Larry's Corner

How Elusive is Council Consensus?

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted March 17, 2008)

I was channel surfing Sunday morning and caught 5 or ten minutes of Council’s debate on whether to purchase land up at the airport for runway expansion and other purposes. It was a spirited debate which split Council right down the middle. The amendment lost on an 8 to 8 vote and the main motion to purchase the land won on a 9 to 7 vote. That is as close as it can get.

I don’t want to comment on the merits of the motion, although I was involved in similar negotiations when Mayor; what intrigued me was the split on Council. I wondered whether other significant votes also created a split in ideology or other political lines. In fact, one of the speakers at this meeting was Councillor Brian McHattie who chastised my winner-take-all approach to major issues. He lamented that I tallied votes to get majority support when what I should have been doing was working towards consensus.

He had it wrong, of course. I always strove for consensus, but also knew that it was difficult to achieve. Searching for consensus can be a paralyzing experience because all it takes is one naysayer to block an agenda. And my Council had more than one naysayer along with Mr. McHattie. So, I went for consensus and settled for majority. I never lost a major vote as the result of this strategy. It took resolve and negotiations to bring people on side; but that is the role of a Mayor, to lead. Although, I was willing to compromise on issues to make the best decisions, I wasn’t willing to back down or capitulate on the best outcome for the city thereby earning me the ire of some of my colleagues.

I could give many examples of my willingness to find consensus, but the only major issue I compromised on was the Lister Block, and look at where that got us! If you will recall, after I convinced Council to support demolition of that building and replication, I also suggested that we take a month to examine the costs of restoration. We were helped by the Provincial government, and structured a committee to examine the whole question of restoration. This committee included some of the vocal preservationists. Councillor McHattie went off on a well-earned vacation for the month of the committee’s work and it was left to the bright Councillor Maria Pearson and myself along with several preservationists, a couple of architects, a citizen appointee, representatives from LIUNA and High Rise and staff to sort through all the issues. One month became two. Two became three, three brought us close to the election and the rest is history. If I had still been Mayor, the Lister…oh well, no use in surmising the what-if’s!

On the issue of whether consensus is a possible, desirable force or a negative, stultifying one, let me make a couple of points.

One of the things that Mayor Fred should be congratulated on, when he assumed power, was stating that his leadership would be more consensual. He vowed that he would be more looking for the middle ground, rather than imposing solutions on Council. This is idealism at its best. I remember making the same comments during my maiden speech at our Council’s inauguration. I spoke of “Team Hamilton” as voted on by the Hamilton electorate, and pointed to each sitting member of Council. I spoke of common agendas and moving the city forward. I meant every word I said.

The reality of government quickly taught me, though, that to really move things forward one had to be bold, often in the face of concerted opposition whether from some members of the community or from some Council members. I always took the time to listen, but always sought to lead.

What have the results of Mayor Fred’s more consensual style been? Has it produced the desired consensus on major agenda items? Or even minor ones? I recall that even a discussion on ‘goals’ led by Dr. Bart, Council agreed to disagree. Certainly, on this issue regarding the airport, Council seems to be much divided.

What about other major issues? One would have to look at the minutes of recorded votes to draw firm conclusions, but I do recall some other points of division on Council. Last year’s budget, as an example, narrowly passed. This was shocking to me. I believe all of my budgets were almost unanimously supported. The only dissenting vote, as I recall, was Councillor Mitchell and he actually voted in favour of the budgets on behalf of his Stoney Creek residents, but against on behalf of his Glanbrook residents. You figure that one out!

Recently, there have been other divisions; the debate on the one bag waste limit was split down the middle. The HSR fare increase debate had a similar split. The ethics commissioner debate seems to have divided Council. I am sure there are other examples, but those are a few major ones that come to mind.

So, is consensus possible? Is it desirable? Or is the inevitable cut and thrust of political life a divided Council? Is it a sign of failure on the part of Council to strive for consensus and fall so short?

The point is that we cannot fault anyone for this ‘lack of consensus’. It is the very nature of democratic bodies that differing points are debated and voted on. The secret of good government is not that the differences occur, but that the implementation, once the decision is made, is supported by the whole regardless of how each voted. I believe that once Council understands this aspect of their democracy, all else will fall into place.

Consensus, therefore, should still be a guiding principle, but its achievement should be seen as a gift of circumstance rather than an occurrence to be taken for granted. The corollary is equally true. As one strives for unanimous approval, one should never forget that a majority of votes also moves the yardsticks on what’s good for this community.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER