Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Four more years?

Whistler councillors have mixed feelings on extending terms
63171_l

The provincial government announced last week that it will be implementing new municipal election rules recommended by a government task force.

A joint report by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and the provincial government recommended 31 changes to the municipal election process. The province said they will introduce legislation next spring so the rules will be in effect for the municipal elections in the fall of 2011.

Most of the recommendations are concerned with campaign finance, including banning anonymous campaign donations, capping the amount of campaign donations and making campaign finance disclosure statements available earlier and in an electronically searchable format.

There is one recommendation that stands out and has received mixed reactions from Whistler council - and surely from councils across B.C. It could potentially change the course of municipal politics in the province: four-year terms instead of three.

Pique spoke to five of the seven council members to get their thoughts on the changes. Five members that we spoke to spoke to two issues: banning anonymous campaign donors and extending council terms to four year. (Eckhard Zeidler didn't comment on donation bans and Grant Lamont was unavailable for comment by press time).

On banning anonymous donors, they all agreed it's a good idea (Ted Milner said it might be "overkill" but still agreed). On four-year terms, well... not so much.

Ted Milner: For the change

He said that that a four-year term is "probably a good idea" in that, with an extra year, council has more time to follow through with whatever projects they have started before voters head to the polls.

"I don't think it should affect us either way, good or bad frankly," he said in a phone interview. "I think the old two-year terms were not long enough, they'd go by so fast you could hardly do anything.

"Either way, if you're going to be screwin' up, you're going to screw it up over three or four years," he joked.

He said he hasn't decided yet whether or not he'll run in the 2011 election but he says an extra year on the term won't make much of a difference to him.

"Three years goes by so fast, I reckon four will too," he said.

Chris Quinlan: For the change

"I would agree with part of the reasoning for (four terms)," Quinlan told Pique . "The amount of time it takes for a councillor to get up to speed on everything and actually see some movement made forward, you know, it's a year to get people... functioning as a contributing member of council."

He said that's especially the case in Whistler, where it takes time and some getting used to all the partners that are involved in decision-making.

"When you have a better understanding of how things work, you can hit the ground running."

He said that the current council didn't have that luxury and were thrown into "some pretty big things right away."

Then there's Silly Season - the six to eight months leading up to an election that Quinlan said is almost a year of council not functioning as a normal council. That extra year would benefit the municipality because they have more time to "actually act as a council."

"On the negative side," he said, "(voters) wouldn't be able to toss them out in three years. They'd have to wait for four years. But I think they'd probably see a more consistent (council)."

Eckhard Zeidler: Against the change

Zeidler sees no benefits whatsoever in a longer term.

"The dynamic of being able to affect change through a shorter term makes more sense to me than leaving people in place for longer," he said.

"Good ideas moving forward should easily stand the test of new people on council."

With that said, a longer term would not affect his decision to run in the next election, if he chooses to do so.

"I think if you're committing to doing the best job you can for your community, whether it's three or four years, you play by those rules and do the best job that you can," he said.

Ralph Forsyth: Against the change

Forsyth is "disappointed" with the recommendation, saying that "it's too long for municipal council."

He also disagrees with the argument that council can get more done and see more follow-through with an extra year. He said four-year terms at the provincial and federal level are necessary because it takes time for bills to pass through legislatures.

That's not so at the municipal level.

"Ask for a staff report and two weeks later you're voting on stuff," he said.

"In 18 months, you can achieve an enormous amount if you're focused and the council has clear objectives of what they want to accomplish. You can achieve an awful lot in a short time."

He said municipalities will probably see fewer candidates making the commitment to four years. "That's a big commitment. Two terms, that's eight years, right?"

Not for him, though. He said it won't deter him from running in the next election.

He'd like to see campaign donors receive tax receipts, which isn't the case currently, and hasn't been included in the recommendations.

Tom Thomson: Against the change

"Four years is too long to saddle a community before they have the opportunity for change," Thomson told Pique.

"Simply put, the municipality is a more hands-on, more day-to-day operation than I think most things are, and I think... in the brief time that I've had in office, four years before we have change is too long."

Thomson feels that four years might be a deterrent in some communities, where mayors and councillors are volunteer positions. He said councillors in Whistler are "reimbursed a bit," (around $20,000) and adding that extra year of service would be "a little long in the tooth."

"You get into the American system and somebody gets in for six years and says, 'Well, I can accomplish a lot' but they can also do a lot of detriment, or nothing at all. Whereas I think three years requires a performance that requires a performance factor that might not be there in the longer term."

He's displeased with how these changes are coming about as well. Thomson described them as brought down from "on high," with little public consultation.

"They've taken a census, they read the census any way they want and say 'This is how you feel about it.' We don't have a lot of comeback on that."

So, will this affect whether or not he will run again?

"I have a lot of stamina. I could probably go for it," he said.

Ken Melamed: Unclear

The mayor said he "has mixed feelings" about a four-year term, but can see why the province will be implementing the change, namely to be more in step "with the rest of Canada."

He sees some of the benefits. It can give more time to break in newly elected councillors, as well as deliver on their mandate before the next election cycle. He says it could also "theoretically" reduce costs by extending the term, getting more years of service.

On the other side, he says that the term of service is a "barrier" for some people to serve as elected officials in their community.

"I would like to think that we would take steps to reduce the number of barriers rather than increase them. But you know, it depends on each person's individual views. Some people might see it as an incentive - they wouldn't have to worry about an election for another four years."

He said he hasn't decided if he's going to run in the next term.

He avoided a question about whether or not these new rules would influence his decision to run, saying instead that he was at a UBCM meeting several years ago where the board rejected extending the terms.

"At the time I sided with the UBCM because four years is a long time to commit for many people," Melamed said.

But now?

"It sounds like a done deal, doesn't it?"