Too many cooks in the kitchen?

It’s not uncommon to hear that Niagara has too many politicians. Why on Earth would an area the size of the Niagara region have 126 elected when the province only has 124 MPPs?

Well, I mean, it’s because there are 13 government bodies in the Niagara region. There are several provincial ridings in Ontario that encompass the area of more than one municipal government.

But what’s the actual problem with this? I’ve already pointed out that your municipally-elected politicians are a bargain, and I’ve also pointed out that the idea of cost savings doesn’t really pan out/make any significant impact.

Even MPP Oosterhoff recognizes that it wouldn’t save money to eliminate some of the positions of elected officials. Rather, he’s concerned about “too many cooks in the kitchen” (and provides examples that are more about the bureaucracy than having anything to do with elected roles).

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My thanks again to the presenters this morning. I’m going to go back to Chair Bradley. I also have a question or two for Mayor Easton.

Chair Bradley, I want to congratulate you and the entire region, all new lower-tier municipalities as well, on the creation of Niagara regional transit. That’s a very big thing that has been under way for a while.

When was the idea of regional transit first floated?

Mr. Jim Bradley: It would be at least 10 years ago. What has happened in the Niagara region—we evolved to those areas. We don’t rush into it; we evolve over the years, just as we took over waste management and then we decided to take over transit.

Anything that makes sense at the regional level, we have moved that to the regional level. Where it makes sense at the local level, where it only affects one municipality, we’ve left it there or pushed it back there.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Last night, I had the chance to read an interesting article from Niagara This Week: “Regional Road 61 to Be Known by Another Name.” It says the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake passed a resolution for the name change of Townline Stamford Road to Niagara Townline Road almost a decade ago, in 2014. I believe just earlier this week, the region finally approved that. So it took, I believe, 10 years to rename a regional road to the correct name.

I’m just thinking about my time as a young child. I have seven siblings; there were a lot of us. We would be eating a lot of food, and my mom would be sometimes making that food—a lot of stamppot, a lot of potatoes. She had a saying sometimes—I think you’ve heard it before. When we were all crowding around, she’d say, “There are too many cooks in the kitchen. Things aren’t getting done. I need you to get out.” We need a couple of people to make decisions and move forward. I think sometimes that can apply to municipal government as well.

Mr. Jim Bradley: Not in Niagara, however.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Of course, from your perspective, not in Niagara.

I do hear a lot from local businesses, local individuals, those who are seeking to provide services in Niagara about going through the various levels. You have the local tier, you have the upper tier, and then you have the conservation authorities and a variety of other organizations—which do important work, but can create duplications. I think we do see some of that.

I want to go back to the conversation we were having before we were so rudely interrupted—Mr. Chair, just kidding—with regard to the governance changes in 1970, because let’s be clear: If we do seek governance changes, those could be in place for 50 years, right? We’re at 54 years since the last changes. If there are changes that could go into effect, that could be for the next 50 years.

And so, I just want to ask you: You seem quite content with the current structure. That’s the tone I was understanding. Do you think that the current structure is going to serve the people of Niagara well for another 50 years?

Mr. Jim Bradley: I can’t project 50 years ahead, but I can say, if you’re asking me, “Is it working at this particular time,” I would say it is. I go to the fact that things have evolved over the years. There have been changes made. But there has been an evolving rather than a bull-in-a-china-shop approach, where you go in and bust everything up—things go sideways were you to decide to do it that way.

I should mention as well, because you were very kind in asking certain questions, that in these places that have fewer politicians, first of all, they’re full-time and getting paid more than you are as a member of the Legislature, which makes everyone unhappy. In Toronto, for instance, they have their staff, and when you look at the total cost of the fewer politicians, you find out they’re costing you more than the so-called 128 politicians or whatever it is.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I do want to be clear that I haven’t brought up the issue of cost one time. I’ve only been talking about the decision-making capacity and the too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen piece, because I think that that is also a key part of this.

Frank Campion’s concerns seem to be centred around how long the meetings are and that too many people are talking.

“When you have two levels of government, and one of them has 32 people around the table, it doesn’t work,” Campion said in an interview.

“We have staff sitting around the table for five or six hours. We have 31 people, each with 10 minutes to speak. If we all speak and use our 10 minutes on one issue, that’s 310 minutes (more than five hours). If someone adds an amendment, we get more time.

“Is that a bad thing because it takes time? People can argue the fact that at least everyone is getting their point across, but we see some (councillors) talk more than others. I rarely talk unless I have something to say. If I am pretty sure something is going to pass, I don’t need to speak.”

He said speaking to support a motion without influencing a final decision costs time and money. He said savings would come from moving decisions forward more quickly.

He cites scenarios that – in seven years – I’ve never seen happen.

I’ve never attended a meeting where all 31 people speak.

Staff are not making more money because they’re sitting at tables in Council Chambers for lengthy meetings.

He has no way at all of knowing if a final decision on a motion was influenced by people speaking. We don’t know for certain how our colleagues are going to vote before we attend a meeting, hear what our colleagues have to say about an issue, hear staff’s answers to questions, and/or hear delegates about an issue. In my time on Council, there has been one single time where a meeting has been recessed to be picked up at a later date because it ran past curfew.

If the argument is that meetings are made longer by there being more people, I ask, “So?” What actual impact is it having? Local city and town councils meet weekly or biweekly and have meetings as long as the one Council meeting a month at the Region.

So, as I’ve asked in previous blog entries, “what is the problem we’re trying to solve here?” Because, again, cost savings doesn’t/won’t pan out.

You’ll lose representation; you’ll lose a diversity of voices (I’m using the word ‘diversity’ very loosely here, because there is a significant dearth of actual diversity at all of our Council tables); and you’ll have a more difficult time actually reaching your elected officials to speak with them.

All of this to say again that I’m not actually arguing that Regional Council couldn’t be made up of fewer people. Just know what problem you’re trying to solve and be sure you’re fully aware of the ramifications of such decisions.