51 replies to this topic

[sdwright.vic]

As we het close to elections, I thought I would opening a debate on if municipal staff, especially council and mayor should be required to live in the cities that the serve.

So what do you think? Should a Victoria city council member be living in say Oak Bay? Vice versa?

Do you think that decisions about a city should be made by someone not living in that city?

What about other services, like policy and fire?. Should they be required to live and be a part of the cities that the serve?

[sebberry]

No, but I think provincial ministers should have a background in the ministry they are responsible for.

Minister of health should have a medical background
Minister of transportation should have a some sort of civil engineering/transportation background
Minister of finance should have a degree in finance

etc..

Too many well connected friends elected then appointed to powerful positions go and screw stuff up.

[Mike K.]

This is a good question. City employees make decisions that impact tax payers in the municipality in which they work, yet if they are not residents themselves those tax implications are not of their personal financial concern.

[sdwright.vic]

This is my opinion also. Property Taxes and other municipal levies pay the salaries of these individuals. You have to question both motive and intention of individuals that think they are good enough to make decisions for a municipality, but the municipality is not good enough for them to live in.

Same can be said for police and fire services. How much safer would a community be having the individuals that protect it actually a part of he community as well.

If someone wants to be politically involved, that's fine, but would they not by nature feel more connected to their own municipality and community? Also, since they are not getting involved in there own municipality and community, are they bringing a agenda when they serve another?

[Linear Thinker]

This is a good question. City employees make decisions that impact tax payers in the municipality in which they work, yet if they are not residents themselves those tax implications are not of their personal financial concern.

I think the opposite would be more offensive.
EG:
The city Engineer's street got repaved when there are so many others in worse shape.
Director of planning recommends rejection of development that would block their view.
Even the appearance of this sort of project prioritizing would be tough to defend.

[sdwright.vic]

Isn't in a perfect world the fear of voter reprisal the prevention to that?. Note I said dream world, since in reality voter apathy would make that a difficult truth.

But do you not fear the same thing from a counsil member from Saanich or Oak Bay on council oncouncil in Victoria, pulling the same type of tricks (please insert any cities here of your choosing, I am not playing any type of favorites here).

[Mike K.]

I think the opposite would be more offensive.
EG:
The city Engineer's street got repaved when there are so many others in worse shape.
Director of planning recommends rejection of development that would block their view.
Even the appearance of this sort of project prioritizing would be tough to defend.

In this day and age where everything is easily researched by anyone with an Internet connection, even one allegation of a City employee engaging in favouritism based on where they live or whom they know would be outed sooner or later, probably to the detriment of the employee's career. A developer would certainly employ any means necessary to out an employee objecting to a development proposal based on where they live, etc.

[sebberry]

In this day and age where everything is easily researched by anyone with an Internet connection, even one allegation of a City employee engaging in favouritism based on where they live or whom they know would be outed sooner or later, probably to the detriment of the employee's career.

Favouritism, cronyism and nepotism are what get you places these days. I think if you were outed as showing favouritism in one job, you're probably not going to have an issue getting another.

[G-Man]

I think that if you serve a region you should have to abide by the same restrictions that those that are voting for that office have. To vote for City Council in Victoria I have to live or have a business in Victoria. The same should go for those that I am voting for. Marianne Alto should not be allowed to serve in Victoria because she does not meet either of these provisions. She cannot vote for the office she is in.

Of course I would be happy to have a more regional perspective if we amalgamated some of the fiefdoms.

[jklymak]

Isn't in a perfect world the fear of voter reprisal the prevention to that?. Note I said dream world, since in reality voter apathy would make that a difficult truth.

And in a dream world voters would tend to prefer local candidates to those from other jurisdictions, and prefer a legislative branch that hired locals.

I guess if voters want someone who lives in Edmonton to be mayor of Victoria, thats their prerogative, isn't it? If its an issue presumably their opponents will exploit it.

[Nparker]

A developer would certainly employ any means necessary to out an employee objecting to a development proposal based on where they live, etc.

Unless that employee is Pam Madoff, in which case no developer has enough time to keep track of that many objections.

[Nparker]

...Marianne Alto should not be allowed to serve in Victoria because she...cannot vote for the office she is in...Of course I would be happy to have a more regional perspective if we amalgamated some of the fiefdoms.

Agreed.

[Mike K.]

Both Marianne Alto and Charlayne Thornton-Joe are Saanich residents.

[sdwright.vic]

I guess if voters want someone who lives in Edmonton to be mayor of Victoria, thats their prerogative, isn't it? If its an issue presumably their opponents will exploit it.

Which would be part of the point of why I started this thread. I am curious to what perspective is on this. If individuals feel it is alright, then why, and if they don't then why they think it is happening.

This is a dialogue that I have not seen brought up as an issue and do not understand why. Everyone seems against amalgamation, but still feel free to go into others back yards and decide issues for them.

[Mike K.]

Everyone seems against amalgamation, but still feel free to go into others back yards and decide issues for them.

That's the quote of the week right there.

[jklymak]

^^ Well, I think it should be an issue, I just don't think parachute candidates should be banned.

In the by-election, it was certainly well-publicized that Alto was not from Victoria (and discussed on this forum quite a bit). However, her party affiliation trumped all other concerns because the NDP run one slate, whereas non-NDP run many. If the non-NDP in this town want to win, then it seems to me that they have to organize a bit and decide to back a single slate rather than all running willy-nilly.

[sdwright.vic]

^^ nothing wrong with running one slate at all, but you can't tell me a local could not be found to run?

If your running under a party banner, you should be running a party platform. Local politics seems to not be about party lines so much as independent agenda, which is why you get the "willie-nilly"ness in my opinion.

[jklymak]

^ I have no idea why Alto was chosen to run by the NDP, or why a local could not be found.

[Nparker]

Everyone seems against amalgamation...

I'm not against amalgamation.

[sdwright.vic]

^^ I was using the royal "EVERYONE", which of course you know does not mean everyone!