Staff Report: CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE TO COUNCIL SIZE

CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE TO COUNCIL SIZE

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report dated January 27, 2022 from the Corporate Officer titled “Consideration of Increase to Council Size” be received.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide a summary of feedback received from the public including two open houses and to present “Council Size Increase Bylaw No. 1086, 2022” for consideration.

TIME CRITICAL:

In keeping with the Community Charter (Section 118 (5)), if a bylaw to change council size is contemplated, it must be adopted at least six months before the October 15, 2022 general local election – or before April 15, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Since November 2020, Council has turned its mind to the issue of council size and the associated impacts of retaining the status quo or increasing to six councillors. This interest has stemmed from a desire on the part of Council to ensure depth of coverage at its business meetings and an increased focus on and opportunities for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Timeline

The graphic below provides an overview of the timeline and decisions made along the way:

November 2021 Open House & Public Participation Feedback

The November 15 Open House had seven attendees. While this participation is in keeping with attendance numbers the Town has had for some other past consultation events and those who did attend stayed and shared their thoughts with staff, the extreme inclement weather that evening (severe atmospheric river event and power outages in several surrounding areas) may have kept some potential attendees from participating.

The following verbatim written feedback was provided at the November 15 Open House on the comment sheets left by attendees:

• “Great idea to increase council size to 7. Lots of committee work to be done and this would spread the workload out.”
• “Super communication with Staff here tonight. Thank you. I support the thoughts of adding to the number of Council Representatives for the area. More Council Members would represent the area and give new thoughts and ideas to the team.”
• “In favour of increase in size of Council from 4 to 6 Councillors. Should have happened back in 2002.”
• “Although an increase of council members will cost more both as a capital expense and operating expense, I think it would benefit the town to have more opinion on council, with an openness to public opinion. It is probably a pretty steep learning curve for the process and I imagine, as our community grows, it is either now it will come up in the near future. Better to do it now and give them time to get a solid foundation in process and policy before they are representing a significantly larger community. It would also benefit the town if a council member, with a passion for climate action would advocate for initiatives that come out of the climate action strategy. It would be sad to receive a report and no one has time to stay on top of the opportunities. All in all, I am in favour at this time to increase council size even though Ron doesn’t think he has too much work.”
• “I am totally in favour of having 2 additional council members. This would allow more participation in additional committees and would help spread out the workload. It would be great to hear some additional voices and opinions around the table.”

The November 16 Council meeting had a section of “Public Participation” allocated specifically for council size feedback. Three people called in:

• the first caller asked for additional information (which was provided to this person on November 17);
• the second caller noted that there is good rationale from both perspectives, that the weather was challenging the evening of the Open House and that the information may have been difficult for some to find on the Town’s website as it had moved from being one of the top three “What’s New” items and was one click away under “View More News”; and
• the third caller asked that council size be a referendum question and that climate change be prioritized over business norms.

In addition to attendance at the Open House and calling in during the Council meeting, several pieces of correspondence were received on the topic of council size at the November 16 Council meeting.

All correspondence received on the topic – both new and on prior agendas – is provided as Attachment “A”.

Communications for the November 2021 Open House & Public Participation

With respect to communications about the Open House, as described in the October 5 Council report, staff utilized View Royal’s social media to extensively publicize the November 15 event beginning on October 27. Tweets and Facebook posts were published weekly and on November 16, additional posts were made on both sites to promote the “Public Participation” at the Council meeting (total of five posts on each platform in just under three weeks). The Open House information was available on the Town’s website under “What’s New” along with links to reports from the past year and the final version of the FAQs that had been provided at the October 5 meeting.

Two newspaper ads ran in the Goldstream Gazette (November 3 and November 10, 2021) to invite people to the Open House.

The topic was picked up in the local media with an article in the Times Colonist on November 5, 2021 and in the Goldstream Gazette on November 10, 2021.

Finally, at least two non-Town administered Facebook pages also picked up on the topic with both “Friends who like Town of View Royal” and “View Royal Community Connection” having debate on their sites leading up to the November 15 Open House.

January 2022 Open House & Public Participation Feedback

Given the above-referenced inclement weather, a decision was made shortly after the November Open House to hold a second one on January 17, 2022 and to allocate a section of “Public Participation” on the January 18 regular Council meeting agenda specifically for council size feedback. The Open House attracted approximately sixteen individuals.

The following verbatim written feedback was provided at the January 17 Open House on the comment sheets left or returned by attendees:

• “I do not support increasing council size. The letter that was sent seemed strongly biased for the increase. Keeping up with other local governments in size seems to be vanity only. The argument that more hands makes light work is fine if you are chopping wood, not making decisions where everyone needs to be heard. The cost does not mention any increase in administration costs, a major oversight. It seems to ignore these costs.”
• “Thank you for the information in the open house. Appreciate the efforts. We oppose the council growth at this time. Would appreciate revisiting this in 3-5 years to understand the actual growth of View Royal.”
• “Yes, I would like to see council size increase from 5 to 7.”
• “My answer is no! You might think that this is important. Well not to people who have lost their job or had to close their business because of COVID. What are you people thinking? Shame on you. You were not elected in just so you can constantly raise our taxes. We like our little town so just forget your thought Mr. Mayor. If you don’t like it resign. P.S. What are you going to do about Six Mile R?”
• “I have read the mail out on this topic and I also attended the open house in January. I can see no benefit to View Royal that might be worth the cost. In all the conversations with friends and neighbours in the community, never once has anyone expressed the need for more members of council. No one seems to know where the idea came from. For these reasons I would like to register my opposition to the addition of two more members of council.”

The January 18 Council meeting had a section of “Public Participation” allocated specifically for council size feedback. Four people participated:

• the first person attended in Chambers and expressed support for the initiative as they feel it would increase diversity on council;
• the second caller noted that they feel there is insufficient work to require additional council members, that a larger council could lead to more staff workload and therefore costs, that diversity may not be achieved with a larger council size, and that “social engineering” through the promotion of diversity on council should not be the focus of local government;
• the third caller expressed support for increased council size noting that the Town’s growth should be reflected, the increased cost is the “cost of doing business”, community engagement can be enhanced, and the issue of cost is only raised when there is nothing else negative to say. The caller encouraged Council to look to the future, quality of life, and vision for what the municipality is to become; and
• the fourth caller stated support for an increased council size as it would spread the committee work more equitably amongst elected officials and encourage more people to seek office, particularly those who may work in full time jobs. The caller noted that many other smaller municipalities in British Columbia operate with seven-member councils.

Communications for the January 2022 Open House & Public Participation

As with the November Open House, staff once again utilized View Royal’s social media and began weekly posts on Twitter and Facebook beginning the week of December 6, 2021 for a total of seven posts on each platform during December and January. Additional posts were made on these sites January 18 to promote the Council meeting, specifically noting the council size listed agenda item. The Town’s website provided extensive and easy to find information – listing the topic and associated documents both as an item under “What’s New” as well as one of the “Spotlight” items. A click on either of these locations would bring the reader to a webpage of information and documents for further detailed reading if desired (View Royal - Council Size). The information included the presentation boards from the Open Houses to ensure those that did not wish to attend were able to review all the information that would be available at the Open House.

Three newspaper ads ran in the Goldstream Gazette (December 29, 2021, January 5, 2022 and January 12, 2022) and the newspaper promoted the January 17 Open House with an article running in its December 15, 2021 edition.

The topic was picked up in the local media with an article in the Times Colonist on January 27, 2022 (after the Open House but prior to the February 1, 2022 Council meeting).

As well, invitations to the January 17 Open House and reference to the January 18 public participation opportunity, were sent to 3,948 households the week of January 3, 2022. The invitations were based on the FAQs that had been developed for the November Open House.

At this time, particularly given the almost 4,000 personally addressed invitations that were mailed to households in the municipality, the topic should be well-known in the community.

As an additional piece of background information, View Royal is not alone in the exploration of council size. Currently the Town of Qualicum Beach is once again considering a similar initiative. That municipality had previously included the question of council size on the ballot in both the 2008 and the 2014 general local elections. While the question was not supported, the level of support increased from 23.7% in 2008 to 29.7% in 2014 (population 2016=8,943).

DISCUSSION:

Council considered a report at its October 5 meeting that explored public engagement options on the topic of council size. Options included:

1). Community open house with subsequent engagement opportunity at Council meeting for call-in during “Public Participation”
2). Standalone (one question) statistically valid telephone survey
3). Comprehensive survey statistically valid telephone survey early in 2023
4). Standalone non-binding opinion poll
5). Ballot non-binding opinion poll

Council chose to obtain public feedback through option 1 – the community open house – and proceeded to hold two open houses with significant related publicity and promotion. From this, a total of twenty-three people attended the open houses, seven called in during the “Public Participation” at the next day Council meetings, and approximately forty pieces of correspondence have been received.

While the non-binding opinion poll on the ballot may be viewed by some as efficient, economical, and democratic, staff do not recommend it for several reasons:

• In decision-making – be these decisions in economics, politics, sociological, one’s own life, etc. – there is a type of cognitive bias identified as “status quo bias”. Status quo bias, in the case of voting, means that “potential voters make their decision based on the status of the current policy” (Barber, Gordon, Hill and Price, 2017: 152). In this circumstance, as the Town of Qualicum Beach experienced twice, a five-member council would remain in place given that it is the current situation.
• Still on the topic of status quo bias, this factor has been found to be heightened “in cases when there is higher voter uncertainty, indifference, or lack of knowledge” (Magleby, 1984). While some members of the public have followed the topic with interest, the fewer than one hundred responses (correspondence, Open House attendees, callers into “Public Participation” despite the almost 4,000 personally addressed invitations, newspaper ads, articles, and over two dozen social media posts) points to potentially some indifference. Therefore, to then take what may be seen as the economical approach and put the question on the ballot, may be seen as not ensuring that the topic receives the nuanced and visionary consideration by Council it warrants.
• Putting the question on the ballot puts off addressing the issues that lead to this matter coming forward in the first place – to ensure depth of coverage at business meetings and an increased focus on and opportunities for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

If the question is on the 2022 ballot and fails, it is anticipated (unless the 2022-2026 Council passed a bylaw) the 2026 ballot would still seek to fill a five-member Council and it would be a minimum of eight years (until the 2030 general local election) before the topic of council size could come up again as a ballot question or be a larger council should the 2026-2030 Council pass a bylaw to enact the council size change in sufficient time for the 2030 general local election.

• If the question is on the 2022 ballot and is approved, the four-year term prior to implementation could cause concern or confusion at the time of the 2026 general local election requiring extensive revisiting of the matter again in 2025/2026, prior to the 2026 general local election. As well, it puts off addressing the aforementioned issues that lead to this matter coming forward in the first place.

(Note: many of these points are similar for option 3 listed above - the comprehensive statistically valid telephone survey early in 2023 where a council size question could be added)

The question of council size is a philosophical one. Feedback received through the engagement initiative has been diverse with perspectives varying based on perceived advantages and disadvantages. At this time, staff recommend that Council give three readings to draft Council Size Increase Bylaw No. 1086, 2022 (see Attachment “B” and provided in the “Bylaws” section of the agenda).

Former local government politician and employee in Alberta, George Cuff, has written and consulted extensively on elected official leadership. As he notes in his 2019 book “Leading: The Real Value of a Mayor & Council”:

“Vision is important as it describes at least some of the answer to the inevitable question: “Where to from here?” Vision provides the necessary framework to subsequent goals and priorities… Vision is not a description of the stops being taken today or even next year. It is a description of what all of this would look like if we fully appreciate our destiny and destination.” (pg. 37)

In looking at the 2018 general local election statistics for View Royal (CivicInfo BC: Election Results - 2018 - Municipality - View Royal (Town)) – its increasing number of eligible voters, decreasing voter turnout rate, and gender imbalance compared to other jurisdictions in the province – there is an indication that now may be an appropriate time to implement a change in council size with a view to tackling some issues. A caller to the January 18, 2022 Council meeting posited that it is not the role of local government to undertake “social engineering” by addressing diversity (and perhaps also equity and inclusion). Is it not all of us who are responsible for addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion issues?

CONCLUSION:

For the past fourteen months information and discussion has focused on the topic of council size. The Community Development Advisory Committee has twice had the topic on their agenda and concluded with a recommendation that Council increase council size with a view to increasing diversity. Council sought public feedback through two open houses which were widely promoted. Input received shows that there is a broad range of perspectives on the topic of council size increase. Council now has the information to make a decision that comes down to what one’s beliefs are around the future direction and vision they feel the Town should be headed towards. A draft bylaw to increase council size by two is provided on the agenda for consideration. Staff recommend that the bylaw be considered for three readings at the February 1, 2022 Council meeting to facilitate a ballot for the 2022 general local election that seeks six councillors and one mayor.

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT the report be received and draft Council Size Increase Bylaw No. 1086, 2022 not receive three readings.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report dated January 27, 2022 from the Corporate Officer titled “Consideration of Increase to Council Size” be received.

SUBMITTED BY:
S. Jones, Corporate Officer

REVIEWED BY:
K. Anema, Chief Administrative Officer

Works Cited:

Barber, M., D., Gordon, R. Hill, and J. Price. “Status Quo Bias in Ballot Wording.” Journal of Experimental Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2017, pp. 151–160.

Cuff, George B. Leading: The Real Value of a Mayor & Council. Municipal World Inc., 2019.

Magleby, David B. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.