When serving as a member of the CNV's Task Force on Civic Engagement, a member, asked whether the City was close to having to do a referendum to keep the Council size at 7. When the Community Charter had been created, the District with 7 Council members was already well over the 50,000 population which required them to have a 9 member Council.
In June 2004, then Mayor Don Bell was elected as an MP and a byelection had to be held so they held a referendum to hold them at a Council of 7. I think almost 90% voted not to spend the money on extra Councillors.
Staff did a report which was mostly quoting this section of the Community Charter Act:
118 (1) Unless otherwise provided by letters patent or by a bylaw under this section, the council size for municipalities must be as follows:
(a) for a city or district having a population of more than 50 000, the council is to consist of a mayor and 8 councillors;
(b) for a city or district having a population of 50 000 or less, the council is to consist of a mayor and 6 councillors;
(2) For the purposes of this section, any change to a council size under subsection (1) is to be based on the population of the municipality as at January 1 in a general local election year and the change takes effect for the purposes of that election.
(3) A council may, by bylaw, establish the number of council members as a mayor and 4, 6, 8 or 10 councillors.
(b) maintain the current number of council members, despite an increase that would otherwise result under subsection (2),
it may only be adopted if it receives the assent of the electors.
(6) The size of council as established under subsection (3) applies despite any provision of a municipality's letters patent.
Just prior to the last election, in the Mayor's candidates debate, I made the point that Provincial legislation dictated an increase in the size of Council, due to the rapid growth shown by BC Stats.
It was more of a political point about not considering the implications of population growth and the Mayor's rush had cost the taxpayer's. After the election, Councillor Clark pursued the issue and Council did a review of that situation. I was in Windsor at this time so limited to the whatever info was available online to access what was happening. The Mayor had pointed out the flaw in my point, that the size of Council was determined by the Letters Patent.
The Letters Patent was not a term I was familiar with but it something I am now as it would be the final act of amalgamation. Think of it as the City's Constitution, I think of an old scroll like the Declaration of Independence. The size of Council was established and it would take a bylaw to change that, as per sub-section 3 above. So Council by majority vote reduce itself by two members, save some money and shorten many long Council meetings. The bylaw, as per sub-section 6 trumps the Letters Patent.
I've requested a copy, I doubt it will contain much more than a description of the legal boundaries and the size of Council but it may contain something interesting. It was written around 1907 when the North Shore was unamalgamated into its current form.
John Harvey, a regular Council Watcher pointed out that the population was now over 50,000 and by law the upcoming election had to be for a Mayor and 8 Councillors, not 6. I got the impression that others had been knowledgeable and intending to run get that electoral advantage, the heck with the unnecessary cost to the taxpayers.
Of course, they were as wrong as I was in 2011 for the same reason. For some reason, John thought that the entry of former Councillor Bill Bell into the election of November 15th, the video minutes are not up yet, I need to listen to exactly what he said to understand his point.
So wannabes, no easy ride. Recycling my old ideas without really understanding the legality of the situation is a bad idea, particularly flawed ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment