Dear Editor,
Re: “Term limit for council?” Letters, May 12.
I’d like to suggest to the letter writer that there are limits in place, as decided upon by voters, who ultimately have a say in how long someone spends on council. Using your right to vote seems fair enough? But everyone gets to do so, and so that’s how it’s determined.
If some stay on over time, it’s because some others have put them there...even if it’s not your choice, that’s done in fairness to all. Removing members based on someone not supporting them seems a bad direction to go in. The majority decides, not individuals who didn’t see things go their way.
There are reasons they remain in place, because many feel they’ve done a great job and trust them to continue to do so. Members of longevity bring experience, history and knowledge that can be shared and ultimately provide a balance to newcomers. Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.
Everyone who is granted the opportunity to vote gets to decide who is/is not part of council. That is a fair way to ensure that representation for all voices is in place. Setting time limits to plow through members doesn’t seem necessary or fair. It seems short sighted (literally).
Now, more than ever, we need to ensure that those in place do have different ideas that are shared. As we see our city changing, those “old” ideas represent values and history that many of us hold near and dear as part of our culture. There isn’t a “best before” expiry date on that.
It’s ridiculous to argue that ideas can’t be changed and that newer council members are somehow helplessly “stuck.”
Hogwash.
They aren’t cut out for a job as a leader with that mentality. Defeatist attitudes that convey that somehow someone else is responsible for their success or failure. They have been granted an opportunity to convince others of why their ideas are good ones and, if the “old” ideas remain firmly in place and difficult to change, it’s for a reason. It simply signifies that they are thought to be the best ones, that’s all. If you fill council with like minds and one vision, it probably won’t suit everyone. So, instead, you fill council with a diverse group...new and old, to ensure a balance is met.
If longstanding members are problematic to some, I’d challenge why that is. It’s their issue, not one of a system that’s served us well and covers all the bases. You don’t get rid of members so some have a clear path through.
It shouldn’t be that we rely on moving some out of the way to allow others to accomplish their goals. Working together and compromising so that all ideas become a shared vision is vitally important. And that is supported by having old and new ideas at the table.
Some are extremely vocal lately, as they strive to change the face of our city. It’s how they make a living.
But there is something that they are missing that’s important to the rest of us — quality of living is also at stake here.
The longevity of some councillors brings piece of mind to those of us. For we know they continue to fight, hard, to preserve and protect our vision as we’ve known it, for it is being threatened.
Debra Wilde
Richmond
