Democracy (IMHO)

16-Sep-2010 Posted by Chris on 16-Sep-2010 | View Comments

I spent the day in the City Council chambers today, and listened to the dozens of questions asked by councilors for and against the closure of the city centre airport. Everything I heard tought me a valuable lesson in what democracy really means to me.

It means that our elected officials are responsible to protect our interests as “shareholders” in taxpayer owned assets, and even more importantly defend and follow the well defined laws and processes that are in place to protect us when hard decisions must be made by them.

To make a very long story short, our city council took every reasonable and legal step to ensure that the decision to close the airport was not only the best one for the future of Edmonton (in their researched opinion), but also respected the law and integrity of the process.

In fact, and what should not be lost on anyone, is that each councilor will be held to account of their decision by the electorate on election day. The fact that they are willing to do that, with the current petition rules being applied to them like a boxer with a procedural hand tied behind their backs, makes me even more comfortable in their decision.

The problem with Envision Edmonton and their claims, is that they are not accountable to the same standards. They have used reckless hyperbole and innuendo, going so far as attacking the integrity of the unbiased city staffers and arms-length research firm used to verify the results.

What never gets talked about, is that they are free to say anything they wish, raise money from anywhere they want, with no limit on amounts or even disclosing who is behind their drive. Council and the Mayor are not so lucky.

So as Envision asserts that today’s decision is an attack at democracy, it is in fact the exact opposite. If Envision wanted to act within the confines of democracy, they would have played within the rules of the Municipal Government Act (A PROVINCIAL legislation designed to guide all municipalities in these processes).

So why is this democracy?

1) The MGA requires a petition to be registered withing 60 days of a council decision on an issue. This was a HUGE reason for the council to reject the petition, and for very good reason. Since the decision was made, millions and millions of dollars have been spent by city administration and Edmonton Airports (the land lease tenant) to implement the decision.

If this 60 day window did NOT exist, imagine the chaos when our governments would be frozen on nearly anything, operating in fear of having to reverse itself at the whim of a well-financed special interest group. (And one that has NO accountability on releasing information about WHO is financing it)

2) There simply are not enough rules around plebiscites that ensure integrity of the process. As it was mentioned in the council meeting today, the timing of the petition drive seemed to be more aligned with the Election Cycle and was politicaly motivated. Where was Envision Edmonton during those hearings, or why didn’t they file the petition when they were required to do so?

Why should an elected council, handcuffed by laws, rules and scrutinized process, allow a well-financed organization (which REFUSES to play by the rules, and REFUSES to be open with the electorate about who is funding it), define what democracy is?

3) Finally, and often overlooked, is that at least 650,000 Edmontonians did NOT sign the petition, and City Council has the highly regulated and structured responsibility to represent ALL Edmontonians. The assertion that disallowing the illegal petition is an obstruction of democracy is so blatantly biased and ridiculous, we must question the intellect or agenda of those screaming it. Since I know many smart people who truly felt that democracy was being stolen from them, I will suggest the latter.

The irony of the cries of anti-democracy is almost laughable. Their version of democracy is a strange one; where they expect the same people we elect to protect us, to throw the rules out the window when they demonstrate the ability to get tens of thousands of people to sign a piece of paper, with no respect for democratic process.

In my opinion, these are the questions that need to be asked of Envision Edmonton, and the Mayoral / Council candidates that they are openly supporting:

1) Why did they choose to disregard the rules of the Municipal Government Act? And more importantly, why did they mislead hundreds of very hard-working volunteers that their petition was both legitimate and an act of grassroots democracy?

2) Why haven’t they acted openly, and proactively establish some rules in their process, to at least win some trust for their process. (Paid bloggers, offering to pay community associations by the signature, and other questionable practices).

I am a huge supporter of the aviation community and industry in general. I would suggest that most of our elected officials, city administrators, and airport executive are as well. The problem for them, and luckily for those of us that they are paid to represent, is that there are guidelines, laws and processes that must be respected.

That is democracy. Imagine a reality where there was no such process. That is not democracy, and frankly it’s a scary opposite.

Craig

You post is laughable, you make tons of assumptions and incorrect statements. I will highlight to help you understand.

1. Why does there need to be a limit? You cite money/effort expended. Well that money/effort was expended after the last plebiscite. The city has acted in inappropriate was when it removed runway lights destroying infrastructure associated with the airport. In this specific case the city/eraa did not notify Nav Canada what it was doing and destroyed Nav Canada power backup systems at the airport. These had to be replaced. Seems that if you know a plebiscite was in the works you would stop making irreversible changes/intentional damage to assets. You state that respecting money spent is require for a democracy, yet it seems that it does not need to be followed on both sides.

2. What is your point? This is just an assumption the plebiscite was also around the time that the runway closure happened. Do you really think gathering 100,000 sig just happens on its own? Council has not acted within any reasonable way in this issue. Laws requiring ECCA to be run efficiently have not been followed. Your opinion seems to be EE did act like you wanted it to so its wrong, council/eraa not acting correctly is completely forgettable though.

3. I never even saw a person collecting sig for this petition, Why do you ASSUME that I agree with your side? Fact is this entire point means NOTHING. You are forcing your own opinion and pretending people agree with it because of common association. Not signing the petition and a persons opinion on this issue are completely different and unassociated. City council has NOT followed ALL Edmontonians wishes, you have no basis to claim other wise. Where as the pro vote on this issue has 100,000+ sig on their side.

1b. The petition drive was grass roots, any claim otherwise can not be substantiated with any facts what so ever.

2b. None of those practices are questionable, Mandel pays election staff to help people vote for him. How is this different then paying someone to collect sigs on a petition. It the same act of compensating someone for their time. Also lets see some evidence of paid bloggers, how would this different then the one sided coverage of the Edmonton Journal or the fact that the city did not commission even one pro ecca report?

I seriously doubt you care at all about the aviation community, it has been neglected in Edmonton for many years and has horrible infrastructure. Closing ECCA forces them to use airport not designed or intended for their planes. This can be a fatal safety issue. Anyone that did care would demand infrastructure be built before considering the closing of this airport. They would also understand how the distance to an airport seriously effects its users. ERAA has ignored and prevented growth at ECCA for years. This is common knowledge in the aviation community, if council cared they would have forced ERAA to live up to its obligations. If city council respected Edmonton they would hold a plebiscite on this issue.
Tom Booth

Well said Chris, and as for the comments of the "Unknown User" that follows, I think you miss the point of #1

Imagine if there was no 60 day limit for filing the petition. Could a group that really didnt like the James MacDonald bridge that was built 30 years ago start a petition to remove it?

I know its a silly example, and I use it to show there must be limits placed and policy/procedure followed. In this case the MGA has chosen 60 days for this law. If you think this is not enough time, then you rally to have that act ammended. Thats how process works. You do not simply say, "well I dont like or agree with the 60 day limit, so I am going to go ahead my way, and by golly you guys better listen". (Which is what I hear Chuckie Allard saying BTW) Imagine trying to govern by referenda……

By the way, I find someone who will not even sign a name to a post to be nothing more than noise in the background. if you really want to be heard, add your name to the post and show that you have the spine to let people know who is making the comment.

And thanks for your offer to "Help us understand"

Tom Booth.
Hilman

Great post Chris, the first poster is clearly delusional and part of Novision Edmonton. This is a historic event for Edmonton and I look forward to the future, I applaud Mandel and the other 9 councilors who had the intelligence and vision to vote for closure.
Craig

@Tom Booth Ok your example is ridiculous, but if 50% of the city wants it done that is why we have a democracy. Many people believe that the ECCA debate is equally ridiculous to your example.

Some of our elected officials like Mandel have stated Edmonton would vote on the issue at hand. People voted for them believing that.

Tom, if you look on the bottom right of the previous post there is a name associated with it.
http://sirthinks.com John Winslow

I am waiting for the minutes of yesterday's session to be posted to the Edmonton website. There was a mention by a councillor, during the morning session, that after the 60 day limits were added to the MGA, no one ever suspected any group could get the required signatures in time.

Does this mean the MGA has portions written to tie the voters' hands, effectively discouraging anyone from questioning council?

As to your item 3. 17% less of the eligible voters this petition than there were voters in the last election. So what is the math when you state 650,000 people didn't sign the petition, approximately 500,000 didn't vote for this council. Does this mean they voted against it, or does it mean, like I believe it does, that the majority of Edmontontonians couldn't care less who is in council or what happens to any city assets?

One other thing. You state at the beginning of your article that EE doesn't have to disclose who their supporters are, as they are under different rules than city council. You later criticize them for not disclosing what they don't have to disclose. In this instance they are within the rules. Why, then, should EE be any different than the city. The city followed the rules, and EE did so when they didn't release who their supporters are.

Do I think EE did everything right? NO. Do I think, in hindsight, the timing of the petition is questionable? Yes. Do I feel bad for EE? No. Do I feel bad for the average Edmontonians who collected signatures, volunteered time, or who actually signed the petition? Absolutley. Do I think city council had options? Yes. They chose to ignore 73,658 voters. Did they do anything wrong? No. Will I be doing anything wrong when I don't vote for any of them? No.

What's done is done….

Time to move on.
http://sirthinks.com John Winslow

I can't believe I typed EdmontonTONIANS! LOL

blog comments powered by Disqus