By G.D. Maxwell
This is undoubtedly my most important column of the new year… so far. Okay, cheap joke. But it is important and it is about local politics. Bear with me though, there’s a surprise in here somewhere.
As surprises go it’s nowhere as good as 107 centimetres of snow on Christmas day but it’s way better than having some knob from Washington choose the Marketplace parking lot and the front of your beater as the setting to discover he doesn’t know the difference between reverse and drive in his sport virility vehicle. As Michael says, "Do they drive this way at home?"
So we’ve dodged the ghost of the season of ’76, all the ghosts of Christmas, the fuzzy ghosts of New Year’s and as soon as we get the Election That Won’t End over with, we can get on with our hedonistic pleasures, sliding merrily down uncrowded weekday mountains, drinking in uncrowded bars, choosing with whom we’re civil. But there is that pesky runoff election coming up in a week. Damned inconvenient that.
It’s still pretty hard to believe that with over 3,100 people casting ballots last November the same number of people voted for two different candidates… for the sixth and final council seat no less. In a more perfect democracy, we’d only be voting for one of those two people. Let’s face it, the other nine lost once already. But our local election laws seem to have been written in the same spirit of Canadian inclusiveness that lets all but the absolutely worst teams into the hockey playoffs. I don’t get it.
There is no understandable concept of fairness that embraces letting the losers run over again in a runoff election caused by the tie of the two people who beat them all once. It amounts to one monumental do-over worthy of the Seinfeld writers. The voters were heard once, y’all lost. What are you still doing here?
I understand the desire to run for public office, the chance to serve your community, leave your mark, do good deeds, have a say in what needs to be said. And I respect everyone who ran. Heck, some of ’em I even like. But I can’t seriously believe any one of the nine who received fewer votes than Marianne Wade and Dave Kirk think it’s fair – or democratic – that they should be joining in a runoff election. I wish them well next time around and think several of them would be good councillors, but that should be decided three years from now.
Yes, that’s the way the rules read. But funny thing about that, I haven’t been able to find anyone who can explain to me why the rules are set up that way. Who, in antiquity, thought this was the correct way to settle a tie? And it gets worse! Apparently this municipality, any municipality, can pass a bylaw allowing ties to be settled in more expedient ways. Toss of a coin. Drawing of a lot. Pistols at dawn. Whatever.
There are municipalities who have opted for such a tiebreaker rule. None of them toss coins or draw lots among everyone who lost. Only between the ones who tied. Of course that’s how it should be decided. Only between the ones who tied.
But that doesn’t solve my dilemma. In November, I endorsed both Marianne and Dave. I’d have been happy if both of them won seats on the new council. I’d be even happier if I could just dodge this runoff but I can’t. For two reasons. First reason is because I feel compelled to voice my protest that it’s a runoff between 11 people, not two. That’s been done.
Second reason is because I feel compelled to recommend Dave over Marianne. Sorry Marianne. Stick around; you’ll make it next time around.
So why Dave Kirk? Let’s get a few things straight up front. I don’t work for Dave. I’m not a close personal friend of Dave. We’ve never skied together, never been to each other’s house. Had a few cups of coffee and discussed a few issues during the course of some interviews.
It was during those interviews I found myself growing in respect for Dave. I was impressed by his motives for being on council – a truly altruistic desire to serve his community. I was impressed by his grasp of issues and his understanding of Whistler’s history. I was enlightened by his insistence on weighing the importance of decisions that would affect the future of this town against a clear understanding of how we got to where we are. I was heartened by his desire to find common ground when council was divided over issues. And I was surprised by stands he took on certain issues.
I was surprised because up until I got to know him a little better, I didn’t much like Dave the councillor. I thought he was a shill for business issues and a guy who’d outlived his usefulness. I was wrong. Dave’s as much the conscience of council as Kenny’s the consciousness-raiser.
This was never more apparent than when the World Economic Forum was wooing Whistler behind closed doors last year. And here’s the surprise for those of you who’ve stuck with me this far. Dave’s the guy who blew the whistle. Yup, Dave. Those of you who patted me on the back for writing my series of columns throwing light on the whole sordid affair and speculated that it was Kenny playing Deep Throat, you’re wrong. Dave’s the guy who deserves the pats.
Dave stood up and spoke out from the moment the issue was raised. He objected to the secrecy and he objected to the merits of inviting the WEF. He didn’t think it would be good for business – the Dave we know – and he didn’t think it would be good for the resort or the community. He wasn’t alone; Ken and Steph agreed, council was split.
But no one spoke up.
When it finally got intolerable, when he finally believed it was going to be a deal that never saw the light of day or got the public input he felt it absolutely deserved, Dave searched his soul and took the only action he believed was right. He called me. He shared information, named names, provided enough details that I could verify them through independent sources. I couldn’t believe my luck.
The rest of the story is well known. This town shook off its apathy and put up a howl that reverberates still around muni hall. We became energized. Petitions were circulated, ads were run, debates took place and it all culminated in a raucous public meeting were citizen after citizen let Whistler’s leaders know exactly what they thought.
I don’t know what would have happened had Dave gone along with the others and kept his mouth shut. But I do know what happened because he spoke out. And I’m grateful to him for having done so.
You should be too.
That’s why I support Dave Kirk. You have to decide for yourself.
