Four-year council term is too long, for many reasons

by Elwood Varty

Nov 28, 2007

The four-year municipal council term poses a factual oxymoron. On the one hand, the commitment required by council members — with the support of their families, employers and their friends — for a four-year period is of heroic proportion. On the other hand, the very basis of transparent accountable democracy is frustrated by the electorate’s inability to replace council members for four years.

On May 10, 2006, Ontario budget Bill 81 was passed and buried in its content was a less-frequent voting on municipal councils. This effectively created a "democratic deficit" and demonstrated the results when there is little public input. The Ontario government was very self-serving and opportunistic in furthering its own focused timetable. The Ontario election is over and the freeze is about to come off property assessment. Municipalities will then have three years to confront the ensuing property tax crisis, while the Ontario government has time to be positioned for its next election.

This new four-year term of council is already starting to come home to roost in a very negative manner in Almaguin. The legislation was incomplete as it did not provide a solution for terminating or recalling unsuitable councillors.

The four-year term is an excellent opportunity for municipal council to set a goal for the completion of a couple of affordable projects, being reminded that there are a fixed number of taxpayers in Almaguin.

In Almaguin the logging industry has floundered, tourism is off 30 per cent, and there are large area plant closings. The global economy is here! Free trade sent our industries south of the border, and then on to Mexico. Call Bell telephone and you are connected to a call center in India. All manufacturing is overseas.

The only potential Almaguin growth sector is tourism and its service sector. Unfortunately, wages from this sector are very low. There is no evidence of