Extended terms of office for city politicians

Hey all -

If legislation introduced by the B.C. government next spring passes, our beloved city councillors will have their terms of office extended from three to four years in the next municipal election (Nov. 2011). Vote in the poll in the link below to tell us what you think of this decision.


-Muskeg News

The Great Saan says four year terms, so we must all bow to four year terms. Three and five year terms are for socialists!

You can’t please everybody, I know that but 3 Year REIGN OF TERROR for some politicians is more than enough.

City politicians shouldn’t need a long term to get “settled in” in my opinion. City politicians should be citizens of that city and as such be up to date and in the know on issues affecting the city. As such, two years before they can be booted should be more than enough. In a perfect world…

should be a 1 year term. Sure voting is costly and a pain in the ass but you know whats more costly and a bigger pain in the ass? A shitty politician… Campbell I’m looking at you!.. I realize hes not municipal but whatever fuck him.

I will definitely be more careful about who I vote for in the next election.  Just watching those in office now and how many really do not listen to the people of the community.  I am unsure why they are there?  Perhaps a suggestion would be to resign and let a by-election happen, at least we could have people in office that really want to do something for the community and listen to the people vs to have their name on the list of council. 

How many elected officials actually take part in community activities? I saw more activity from the previous mayor and council in the public vs the ones who are there now. Plus many did attended functions without official invites.

There maybe just one person I would vote for from this council.  :neutral_face:

The “settling in” period that seems be the justification for longer terms is more about new councillors learning to be compliant, not rocking the boat or debating issues, changing as little as possible, than it is about learning the ropes. That seems to be the pattern with the current council …

Four year terms decrease accountability and will probably result in even lower voter turn-outs at elections … should go back to two year terms as it was before 2003. 

Say what you will, Pond promoted this city with practically every breath he had. A shame really that he was voted out.

I call a lynch mob. Who’s with me?  :evil: :smiley:

It’s also a money saver for obvious reasons, and also gives them more time to follow-through on things they want to do.

It’s also a money saver for obvious reasons, and also gives them more time to follow-through on things they want to do.[/quote]

I’d rather improve or reinvent democracy instead of going cheap on it by extending time.

Even leaving aside that democracy isn’t free … hiring temps for a day to assist with an election really isn’t that expensive … that’s one reason why the CFO’s proposal to switch to electronic balloting was rejected. I suspect the city spends more over a term feeding the council and senior staff at the 5 pm meetings the public isn’t invited to than it does on an election.

As for following through, municipal government isn’t like parliament where everything dies on the order paper … including bills that all parties may support … when an election is called, such that the next parliament has to start over from scratch. One municipal council picks up exactly where the last one left off, eg one council can initiate a bylaw and the next council can pass it. The way things go, it’s mostly the same people anyways.