By Pepper Parr
December 13th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
Mayor Meed Ward recently submitted a Letter to the Editor of the Hamilton Spectator which went as follows:
Democracy is not dead. But we can never take it for granted
There goes democracy. It was nice while it lasted Dec. 5
It would be tempting to give in to despair and give up on democracy, after reading Joan Little’s bleak column of Dec. 5.
But I’m appealing to everyone not to give up. Democracy hasn’t left us — but it doesn’t happen on its own. We have to fight for the democracy we want and believe in.
That means learning about the issues from credible sources, though this is harder than ever to come by in an ocean of information and often misinformation.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward presiding over a council meeting.
Despite assertions in the column, mayors do not have “absolute autonomy” on operating and capital budgets. In fact, local councils have the last word.
Under new provincial legislation, mayors are now required to either produce a budget or direct staff to do so. In both Burlington and Hamilton, mayors chose to direct staff to prepare a budget.
You can read those mayoral decisions here:
Councils, by majority vote, can amend the budget. This is democracy — and a voice and a vote on budgets for councillors and the people they represent is retained.
Mayors can override any council amendments.
Council meeting during the pandemic.
But the last word goes to councils — by a two-thirds majority, councils can override any mayoral veto. In Burlington, that means persuading just one more colleague of the merits of your position.
Certainly, it can be debated whether a higher vote threshold to override a veto is appropriate, although there is a long democratic tradition of some votes requiring a two-thirds majority; for example, to reconsider previous votes of council.
These are important debates to have; but we won’t be able to have them in a thoughtful and informed manner if everyone has already thrown in the towel due to misinformation or misperception of what is — and isn’t — at stake.
This isn’t a defence of the new legislation, simply an acknowledgment that until and unless it is changed, it’s the law, and we are all required to do our best to preserve a public voice and council input into budgets.
So let’s turn our minds to that.
The columnist muses “why even elect councils — councils have been emasculated.”
Except they haven’t. The business of the city still proceeds by way of majority vote — including, as noted above, on budgets. In Burlington, city council voted this week on more than 31 motions that advance city business, on everything from fare-free transit, Sound of Music festival funding, flood mitigation strategies, projects for the Municipal Accommodation Tax, seasonal patios, council size and ward boundary reviews, and several residential and commercial development applications. That’s just one month of business at the city.
The two biggest threats to democracy are misinformation and voter apathy. So take the time to learn about the issues at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, from credible sources, and from a variety of perspectives. Verify assertions. Engage in the debate.
Most importantly, get involved in elections. There are likely two next year — provincial and federal — with the municipal election a year after that. Volunteer for a campaign, donate, attend a debate and most importantly — vote.
Unlike the sky is falling assertions in the column, democracy is not dead. But we can never take our democracy for granted.
While I share some of the concerns raised about provincial, and even federal, overreach into municipal matters, the solution isn’t to conclude democracy is dead, but to fight for the government — and representatives — we want.
We must remain vigilant and involved. We don’t live in a dictatorship and you get to vote for who you want to represent your interests. You’ll have multiple opportunities in the next 24 months. Make them count. Otherwise, the voices of others speak for you.
Voices of others eh!:
Here is an example, written by Stephen White, which goes some distance in explaining why people don’t vote and how poorly the current council is performing.
The Mayor and Councillor Nisan talk about “respect”. In their rarefied and genteel environment, respect is characterized by universal agreement, nuanced communications, tacit agreement and blind acquiescence. What they can’t comprehend is that respect cuts two ways.
Stephen White
“Respect” also means acknowledging and recognizing that not everyone will agree with you 100% of the time. It means actually listening to what is being said during delegations, and not paying “lip service”. It means hearing not just the words but the intent of what is being said by those delegating. It means Councillors who actually look at those delegating rather than texting on their phones. It means city officials who actually check information to ensure it is accurate before releasing it to the public.
It is being transparent enough, and open enough, to acknowledge that there is a clear and distinct difference between a blended property tax rate and the rate of increase that the city is directly responsible for.
It means responding in a timely manner to citizen questions, and not having to be constantly reminded repeatedly of the need to do so (remember Jim Barnett’s delegation? I do. Of course, I and others were actually listening).
Lost in this maelstrom is the fact that Eric Stern presented 14 pages of costs savings and possible reductions that the city could initiate. Who at city hall is investigating that, and who is following up to see if any of these ideas are researched and investigated? Answer: probably no one. Silence. Crickets. Something else is falling through the cracks.
If MMW and this Council want “respect” they might actually try practicing it first and setting an example before preaching about it so sanctimoniously and upbraiding those with the courage to disagree.
I’m getting tired of the mayors’ attacks, and suppression of free speech, on individuals and groups, both inside and outside of City Hall.
This latest attack on Joan Little is another rhetoric of fiction, a deliberately fabricated story designed to achieve a desired outcome – to paint a bad and false picture of Joan, and to use a confusingly backwards frame of mythological Democracy, in a mismatch of context, and a misleading false narrative promoting a skewed and deceptive perception of what Joan wrote, and left out the constraints she works under, as an Opinion Author for the Spectator.
Opinion Articles are articles based on the author’s interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. Joan has a strict editorial process to get published, and works under the Torstar Code of Integrity. She has to be transparent and accountable, and I believe that she is. The mayor has none of this constraint or oversight. She writes what she wants, and consistently employs her powers to get the result she wants.
As outlined by the Spectator, Ethical journalism is the foundation of the Spec’s integrity and is essential to its credibility with its audiences. The Torstar Journalistic Standards Guide provides a comprehensive code of journalistic principles and conduct to guide Hamilton Spectator journalists in their mission to responsibility inform, engage and connect its readers on all platforms with trusted news, information and content. The mayor discussion comes out with none of this guidance.
The effective meaning of mayor’s simple assertion is that “democracy” means the right to vote every 4 years, however, just Council has the real power to achieve change, to achieve what they intend to do. They say they do, but at bottom, they don’t want to hear what you really think about it, or why you are concerned.
In her view, the democracy as we live it in her world, is that we do not have any power to demand anything, including for all Council and all staff to be transparent and accountable. Citizens say that is not acceptable and don’t tell us we cannot call them to account.
The mayor says Democracy is not dead in Burlington, but that is twisted false narrative, and underlines her motives. You only have your vote every 4 years – that is all the Burlington local Democracy we got.
True power sharing is only enjoyed by Council, and that’s what the mayor would like Burlington citizens to be easily conned into believing.
The mayor, in my personal experience, does or says anything she wants, and has none of these guardrails. Neither, in my direct multiple experiences, is she a person of integrity, and as evidenced by much recent citizen critique. She also has an apparent restriction on staff free speech or disclosure.
This point went to the centre of another attack on Eric Stern’s delegation, that the mayor did not attend to hear and question in person, was another instance of her accusing, and projecting blame with another fabricated story, and mismatch of context.
She again projects blame to the the citizens, for fault, by her questioning the integrity of all citizens who might question the truth and credibility of her senior staff, and management on various matters of fact, and matters, such as the budget, and so on. What the citizens are saying is the factual data and evidence are not trusted, suggest lies, mislead, and in end, are in fact not truth.
Truth at city hall is hard to get.
Try to get it, or spread it, citizen: Burlington Gazette: December 11/24 “Mayor blocks citizens group from commenting on her Linked In site”
The mayor’s rebuttal letter to Joan Little’s column is another example of her kind of leadership; whatever the mayor says is right, and what anyone else says is wrong. A true democracy makes it possible for everyone to express their opinion without being cancelled because their opinion does not align with the powers that be. My humble observation is that democracy for the citizens of Burlington is alive, but struggling under the auspices of mayor Meed Ward. I am so grateful for those citizens who are speaking truth to power despite the efforts of the mayor and her sympathisers to invalidate and cancel them.
MMF using words like ‘engage” and “misinformation” is another pretty humorous example of her lack of respect and understanding.
All of her ‘gaslighting” and “patronizing” only serves to amplify her disrespect for the community opinions.
BRAG continues to document specific issues and gather concrete examples of how the mayor’s words contradict actions or how the voices of the community are being ignored.
Hopefully BRAG will continue to engage through formal channels while citizens attend town hall meetings, submit petitions, or even organize a community event where concerns can be raised directly.
BRAG is doing a great job of highlighting the community’s concerns through local media and social media to draw attention to the issues.
Now if they can find a way to hold leaders accountable, organize more support to push for transparency, and demand clear answers from those responsible…… that will be progress.
It’s not enough pressure yet because Nisan hasn’t resigned yet as a result of the blind comments about supporting the efficiency of the City staff.
Keep up the great work BRAG.