Moose Jaw Forum

http://www.discovermoosejaw.com/index.p ... Itemid=681

In two weeks, we'll vote for a new provincial government. In 52 weeks, we'll vote for a new mayor and City Council.

Moose Jaw City Hall is starting to get ready for the next civic election coming up October 24th, 2012 but it's not just any civic election. City Clerk Myron Gulka-Tiechko says it will shape politics in our community for years to come.

Gulka-Tiechko says Council considered a resolution on whether they would want to have a referendum, asking the citizens a question of whether or not they want the city divided into wards and having their council members elected, to represent wards, rather than the current at large system.

That referendum will happen at the same time as the civic election but if the ward system is approved, it wouldn't take affect until the next election in 2016. That's because the terms for municipal governments has been changed from 3 to 4 years

I will not be voting for any councilor that wants the ward system. I believe there would be favouritism to certain wards. I want the buck to stop with each councilor, for the good of the city as a whole. I want to be able to contact them all and have them work for me.

I'm in your court also ekb! One should be able to vote for all the councilors while holding each of them equally accountable; especially in a town the size of Moose Jaw! Plus I believe we'll get better qualified Councilors if they are elected from a "pool" rather than constrained groups!!

catrain13 wrote:Moose Jaw City Hall is starting to get ready for the next civic election coming up October 24th, 2012 but it's not just any civic election. City Clerk Myron Gulka-Tiechko says it will shape politics in our community for years to come.

Yes it will shape politics in our community for years to come. So if we don`t want to see more idiotic handling of future capitol budgets as we are seeing at this point in time, we best start thinking about this election soon. We don`t have to go all out and try and replace all those idiots who voted in this capitol budget in one full swoop (although would be nice). All we need to do is see that we have two additional taxpayer minded individuals added to council. Whether it be in the form of a new mayor (wouldn`t that be great) and a councilor or simply two new councilors, who put the taxpayers interest in the for front, that is all we need. Then maybe we can get this city`s fiscal mess straightened out, rather then digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt.

You can bet that "a certain interest group" will be doing everything they can to maintain control over council!

One of the most important things to remember about voting in favour of a ward system is the problem of getting rid of it again if it doesn't work. Not so easy to do, as this section of the Cities Act notes...

62(1) A bylaw that provides for a city to be divided into wards shall not be
repealed or rescinded until after at least two regular general elections for members
of council have been held.

so a vote in favour of the ward system this October means the ward system will be in place for at least 12 years before another at large election could take place. the current system is not what is causing any of the problems we have with elected officials. with or without a ward system, the voters will still decide who gets elected, and the election of a bad councillor still falls squarely on the shoulders of the electorate. all the ward system does is ensure that any time two good candidates run in the same ward, one must be defeated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I think some people are under the impression that the ward would be represented by a resident of said ward, when that would not be a requirement. As well, the ability to run a slate (which is often commented on) is much easier in a ward system.

speede5 wrote:I think some people are under the impression that the ward would be represented by a resident of said ward, when that would not be a requirement. As well, the ability to run a slate (which is often commented on) is much easier in a ward system.

If a person actually had to live in the ward they represented I could see it as helping to get people involved locally but alas they could parachute someone in there if they so chose to do so as it stands now.
Personally though I wish they would give a voter only two votes - one for mayor and one for councilor.
That might help to stop slate votes.

speede5 wrote:I think some people are under the impression that the ward would be represented by a resident of said ward, when that would not be a requirement. As well, the ability to run a slate (which is often commented on) is much easier in a ward system.

I agree speede5... I think it would be much easier to run a slate in a ward system. I also think it would be less obvious in a ward system if those chose not to be forthcoming about their slate.

Priapus wrote:

speede5 wrote:I think some people are under the impression that the ward would be represented by a resident of said ward, when that would not be a requirement. As well, the ability to run a slate (which is often commented on) is much easier in a ward system.

I agree speede5... I think it would be much easier to run a slate in a ward system. I also think it would be less obvious in a ward system if those chose not to be forthcoming about their slate.

Slates or party affiliations really aren't something we need in local politics.

All I can say is 1 Mayor and 3 councillors have to go and will. Eby, Coleman and Tolmey have proved they are not worthy of even one vote each. Those 3 and Hagel have padded their pockets at our expense. Remember last election, Sagel thought people loved her, so did Findlay and Chow was smart to drop as he was going down hard!!!!

Crooked the 4 of them!!!