LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

It is Time to Consider Changes to How Council Meetings are Chaired

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted November 27, 2008)

Almost a year ago (Dec. 1, 2007), I posted an essay reflecting on that week's very confusing Council meeting which dealt with the contentious issues of HSR fare increases and garbage bag limits. I quoted one of the Councillors who felt the particular meeting to be 'the most confusing' meeting he had ever attended. Now a year later, some things have seemingly not changed.

This week Council again dealt with two other contentious issues: the fluoridation of our water supply and (surprise, surprise) HSR fare increases. On the first item, I believe, Council made the right decision by maintaining fluoride in our water, in spite of some very good points voiced by Councillor Whitehead whose arguments are enhanced by his own personal experience with his child's autism. "I'll take cavities over autism any day," is a pretty compelling statement. There is no evidence, however, linking fluoride with autism being forwarded by experts. To the contrary, the evidence, both anecdotal and expert, is overwhelming in showing fluoridation to have helped our communities rather than harming them. In fact, to me, it seems that cavities are relegated to the distant past. None of my grown children have ever had a cavity, while when I was growing up in the pre-fluoridation days, cavities were routine among children. Improved health care has undoubtedly had a role to play in obtaining these better dental results, but fluoridation has also been responsible. This surely helps all of us, but especially the working poor, of whom we have a plethora, who may not routinely attend dental appointments. This is a tragedy because we also know that dental health leads to better overall health. The converse is also true. Well-done Council!

The other issue concerned the perennial hot potato, HSR fare increases. What can I say? The debate wasn't particularly enlightened. The same points were made a year ago when an increase was approved. They will be made again when staff re-proposes them. The resulting action of failing to pass on an increase to users, in spite of generous exceptions for those who cannot truly afford an increase did several things. One, it cranked up more expenditure on the overall levy which will increase the taxes our community will be charged. Two, it potentially aggravates the ill-will of those who feel we should not be supporting public transit at all; and thirdly a tie vote on this issue demonstrated that Council is increasingly divided. The Mayor tried to show some leadership with a compromise motion but it too failed. He must be getting tired of losing almost every single vote he goes after. I feel badly for him.

But what the debate also showed was a structural weakness that the Mayor (any Mayor) encounters when he is asked to be both a facilitator of the meeting and a participant in it. You can't be player and referee at the same time!

I am also told that Fred is privately ready to throw up his hands, that he hates chairing these meetings. I don't know about this, but I am also told that some Councillors are frustrated by what they perceive to be his arbitrariness in allowing people to speak, while at the same time, interjecting himself more into the debate without due respect for the procedural requirements of a Chair; or due respect for those contrary positions being voiced by his opponents. Council has been good at moderating these dissatisfactions since the famous 'pen-throwing' incident that was reportedly caused by the Mayor not taking the offending Councillor seriously. This temperance is good. But, privately, I'm led to believe, the tensions are as raw as ever.

All of this may only be 'insider baseball'. But even to the untrained eye, it was clear from the pained expressions on the Mayor's face at this week's televised meeting, that he was not enjoying the process. I must confess that I only watched portions of the debate because of the Mumbai attacks which were more riveting, and switched to CNN while our Council was meeting. So, if I missed better highlights of the meeting, I apologize; however, given what I have been told by some participants, over time, I think I am safe in drawing the above conclusions.

I do recall when I chaired the meetings that I also and occasionally was given the same criticisms by some Councillors. I tended to resolve those as quickly as they were voiced by trying to be fair, impartial and allowing all to speak while reminding us of the procedural time-allotment rules. I also asked the Clerk to keep a close eye on proceedings and not be afraid to publicly direct me, as Chair, if we were straying from the established procedures. The Clerk and his assistants were very good. But it was hard to always get it right.

Here is what I would suggest that the Mayor and Council consider. Change fundamentally the Chairing process by allowing Councillors to rotate through the chairing of Council meetings. The rules can be re-written to accommodate this. The Mayor does not have to be the Chair. In fact, I believe under Regional government, Councillors routinely chaired their meetings. Even during our first term of the amalgamated City, when Bob Wade was Mayor, Councillors chaired the Committee of the Whole meetings. So, the same could be done now, this time at Council.

What would the benefits be? Firstly, it would free the Mayor up from the refereeing duties of a Chair to be a full participant in the debate. Secondly, it would allow the other Councillors who may feel that Fred isn't doing a good job chairing to see if they could do better. It isn't as easy as it looks. And finally, if there are some Councillors who 'monopolize' the proceedings, all Councillors, when they Chair, are responsible for controlling the rogue(s) among them. I am sure this dynamic will lead to a very healthy discussion between meetings that might improve both behaviour and decorum.

The only drawback that I can think of is that the Mayor might consider it a weakness to give up the chairing of Council meetings. If this is a concern, I think earlier precedent speaks against the worry. But more importantly, a more cohesive, smoothly-flowing Council will make everyone look good.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME