Dear Editor,
Re: “Election issues getting clear,” Column, July 19.
This should make us all think about what we should expect from our municipal politicians.
Many believe that politicians crave power and their voting on the issues is motivated primarily by what will secure the financing they need to win the next election. That cynicism made me hesitate before deciding to run for council myself.
As you point out, many of us didn’t understand why the majority of councillors voted to allow mansions on farmland when it provides huge financial benefit to farmland owners while making it very difficult for young farmers to secure long term use farmland.
So our cynicism was turned on full when it seemed clear that at least one member of a slate was actively involved in soliciting substantial campaign contributions from the farmland owners who benefitted from the voting by the members of that slate.
Our leap in thinking was that they voted for mansions in the expectation that the farmland owners would finance their election campaign. We will never know the truth, but soliciting funds from the farmland owners is perfectly legal.
A charitable view is that one member of the slate got entangled in the fund-raising fiasco through inexperience and the others tripped over their own feet in their haste to deny he had anything to do with it.
I publicly poked fun at these implausible denials while wondering why they didn’t simply explain in much more detail why they voted the way they did.
Councillors are bound by existing conflict of interest legislation and anyone who attended the July 9 council meeting would have seen two councillors leave the room when an issue in which they had a conflict was being discussed.
We all have conflicts of interest on some issues. Since it’s impossible to prevent them, the important thing is to declare them and refrain from voting on the issue as required by law.
Oddly enough, several of the councillors mentioned favourably the motion in support of farmland mansions passed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee while ignoring the fact that it has no conflict of interest rules and many of its members have a substantial financial interest in the issue.
More important than conflict of interest is bias on the part of councillors. Even judges are assumed to be biased on some issues and are questioned about them at length before their appointments are confirmed.
Richmond voters should check out the video recordings of past council meetings on the city’s website and they will get an idea of who always votes for what.
For example, there are councillors who always approve whatever a developer proposes, those who usually question the details of a proposal and those don’t appear to have read the proposal.
There are councillors who feel that bylaws are necessary to regulate behaviour for the public good and those who feel that regulation is an intrusion on our right to live our life as we wish.
Councillors are going to be voting on a wide range of issues over the next four years and their biases are more important than any conflict of interest they may have. Making candidates explain how they will solve problems allows voters to find the best fit with their own beliefs.
John Roston
City council candidate
Dear Editor,
With regard to the local Liberals opposing electoral reform, I found reporter Daisy Xiong’s news item to be quite interesting.
It appears that the BC Liberals are just finding some very weak reasons in opposing the upcoming referendum on Proportional Representation (PR).
To his credit, former Richmond MLA Nick Loenen has articulated excellent arguments in support of PR.
For one, under PR every vote will count. Furthermore, it encourages greater political consensus, compromise and coalition building.
PR fosters long term stability and prevents power concentration in a few hands. Rather than the current rigid control by party leadership under the First Past The Post (FPTP), there should be less discipline in the legislature and an opportunity for more initiatives by ordinary MLAs.
Establishment of a threshold of receiving at least five per cent of the votes cast for any party to be recognized in the legislature should keep any fringe parties out. PR is worth a try.
Balwant Sanghera
Richmond
Dear Editor,
I am opposed to switching to Proportional Representation (PR) for several reasons. Today, I will comment on just two.
First, the purpose of elections. Are we trying to elect a government, or are we trying to elect some single issue advocates?
If the later, we will have to accept disproportionate influence of small parties as they, and the larger parties, bargain their principles with back room deals.
There are lots of examples of that occurring around the world.
And even with that dealing, on the records elsewhere, there is the real risk of unstable governments. Recently, Germany and New Zealand had “hung parliaments”. Italy has had 62 governments in 72 years.
In 2010, it took Belgium 541 days (18 months!) to form a government.
Second, the “my vote doesn’t count” complaint only applies if one believes in “participation medals” for the also-rans.
It is bizarre that parties attaining maybe only 10% or 15% of the vote could be granted seats that may give them the balance of power - 85% or 90% of the voters did not vote for them! (And we are being asked to vote for something where we don’t even know what will be the thresholds.)
The first-past-the-post system has given BC stable governments for 146 years. It may not be perfect, but it is better than all the others (to paraphrase Winston Churchill, on democracy).
PR, in a large province like BC, would be disastrous.
Ian MacLeod
Richmond
