it be developers, soccer moms, west end cremes de la creme or police volunteers, then it's time to sound the alarms as loud and as long as you must.

    Not only do advisory committees keep politicians on track and within the terms they are supposed to follow without undue outside interference, they are usually far more attuned to the specifics than any councillor or mayor could ever hope to be.

    In fact, if a politician already knows more than his advisory committee chances are he or she has an interest that ought to be discussed as a possible conflict.

    In short, an advisory committee should be a politicians' best friend, who, when needed, won't hesitate to speak frankly.

    When someone brings a new broom into council chambers the day after getting elected and announces without any real rational that it's time for everyone to step aside until a decision on their future need is completed, citizens should run.. to city hall and demand answers.

    I must say Vancouver was well represented by good citizens last week.

    I only wish people in smaller communities like Kamloops would stop being so quiet about sudden and dramatic changes proposed by politicians.

    It's a red flag that should stay up until politicians can fully explain things.

  • Chatterbox

    6 years ago

    Thanks Herb. A truer Jeffersonian there is not.

    Democracy is nothing if not inclusive. We have very little democracy in North America, and even less in Vancouver.

    Even people under foreign occupation vote more often, and HOW LONG DOES VOTING TAKE?!

    In the real world, however, not everyone will invest the time in every issue actually to help guide policy. Only the truely committed and (hopefully) best informed will step forward.

    Hence comes our citizen's committees, still representative or "republican" in form, but far closer to the democratic ideal.

    We need as much civic involvement as we can get, and these committees are just the start.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.