Larry's Corner
| Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks |
 Council Looking to Increase the Size of Council
By Larry Di Ianni
(posted October 23, 2007)
The Media has already reported on it; Council has already had one discussion on the possibility of increasing Council’s size from the existing 16 members, including the Mayor, to at least 17 members.
I caught the debate on a re-broadcast of the Council meeting this past Sunday morning. It was by and large an intelligent debate, but what was unsaid is more important than what was said.
Let me recap. Led by two inner city councillors, a motion was put on the table to review the make-up of Council including a special look at the oversized wards, notably Ward 7 and Ward 8 on the mountain, with a view of increasing the size to more fairly provide representation for those wards in the former city of Hamilton. The reality as it now exists has 8 members of Council representing the former city of Hamilton, and 7 representing the former suburbs with the Mayor being elected at large.
The argument put forward by Councillor Whitehead is that just one of the two large wards has more people than the entire suburbs put together. By restricting these wards to just one rep, effectively cheats those residents of just representation.
Councillor Brad Clark who represents a former suburban area in Upper Stoney Creek led the opposing arguments. He pointed out that Canada is made up of jurisdictions that don’t follow the rep by pop rules. He cited Prince Edward Island as an example. He also spoke of a Supreme Court decision on the issue which stated that rep by pop is but one criteria; and not the main one, in deciding political configurations. Mr. Clark also reminded Council of the need to remember why the existing configuration was put in place, at a time when amalgamation was being pushed onto unwilling partners. This ‘sensitivity’ to the suburbs was intended to assuage sore feelings all around. To reopen the debate is akin to reopening the amalgamation wound.
So far so good. All the arguments made, for or against, seem reasoned and deserving of a good airing. But what has been left unsaid?
What isn’t being debated so far is the economic consequences for the old city and the suburban parts in tilting the balance away from the current situation to a majority of Council being from either the old city or the suburbs. Tensions still exist. The suburban councillors still feel they are being short-changed by the system which was set up to help the aging, needy city of Hamilton, they would say. The city representatives, of course make the opposing argument. Hamilton is overtaxed and the suburbs are the beneficiaries of this arrangement, they would argue. Who is right? Who is wrong? More on this later.
However, one thing is abundantly clear. If Council wants its citizens to rally around one or the other option, they need to be honest about ALL the reasons for going in a new direction or staying the course.
To do less than provide complete transparency is to mislead at worst or to under inform at best. Neither is a good direction.
BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER
|
