I will admit that my initial reaction to the recent statement by Chair Caslin (advising Queen’s Park to respect the decisions of council) was not at all positive, because that statement advocated the furtherance of policy that I do not agree with. Given some time to reflect, and taking a deeper dive into the election that resulted in Mr. Caslin becoming chair I can find a new respect for the logic of the position while still being completely opposed to that position as policy.
It is easy to point out that the circumstances that led to Mr. Caslin becoming chair and question the legitimacy of the process. That does not change the fact that with the rules as they are, the ascension to chair was an efficient one. If someone, in 2014, had the goal of becoming chair there was no reason to declare it to the voting public and, since a previous council had limited the pool of candidates from which to appoint the chair to the 30 newly elected members of council, there was no reason to worry about an outsider being elected.
With these criteria in mind, the most efficient use of resources would be to allocate just enough resources to claim sixth place in the regional council race and then lobby the incoming council successfully for the ultimate target of becoming chair. If I were analyzing a baseball team whose goal was to win the World Series and they were able to efficiently use the minimum allocation of resources to do so (gaining the last playoff position and then making a successful run to claim the prize by using one top-flight pitcher) I would laud that efficiency. In the same spirit, I laud Mr. Caslin for a successful strategy.
The statement published through Postmedia was a statement from the Chair of Niagara Region, as appointed under the only law that was in effect at that time, and is representative of the will of council (that council’s position is completely wrong is immaterial—it is the duty of a chair, as presently elected, to represent, unqualified, the will of council). I have to admit that after looking at the dismal election turnout numbers, and the low information with which those that do show up base their vote, that I don’t at least partly agree that an at-large elected chair will not always be the most qualified candidate willing to run.
More engagement by the electorate is necessary, and I believe that it is at least possible to make some improvements in turnout by having a declared candidate with declared goals run openly for the office of chair. I believe that a chair elected in such a way will be liberated from being merely the voice of council assembled and be able to use their own discretion to present a message based on ever-changing blends of the opinion of council and their own opinion with the ultimate arbiter of their success being the electorate. Finally, I believe that the decline of the quality of print media (particularly at Postmedia) has greatly reduced the ability for electors who would be willing to expend at least a little bit of effort to be informed to be able to do so. Getting back to 60% engagement by an at least partially informed electorate is a massive challenge and direct communication from a directly elected chair can only help.
We can disagree with council, and with individual members, but the truth is that they are players in a game with rules that they don’t make. Attempting to maintain a system that has been beneficial for them is logical for players within a system. Additionally, current members should be given credit for participating in the system at all—most people don’t.
The democratically elected government of the Province of Ontario made the correct, evidence-based, decision to amend an Act which is within their authority. I am very pleased that the next level of government made the choice to alter the system—that does not mean that a current member of council, including the current chair, will not be the best candidate in the next election. To anyone who believes themselves to be the best candidate for chair: October 22, 2018 is approaching—show your best.