McCallum the Opportunist

Politicians are opportunists. “That’s just what they do,” said a local editor in no escalated verve when we briefly spoke on the subject. He was right, but whether the politician is, is entirely separate.

Sure, taking the opportunities given is important. It isn’t a crime to be opportunistic and perhaps it’s an absolute necessity to advance in the current job market. But when it comes to leadership and the tangible qualities thereof, context is quite important, no?

Picking the right moment to retreat, to strike, to hold your tongue or speak out are all calculated decisions. And decisions shouldn’t matter simply in the immediate.

Doug McCallum left the political arena in 2005, unceremoniously and suddenly. And he left with conviction. Just a year later, he didn’t express a desire to return to politics. Doug Ward then reporting for the Sun quoted McCallum as stating:

“It’s long ago. I’m into a different life now . . . I’m enjoying my retirement. I’ve got more time for gardening and for my family. I don’t have the stresses any more and I’m doing things that I like to do.”
Read Full Article

So, what’s changed?

A renewed vigour? Some inspired vision to help the city’s plaguing issues of crime, affordable housing, public transportation?

Of course every mayoral candidate will try to anchor themselves to these critical issues, latch on to what they think is the best path forward.

McCallum is no different except his bid appears more opportunistic given his recent history. Is it a coincidence he returns amid a perceived political vacuum, or careful calculation?

The platform (so far…)

Along with a vow to improve safety and reduce crime, McCallum has stated he will improve Surrey’s transit capacity and control city-spending.

He also provided a four-point plan for dealing with illegal secondary suites, tweeting out on July 14 those very points:

1) Increased parking restrictions -2 hr. parking, residents only stickers, alternate times -consult with neighbourhoods #surreybc #sryvotes

— Doug McCallum (@mccallum4mayor) July 14, 2014

2) Bylaw task force w/ emerg services – give teeth by council upping fines & frequency of visits #surreybc #sryvotes

— Doug McCallum (@mccallum4mayor) July 14, 2014

3) More bylaw officers, but also increase in building enforcement officers -funds reallocated in city hall spending #surreybc #sryvotes

— Doug McCallum (@mccallum4mayor) July 14, 2014

4) Could not locate fourth point on @mccallum4mayor Twitter feed.

More recently, McCallum pledged—a self-proclaimed raison d’être for entering the mayoral foray—to push for electoral reform.

His touted desire for the city’s future electoral structure is an eight-councillor, four ward system (two councillors, per ward) accompanied by a mayor elected at-large.

Doug to the Rescue?

McCallum’s platform isn’t complex; the ideas aren’t novel nor do some appear even practical. A pledge to improve the city’s transit capacity, for instance, won’t happen on a whim. It will happen when the money happens. It’s a matter of funding not just desire. I would think TransLink has more to gain by expansion.

I can’t confidently comment on McCallum’s rule in the 90s, but I can comment on his exit in 2005 as I’m sure many #SurreyBC thread followers can.

McCallum left defeated, whether bitter or not matters little. He gave that great quote, kept a cool distance operating Harness Racing B.C. with little political input save perhaps for lobbying in the interest of standardbred breeding and his company’s key initiative(s).

There’s nothing wrong with that.

But the opportunistic edge to his re-emergence borders on insulting and shouldn’t be ignored.

Quick warning: sports analogy will follow, but McCallum’s return, in my opinion, runs parallel to Michael Jordan’s “comeback.” When MJ returned to the  NBA as a Washington Wizard, everyone immediately recognized he wasn’t the same player. Jordan wasn’t capable of lifting his team to greater heights, only heightened attention. His motivation to return was self-interest more so than proven ability.

Now politics isn’t basketball, granted, but running a city, especially one as evolving as Surrey, requires considerable knowledge of every facet of the municipality. Otherwise, the city’s destined to regress and to develop even greater issues.

Surrey is a lot different than the years in which McCallum was mayor. In fact, the city has progressed, not without its problems, surely, but there’s been progress nonetheless.

McCallum labelled the new City Hall, “a waste of taxpayer money.”

The upgrades and improvements made to the heart of Whalley was necessary to shift the municipality’s overall image as are the hosting of festivals, events and general beautification projects (Holland Park speaks for itself). How else do you spur business and future development without making the city a landmark of some kind? That’s the key and the conundrum to growth.

It’s time for change, no doubt, but McCallum doesn’t appear that progressive change forward. For McCallum to call the development in the rebranded city centre wasteful demonstrates a pessimistic attitude that isn’t conducive to urban advancement and improvement.

City centre was a vision that turned to reality. I too was a skeptic of its need until friends from Vancouver came and witnessed the reformation of Whalley. All remarked positively on Surrey’s character and change. Surely it changed perception of our sprawling city.

McCallum states he wants to control city spending. This position sounds flimsy however when considering McCallum’s platform rests on throwing more resources at crime and by-law enforcement (more officials and a task force). These are increases to the public sector that will not help constrict city spending.

This isn’t to say additional resources aren’t required. Just don’t stand up and preach tighter spending in the same breath as championing the fattening of municipal services.

Does anyone know for certain that adding more cops in Newton will solve the overall issue of crime and safety? Crime is elusive; criminals are reactive. Adding police in one place may in fact just shift the problem elsewhere resulting in the need of more police, more resources, on Surrey’s streets.

By-law enforcement will require more personnel and sharper teeth, certainly, but with periodic revision of legislation and enforcement tactics as people have shown the capacity to circumvent by-laws.

The fear is that McCallum is not the person most prepared to tackle the city’s growing urban issues—a politician armed with superficial talking points and little else by way of a blueprint for the next few years.

It takes a visionary, a student of many disciplines and the genuine desire to place the welfare of everyone else ahead of singular interests. Voters should truly ask themselves  if McCallum fits within that criteria.

His pursuit appears as nothing more than a personal reclamation of lost political glory, though I could be wrong.

What is more certain is that McCallum’s a familiar face and the provincial election proved what a smile and talking points can do for a politician, even one behind in pre-election polls—and that’s what’s most frightening.

A Municipal Ward System in Surrey?

It’s been a minute (or two) since my last post, and in pursuit of a saddle to get back on the horse with, the following terse tweet titillated my curiosity:

@bkostinuk please visit helpsavesurrey. com
— helpsavesurrey. com (@Gill22sry) December 20, 2013

The link helpsavesurrey.com led me to a petition. The underlying purpose: underrepresentation in the Lower Mainland’s fastest growing city, which, it states, has led to major concerns and issues left unaddressed. The proposed solution: a new municipal electoral system: wards.

But is a ward system Surrey’s solution to better representation? Are we, or do many here, feel underrepresented? The petition states, blankly, that “7 councillors are not enough to address our safety and concerns.” Is that true? Is a ward system the solution to better local governance? I’m skeptical.

Background

For over a half-million people, Surrey has an eight-member council and mayor to act as political representatives. In rough estimate, that is 62,500 constituents per councillor if the mayor is discounted, or roughly 55,000 constituents per municipal representative, if s/he is included.

This ratio, 1: 55,000, is the jumping off point for ward system proponents, especially since population statistics predict that the numbers are only expected to rise and therefore  “underrepresentation” will increase.

Furthermore, the Marvin Hunt political dualism also contributes fodder for a change in electoral system. Hunt is a sitting Surrey councillor and, as of May 15, 2013, is an MLA for the Liberal Party in the Surrey—Panorama riding.

By law, he is fully able to occupy both seats. He left it to council to make a decision on whether a byelection for his seat would be called. Council, however, did nothing and left it to the Surrey councillor himself, citing other councils (Langley, Delta and eight others) having permitted leave of absences in the past.

Also working its way into the equation are finances. Another reason no byelection was called was associated to the costs our at-large system, which would place the expense somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 to $750,000. Hence, yet another—financial—reason, beyond the added representation argument, that does bear consideration in judging the current paradigm.

At the very least, Councillor Hunt did the most respected thing and, while not stepping down from his council seat, pledged to fork over all his pay to charity as reported by the Now and Surrey Leader. It is half his $60k salary given the space of time between July and the new year.

The ward system

Langara political scientist, Peter Prontzos, commented in 2011 that those who run for office tend to be people with money and wealth therefore they are commonly out of tune with the issues of low-income or middle-class earners. A notable subject is public transportation, for instance.

Subdividing Surrey’s municipal electorate into smaller units, perhaps 18 to 21 wards, with an elected representative from each, sounds like a sure way to spread representation more equally.

Voices from every pocket of Surrey’s society will be provided  an opportunity to contribute to municipal political decision-making. Furthermore, a byelection would cost significantly less given the smaller electorate base that would be required to poll.

Case study: Ottawa

A ward system would not be alien to Canadian municipal politics.

Ottawa has used a single-tiered system for quite some time, having done revisions to update its structure in 2002. Ottawa, as of 2011, had a population of a little over 883,000. Its electoral base is subdivided municipally into 23 wards.

What’s important is Ottawa’s discussion of “effective representation,” a term, in essence, that means “each citizen should have a voice in government and the ability to bring their concerns to a representative who understands their interests. . . In addition to population, issues such as geography, local history, community interests and minority representation need to be considered.”

In this instance some relevant concerns come to mind before any decision can be made, for or against, any kind of ward system.

Concerns…

Concern #1: Will there be enough worthy participants?

Voters are apathetic; historic lows in turnout across all levels of government are common. A shift to a ward system doesn’t mean voter turnout and political participation will suddenly skyrocket. Perhaps at first, but once the newness runs its course, the interest in politics will wane. Even under a ward system, Ottawa’s turnout rates—about 44% in the most recent 2010 municipal election—haven’t been stellar, and this is in the nation’s capital.

Now, consider Surrey. Just 25% showed at the polls in the 2011 BC municipal elections. There clearly isn’t very much concern over local political affairs. Finding 20 or so worthy political actors, who are knowledgable and truly care, seems difficult to attain.

Concern #2: How much additional costs would the city incur under a ward system?

Yes, it has been confirmed that a Surrey byelection would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and thus remains a good reason Hunt is a two-seat filler. But how much would it cost to pay for a little under two dozen municipal politicians? At about $62,000, perhaps more, per annum? And will these individuals—ward representatives—also have support staff?

Concern #3: ward system = better governance?

The petition to “help save Surrey” indicates a ward system will combat Surrey’s underrepresentation, alleging “councillors are ignoring major concerns and issues.”

The site mentions specifically: crime, dirty streets, a need for transit upgrades, border lines for gas, the homeless, and other political issues at large. In addition, the site lists: “extremely high ratios” between teachers-students, doctors/nurses, correctional officers-inmates, plus court file back-logs, youth needs, and general city-wide problems.

I have issue with several of these points, including the petition itself. First and foremost, it is irritating to view public figures discussing systemic or societal problems but failing to offer any solution, in kind. Homelessness, crime and Transit funding are just some examples.

A new system of government does nothing; if local, neighbourhood leaders wish to participate in the political cycle, then run for office. If anyone puts up real solutions towards progress, I will vote for them. It’s easier today, than it was ten or 15 years ago, to get up on a soapbox.

We don’t need a new system; we need visionaries and independent thinkers.

Final thoughts…

Bloating council to 20 or more ward representatives seems outrageous and loosely fitting for a voter base already apathetic to local politics. In addition, there is the glaring puzzle of breaking down the city into a rational and effectively representative grid of wards. And God help us during resource allocation decisions and upgrades.

The city needs to grow more cohesive. A ward system decentralizes and can therefore divide an electoral base more so than it may already be.

If you want change; don’t vote for the same figureheads. Better yet, run for office or show up at council meetings with ideas to go with the complaints.

We do need change, but not the electoral system wholly.