I'm a bit skeptical about the citizens' committee approach, but only because I worry that it creates a new problem, e.g. now someone has to choose the members of this committee. I might prefer an approach that looks for ways to strengthen the level of residents' input in the current appointment process. Part of this could be through the usual "e-mail your representative," but maybe a streamlined delegation process (e.g. shorter time limit, only allow delegations from the ridings with open seats) could allow residents to express reasons in favour of their preferred candidate? This does also create an unusual situation where residents would need to provide feedback to trustees who aren't their representative, e.g. when discussing how to fill the vacancy in Waterloo-Wilmot, the most important voices are the residents of that riding, so trustees from other ridings would need to be listening to Waterloo-Wilmot residents as well.
I think this midterm-vacancies are problem that democracies always struggle with -- even when there are by-elections, they often have lower turnout so they aren't as effective as regular elections. To put things in context, in the United States, in some states vacancies in the Senate are appointed by a single individual (the Governor), so even a high-stakes political office like the U.S. Senate has less democratic approaches to filling mid-term vacancies than our local school board!
I feel the timelines probably prevent a citizens committee from being a practical approach. 90 days is not a lot of time to recruit a committee and then recruit candidates and run the process. I also wouldn't want to make the timelines longer as it's important to have a full board compliment to do the work.
It's pretty clear that there are strong factions in play at WRDSB that probably make any solution extra challenging (I watched the meeting where they decided how to proceed and every vote broke along the same 6-3 lines).
I definitely agree that it's likely too late to strike up a citizens committee for these board appointments. However, Kitchener may be facing the same issue with the upcoming byelection in Kitchener Centre. Might that be an opportunity for such an approach?
The timelines are still a problem in Kitchener. Do you strike the committee in advance, and have low engagement if it's unused? Or do you wait and still have a time crunch?
For trustee positions I think KISS is in order. We had an election, if Andrew got elected, and then resigns, and Doris got the next highest number of votes, then please just offer her the position. We don't need a citizen's committee to look at resumes. How does one get 'elected' to that committee anyway? Perhaps we need a committee to supervise the organization of the committee?
As for the far more substantive positions of MLA, we really do need a by-election. It is an important job with a lot of responsibility so not at all the same as a trustee position.
BTW, why does it cost only $180K for a school board election in Halton Region and $500K here? That is a pretty bizarre difference.
The best time to create "a single process to be in place (byelection, appointment of runners-up or by application) that is consistently used when a vacancy comes up" was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.
Hm. Like personally, I think the issue comes from that it shifts the controversy from which councillor gets elected, to who in the committee gets elected. Because I've seen many places where committees have become more or less partisan. Like the Library Board, or the Police Boars, or the Urban Planning Board
I see no other solution other than the next candidate who received the largest volume of votes should be selected. To have the majority of distasteful 'Woke' counsillors choose is obviously upsetting.
It is more upsetting you 1. misspell "councillors" 2. find "Woke" to be "distasteful" and 3. assume a majority of councilors hold views based on ideology rather than facts and arguments presented during meetings.
I'm often surprised by how little thought many people seem to have given very little thought to the way rules around elections influence who runs and gets elected. I just have to shake my head when I hear someone say 'just appoint the runner up'. What if someone who is an absolutely great candidate runs, against only one other person---who's a total flake? The former gets a landslide and the loser just gets a single digit count. How would it be even remotely democratic to give the seat to the runner-up if the winner gets hit by a bus?
What about a system of first-past-the post (ie: the one we have right now) where people of a certain belief system decide among themselves to only field one candidate to avoid the sort of vote-splitting that sometimes allows wackos to get elected? This counts as good citizenship to me, and I would see handing over the office to some egoist who refused to stand down as simply punishing people for "doing the right thing".
One of the great things about just having the sitting members appoint a new colleague is that it dramatically lowers the sense of self-righteousness that someone would bring in if they felt that they were 'elected by the people'. As someone who was involved in politics for decades, I learned that it is a good idea to limit the number of people in office who get mandates by direct election because these folks often have no sense of obligation to get along with other people---which can lead to the sort chaos pointed towards by the adage 'too many cooks spoil the broth".
Thank you for this article. I have lived in Canada as an immigrant since 2005, my Permanent Resident status switched to Canadian Citizen in 2009. It is now 2023. I have mentioned in many other places and I shall make this same comment once more: I do not believe that the pre-requisites required for a democracy, or a meritocracy, are fulfilled by the current population. That leaves a small group of privileged people to implement any democratic processes/procedures, a group quite disconnected and ignorant to the depth of true suffering present, ignorant to the rampant systemic violence which creates debilitating suffering which prevents many from participating in the act of even wanting to read about anything related to democracy. I would go even further to say that the current space normalizes violence and suffering to the extent that the pre-requisites for enlightenment, as attained by Lord Buddha Shakyamuni several millennia ago - prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, are not fulfilled. A space which is not conducive to health of mind, and neglects the protection of ones' mind/heart - as contrasted with the extremes taken with "property" - can never be conducive towards Buddhadhamma, towards peaceful, non-violent people, towards education & communication, or towards democracy & meritocracy.
I find what is described as "political attack ads" which air frequently over the media here to be incredibly childish, immature, infantile and pathetic. This is just one public form of evidence of the toxic, lousy, unmeaningful anti-culture hidden behind supposedly prestigious titles. I would be embarrassed knowing that such things were being broadcasted for the world to see and hear if I had any sense of connection to Canada whatsoever to begin with. Fully grown adults exploiting tactics for provincial or national level elections which would be crude even for a high-school popularity contest while untold masses suffer in a cruel, heartless, neglectful country which seems to pride over and protect garbage parenting, inept & incompetent professionals, simply because it allows for wholesale discards of any interaction or conversation that may lead towards truth and away from the narratives which are protected in the same way a child protects a toy.
I'm a bit skeptical about the citizens' committee approach, but only because I worry that it creates a new problem, e.g. now someone has to choose the members of this committee. I might prefer an approach that looks for ways to strengthen the level of residents' input in the current appointment process. Part of this could be through the usual "e-mail your representative," but maybe a streamlined delegation process (e.g. shorter time limit, only allow delegations from the ridings with open seats) could allow residents to express reasons in favour of their preferred candidate? This does also create an unusual situation where residents would need to provide feedback to trustees who aren't their representative, e.g. when discussing how to fill the vacancy in Waterloo-Wilmot, the most important voices are the residents of that riding, so trustees from other ridings would need to be listening to Waterloo-Wilmot residents as well.
I think this midterm-vacancies are problem that democracies always struggle with -- even when there are by-elections, they often have lower turnout so they aren't as effective as regular elections. To put things in context, in the United States, in some states vacancies in the Senate are appointed by a single individual (the Governor), so even a high-stakes political office like the U.S. Senate has less democratic approaches to filling mid-term vacancies than our local school board!
Agreed. Just spend the money for an election. Democracy ain't cheap, but worth it.
I feel the timelines probably prevent a citizens committee from being a practical approach. 90 days is not a lot of time to recruit a committee and then recruit candidates and run the process. I also wouldn't want to make the timelines longer as it's important to have a full board compliment to do the work.
It's pretty clear that there are strong factions in play at WRDSB that probably make any solution extra challenging (I watched the meeting where they decided how to proceed and every vote broke along the same 6-3 lines).
I definitely agree that it's likely too late to strike up a citizens committee for these board appointments. However, Kitchener may be facing the same issue with the upcoming byelection in Kitchener Centre. Might that be an opportunity for such an approach?
The timelines are still a problem in Kitchener. Do you strike the committee in advance, and have low engagement if it's unused? Or do you wait and still have a time crunch?
For trustee positions I think KISS is in order. We had an election, if Andrew got elected, and then resigns, and Doris got the next highest number of votes, then please just offer her the position. We don't need a citizen's committee to look at resumes. How does one get 'elected' to that committee anyway? Perhaps we need a committee to supervise the organization of the committee?
As for the far more substantive positions of MLA, we really do need a by-election. It is an important job with a lot of responsibility so not at all the same as a trustee position.
BTW, why does it cost only $180K for a school board election in Halton Region and $500K here? That is a pretty bizarre difference.
The best time to create "a single process to be in place (byelection, appointment of runners-up or by application) that is consistently used when a vacancy comes up" was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.
Hm. Like personally, I think the issue comes from that it shifts the controversy from which councillor gets elected, to who in the committee gets elected. Because I've seen many places where committees have become more or less partisan. Like the Library Board, or the Police Boars, or the Urban Planning Board
I see no other solution other than the next candidate who received the largest volume of votes should be selected. To have the majority of distasteful 'Woke' counsillors choose is obviously upsetting.
It is more upsetting you 1. misspell "councillors" 2. find "Woke" to be "distasteful" and 3. assume a majority of councilors hold views based on ideology rather than facts and arguments presented during meetings.
I'm often surprised by how little thought many people seem to have given very little thought to the way rules around elections influence who runs and gets elected. I just have to shake my head when I hear someone say 'just appoint the runner up'. What if someone who is an absolutely great candidate runs, against only one other person---who's a total flake? The former gets a landslide and the loser just gets a single digit count. How would it be even remotely democratic to give the seat to the runner-up if the winner gets hit by a bus?
What about a system of first-past-the post (ie: the one we have right now) where people of a certain belief system decide among themselves to only field one candidate to avoid the sort of vote-splitting that sometimes allows wackos to get elected? This counts as good citizenship to me, and I would see handing over the office to some egoist who refused to stand down as simply punishing people for "doing the right thing".
One of the great things about just having the sitting members appoint a new colleague is that it dramatically lowers the sense of self-righteousness that someone would bring in if they felt that they were 'elected by the people'. As someone who was involved in politics for decades, I learned that it is a good idea to limit the number of people in office who get mandates by direct election because these folks often have no sense of obligation to get along with other people---which can lead to the sort chaos pointed towards by the adage 'too many cooks spoil the broth".
Thank you for this article. I have lived in Canada as an immigrant since 2005, my Permanent Resident status switched to Canadian Citizen in 2009. It is now 2023. I have mentioned in many other places and I shall make this same comment once more: I do not believe that the pre-requisites required for a democracy, or a meritocracy, are fulfilled by the current population. That leaves a small group of privileged people to implement any democratic processes/procedures, a group quite disconnected and ignorant to the depth of true suffering present, ignorant to the rampant systemic violence which creates debilitating suffering which prevents many from participating in the act of even wanting to read about anything related to democracy. I would go even further to say that the current space normalizes violence and suffering to the extent that the pre-requisites for enlightenment, as attained by Lord Buddha Shakyamuni several millennia ago - prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, are not fulfilled. A space which is not conducive to health of mind, and neglects the protection of ones' mind/heart - as contrasted with the extremes taken with "property" - can never be conducive towards Buddhadhamma, towards peaceful, non-violent people, towards education & communication, or towards democracy & meritocracy.
I find what is described as "political attack ads" which air frequently over the media here to be incredibly childish, immature, infantile and pathetic. This is just one public form of evidence of the toxic, lousy, unmeaningful anti-culture hidden behind supposedly prestigious titles. I would be embarrassed knowing that such things were being broadcasted for the world to see and hear if I had any sense of connection to Canada whatsoever to begin with. Fully grown adults exploiting tactics for provincial or national level elections which would be crude even for a high-school popularity contest while untold masses suffer in a cruel, heartless, neglectful country which seems to pride over and protect garbage parenting, inept & incompetent professionals, simply because it allows for wholesale discards of any interaction or conversation that may lead towards truth and away from the narratives which are protected in the same way a child protects a toy.