It struck us as curious when Warden Chris White brushed off concerns about this year’s warden and chairperson elections held in closed session as simply historical practice.
Up until 2004, this would have been correct. Wellington routinely held its warden and chairperson elections in closed session, ratifying the results of those closed ballots by way of nomination in open session.
The purpose of such a format was to let councillors vote their conscience, much like voters do in the privacy of a polling booth, and to shield candidates from undue embarrassment should they get just one vote or be defeated after numerous attempts.
Apart from some rabid journalists elsewhere and the odd troublemaker, Wellington politicians and citizens alike accepted it as a kind approach to making tough choices without hurting feelings. It was reasonable and decent.
During the council of 2004 however, that tried format was repudiated as an illegal method.
After researching the matter and concluding there was but one way to hold this kind of election, the warden vote was to be held using its closed ballot system and chairpeople were to be elected by a public vote.
Somewhere between that fateful acceptance that the decades-old method was illegal and the adoption of the proper format, the practice of a dry-run election in closed sessions seeped back into county culture.
Perhaps that is why the notion of this year’s election being an historical routine rubbed us as curious phraseology, considering much of the tradition associated with county elections has all but vanished.
County lore has it that a warden serves his or her term to the best of his or her ability and graciously steps aside to let another councillor have a chance at the top job.
Often the candidate beaten previously is the odds-on favourite for the following term, suggesting if history were in fact White’s guide, councillor Gord Tosh would have been a shoe-in both as a council veteran and an also-ran in more than one previous election. But he got one vote.
Further history as we recall, is that committee members and their chairs typically moved about, allowing for growth in individual politicians and avoiding the malaise that sets in without fresh eyes and ideas. In many respects the tradition of annual elections and having people serve on different committees created opportunities to develop leadership skills and a shared political understanding of the nuances of each committee.
From our count, five out of seven chair-people were returned to the same position. At the conclusion of this term of council, five people will have chaired their respective committee for the entire term.
Of the two changes in committee chairs actually made, we are left scratching our head a little.
The Police Services Board – the one committee that may have benefited from continuity considering its police contract worth $16.6 million is under negotiation this year – flipped out its chairperson by a ballot pulled from a hat to break a tie, sending a newcomer to the board with zero experience on the file.
The former planning chairperson was dumped in favour of a new chairperson who just happens to come from a municipality with significant planning challenges that could well erupt in the coming months.
Historically we hazard to guess such an appointment would not have happened, with fellow councillors looking out for their colleague, rather than setting him up for two years of bewilderment should county and town positions not coincide.
The twists and turns of local politics will continue at this point, with efforts underway to revive a procedural bylaw to spell out its elections strategies for the future.
Were the interests of county council in developing better, more informed councillors, a discussion is needed on breaking this logjam of committee chairs lasting a full term.
This has effectively reduced the number of hands on the levers of power, which cannot be healthy in the longer term if we are to develop well-rounded politicians who actually understand their role.
Now that council has broken the latest tradition of two-year terms for warden, it’s time for the people to have a say. As one old gent summed up the recent warden’s vote, “we have a half-million-dollar man now running things.”
Over the course of the term, between accumulated pay, perks, pensions, tax-free allowances, benefits and travel expenses, White could well break the $500,000 barrier for his services as warden and mayor.
It’s time the people get a vote for their warden.
