Some Thoughts on the Capital Integrated Services and Governance Initiative report
September 28, 2017
by Jim Anderson
General Impressions
If one accepts the limitations of the study objectives the CISGI report has many good features. It is readable, comprehensive, well organized and informative. The document almost acts as a primer on local government in BC and provides clear framework from which to understand provincial legislation and policies that establish how local government is supposed to function at both the local and regional level. In that sense the report is like an extension of provincial government policy. The writer clearly understands and supports the apparent flexibility inherent in the current legislative framework that provides local government officials with a wide variety of choices. And to be fair, in numerous instances it does identify 'amalgamation’ as an optional means to achieve the benefits of shared service delivery.
The report identifies numerous issues and opportunities and suggests various means for resolution of current shortcomings. This is informative to both local officials and critics. The report offers some tools to assist officials to negotiate new partnerships and/or evaluate current service delivery arrangements.
It is likely that municipal leaders are pleased with the report as it identifies generalized issues and opportunities but provides no priorities for action and requires no commitments. And it implies the Province will not interfere or impose policy or priority dictates!
Nor does the report point fingers at individual instances where parochialism and intransigence are evident. It avoids placing blame. The authours clearly avoided providing a report card to identify those that don’t play well with others. The dilemma is the uncertainty of how local official will respond to the challenges identified with risk of no response and that nothing changes.
Concerns and limitations
1. The report clearly ignores the subject of governance and accountability. Hence it is a CISI not a CISGI!
2. It fails to acknowledge how the current voting structure at the CRD Board is flawed, while allowing for representation for rural area and small municipalities is inherently unfair to urban residents. This perpetuates the trend where localism triumphs over the regional interests of majority of the population.
3. While the report identifies opportunities for shared service delivery, it has a Pollyanna tone that presumes goodwill and a willingness to actually cooperate. The report takes great pains to identify the hundreds of instances where there is degree of co-operation, but fails to acknowledge these are usual low hanging fruit. And the report has avoided the critical and essential instance where objectives for shared service are clearly NOT occurring, e.g. planning, transportation, police and fire.
4. While Section 5, Barriers, clearly identifies critical factors, it does only in generic manner and fails to identify specific instances of where critical regional interests are not dealt with. It specifically does not acknowledge evidence to the contrary:
5. While offering several opportunities for partnership the report provides no sense of urgency or priorities for action. It suggests directions but does not require action.
6. On page 118 the report discusses economic partnerships, but fails to seriously acknowledge that our region runs the risk of missing real opportunities that could be realized as “Capital city” and “Gateway to Vancouver Island”.
7. Another major omission is a failure to identify how provincial polices regarding rural taxation and subsidizing of road costs, policing encourages near-urban residents to opt out of shared service delivery with their urban neighbours. This is both inherently unfair to urban residents and perpetuates rural objections to accept higher taxes and obligations to pay for their services. Under current circumstances there is no incentive for these residents to support incorporation or mergers because they would become liable to pay for services they now enjoy at less than cost or as free riders. [Note the recent rejection of incorporation of Saltspring is clear evidence of how a fear of loss of provincial subsidies and of prospects for local tax increases distorts voter support for reform of local government.]
8. Conversely the report fails to acknowledge the obvious corollary of the 'free rider', where rural resident enjoy benefits of variety of regional services (both essential, i.e. roads, bridges, fire, and discretionary i.e. arts, sports, charitable tax exemptions) funded solely by residents of the urban core. The report fails to acknowledge any moral responsibility of those residents to pay for services they enjoy and their municipal leaders to step up and acknowledge this obligation. Instead they brag about their lower taxes.
9. The report is solely focused to address itself to the audience of local officials and fails to offer advice to the Province. This is a significant shortcoming of the report initiated by the Province, as it provides no direction or advice as to what role it should play. The report provides a clear statement that current legislation and policies are broad enough and flexible for cooperative solutions to be found and assumes it is up to the local officials to take the initiative. Nor does it suggest any incentives that might be offered to encourage local officials to realize the opportunities identified. Oddly the report fails to identify instances where provincial economic and social objectives are being impeded by the intransigence of local interests.
10. In particular this omission is most glaring with regards to avoidance of their obligation by the Province to remedy the ongoing democratic deficit inherent in the current situation where
(a) CRD Board members are non-elected and
(b) Voters in numerous polls and referendums have clearly identified a need a for municipal reform and support for change but blatantly ignored by local leaders. Unfortunately, the report is silent on this issue..
11. The idea of mayors council has merit, but is too fuzzy. How would it operate? A present there is little evidence that mayors cooperate at sub regional levels, let alone a willingness to do so at the regional level. In fact, the mayors' performances at the CRD Board level suggest they regularly do not and will not.
September 28, 2017
by Jim Anderson
General Impressions
If one accepts the limitations of the study objectives the CISGI report has many good features. It is readable, comprehensive, well organized and informative. The document almost acts as a primer on local government in BC and provides clear framework from which to understand provincial legislation and policies that establish how local government is supposed to function at both the local and regional level. In that sense the report is like an extension of provincial government policy. The writer clearly understands and supports the apparent flexibility inherent in the current legislative framework that provides local government officials with a wide variety of choices. And to be fair, in numerous instances it does identify 'amalgamation’ as an optional means to achieve the benefits of shared service delivery.
The report identifies numerous issues and opportunities and suggests various means for resolution of current shortcomings. This is informative to both local officials and critics. The report offers some tools to assist officials to negotiate new partnerships and/or evaluate current service delivery arrangements.
It is likely that municipal leaders are pleased with the report as it identifies generalized issues and opportunities but provides no priorities for action and requires no commitments. And it implies the Province will not interfere or impose policy or priority dictates!
Nor does the report point fingers at individual instances where parochialism and intransigence are evident. It avoids placing blame. The authours clearly avoided providing a report card to identify those that don’t play well with others. The dilemma is the uncertainty of how local official will respond to the challenges identified with risk of no response and that nothing changes.
Concerns and limitations
1. The report clearly ignores the subject of governance and accountability. Hence it is a CISI not a CISGI!
2. It fails to acknowledge how the current voting structure at the CRD Board is flawed, while allowing for representation for rural area and small municipalities is inherently unfair to urban residents. This perpetuates the trend where localism triumphs over the regional interests of majority of the population.
3. While the report identifies opportunities for shared service delivery, it has a Pollyanna tone that presumes goodwill and a willingness to actually cooperate. The report takes great pains to identify the hundreds of instances where there is degree of co-operation, but fails to acknowledge these are usual low hanging fruit. And the report has avoided the critical and essential instance where objectives for shared service are clearly NOT occurring, e.g. planning, transportation, police and fire.
4. While Section 5, Barriers, clearly identifies critical factors, it does only in generic manner and fails to identify specific instances of where critical regional interests are not dealt with. It specifically does not acknowledge evidence to the contrary:
- Fire service is not included in the new emergency dispatch center.
- Emergency planning is not emergency response.
- Non participation in SIPP by several key municipalities.
- Repeated municipal vetoes of major regional initiative, e.g.. Regional Growth Strategy, and regional transportation service.
- Apparent breakup of the tri-partite Peninsula partnership.
- How separate Official Commuity Plans and land use bylaws restrict expansion of housing supply
5. While offering several opportunities for partnership the report provides no sense of urgency or priorities for action. It suggests directions but does not require action.
6. On page 118 the report discusses economic partnerships, but fails to seriously acknowledge that our region runs the risk of missing real opportunities that could be realized as “Capital city” and “Gateway to Vancouver Island”.
7. Another major omission is a failure to identify how provincial polices regarding rural taxation and subsidizing of road costs, policing encourages near-urban residents to opt out of shared service delivery with their urban neighbours. This is both inherently unfair to urban residents and perpetuates rural objections to accept higher taxes and obligations to pay for their services. Under current circumstances there is no incentive for these residents to support incorporation or mergers because they would become liable to pay for services they now enjoy at less than cost or as free riders. [Note the recent rejection of incorporation of Saltspring is clear evidence of how a fear of loss of provincial subsidies and of prospects for local tax increases distorts voter support for reform of local government.]
8. Conversely the report fails to acknowledge the obvious corollary of the 'free rider', where rural resident enjoy benefits of variety of regional services (both essential, i.e. roads, bridges, fire, and discretionary i.e. arts, sports, charitable tax exemptions) funded solely by residents of the urban core. The report fails to acknowledge any moral responsibility of those residents to pay for services they enjoy and their municipal leaders to step up and acknowledge this obligation. Instead they brag about their lower taxes.
9. The report is solely focused to address itself to the audience of local officials and fails to offer advice to the Province. This is a significant shortcoming of the report initiated by the Province, as it provides no direction or advice as to what role it should play. The report provides a clear statement that current legislation and policies are broad enough and flexible for cooperative solutions to be found and assumes it is up to the local officials to take the initiative. Nor does it suggest any incentives that might be offered to encourage local officials to realize the opportunities identified. Oddly the report fails to identify instances where provincial economic and social objectives are being impeded by the intransigence of local interests.
10. In particular this omission is most glaring with regards to avoidance of their obligation by the Province to remedy the ongoing democratic deficit inherent in the current situation where
(a) CRD Board members are non-elected and
(b) Voters in numerous polls and referendums have clearly identified a need a for municipal reform and support for change but blatantly ignored by local leaders. Unfortunately, the report is silent on this issue..
11. The idea of mayors council has merit, but is too fuzzy. How would it operate? A present there is little evidence that mayors cooperate at sub regional levels, let alone a willingness to do so at the regional level. In fact, the mayors' performances at the CRD Board level suggest they regularly do not and will not.
