Calgary, meet your new council
The unofficial results are in and we have seen a mix of change and returning of the old guard happening. It’s a whole new ball game now; an entirly new dynamic. Here’s the list of who the fifteeen around the table will be:
Mayor – Naheed Nenshi
Ward 1 – Dale Hodges
Ward 2 – Gord Lowe
Ward 3 – Jim Stevenson
Ward 4 – Gael Macleod
Ward 5 – Ray Jones
Ward 6 – Richard Pootmans
Ward 7 – Druh Farrell
Ward 8 – John Mar
Ward 9 – Gian-Carlo Carra
Ward 10 – Andre Chabot
Ward 11 – Brian Pincott
Ward 12 – Shane Keating
Ward 13 – Diane Colley-Urquhart
Ward 14 – Peter Demong
The biggest question facing how this new council will work together is what kind of a chair will Naheed Nenshi be. Will he be a bullying mayor (not likely) or more laissez faire in his control of meetings? Or might he be more like Bronconnier and give alderman some leeway, but keep them on a short leash if they stray too far outside what is prescribed in the procedural bylaw. An alderman like Druh Farrell will live and die by the answer to this question. Nenshi could help focus her and turn her into one of the most productive aldermen on council. Diane Colley-Urquhart could be one to struggle if she doesn’t bring herself prepared to meetings with a plan on how to present her requests.
Of course the new faces on council will provide an interesting dynamic as well. How will Gian-Carlo Carra implement his vision? He’ll have to do the same as Colley-Urquhart and be prepared to have a plan too, otherwise he could find himself as the next Druh Farrell of council: someone with great ideas but struggling to get people to understand or enact them. It will all come down to clear communication with their colleagues for all three of these alderman. The same could be said of Shane Keating and Richard Pootmans as well. Both are strong aldermen, but could find themselves floundering if they don’t get into Nenshi’s good books or find a way to focus their asks into a clear, straightforward way. They could end up being at odds with the mayor and the majority of council and thereby getting themselves – and their voters – thoroughly frustrated if they don’t.
Gael Macleod is a bit of an unknown. I think she will probably fit well into this group and will be an effective alderman as Hawkesworth was before her. Look for her to do a lot of listening and learning in the early days before she proves to be one of this group’s steadiest members – provided she finds her niche.
Peter Demong is another big question mark. With McIver and Connelly gone he provides councils most conservative voice. Whether he ends up as the strong fiscal hawk on council or a “right wing nut job”- as he has been painted by some – will entirely be up to him. I expect he will buddy up to Jim Stevenson and Dale Hodges to look for some wingman support. If he gets this, and stays consistent in his messaging, he could prove to be a very effective voice on council just as McIver was for 9 years. I hope it goes this way as the alternative is becoming a laughing stock, dragging Calgary down with him. And no one wins in that scenario.
Provided Nenshi (as mayor) and Brian Pincott (as the “elder statesman”) find a mutual respect for one another and each others talents, Pincott could prove to be council’s best member. If Nenshi figures out how to keep his campaign followers engaged, Pincott could be one of the biggest beneficiaries by following the new mayor’s example and engaging his constituents in a way he hasn’t up until now. If Pincott was more transparent and had a bit more of a following like Nenshi, he could do some amazing things that would surprise even the most steadfast ideologue. This will take a lot of work on Pincott’s part and a willingness from Nenshi to help him. Pride will need to be swallowed.
The same as Pincott holds true for John Mar. If Nenshi and Mar find common ground Mar could be a leader on council. If they don’t, he could very well become Nenshi’s biggest pain. Unfortunately this would rob Calgarians of much Mar has to offer. The exact same could be said of Chabot. Mar and Chabot have often been “swing votes”. It will be fascinating to watch what way they swing now.
The one thing that I think is probably a given is that – provided they agree on the budget – Gord Lowe could become a de facto “second in command”. I’m confident Nenshi will look to him for guidance and, for lack of a better term, fatherly advice. (Nenshi won’t need political advice. Not that he’d listen to it anyway.)
We won’t have to wait long to see whatever new dynamic emerges because being locked in a room together for organizational meetings in their first week together followed by the lengthy budget negotiating process will force them to get to know one another before we every really get a chance to know them ourselves.
PS – Did you see the 2007 Helene Larocque redux? Incumbent Linda Fox-Mellway took a beating and ended up placing forth in ward 14. Just like ward 3 in 2007, it looks like ward 14 REALLY wanted a change this time around.
Cross posted to CalgaryPolitics.com
Councillor ages: does it mean anything?
The world has changed a LOT in the last few years. Things are speeding up so fast many of us have difficulty keeping up. Stereotypically the ones complaining about this “speeding up of life” are members of older generations. This isn’t ageist – its just that those under the age of 35 have grown up with a high level of change and haven’t been around long enough to remember any form of ”good old days” when the pace of life was different.
As my grandma once told me: each generation that has passed has experienced more change in their lifetime than the one immediately preceding them. Or you could just ask anyone who has had to ask a toddler to program their latest gadget; they’ll tell you. (My best friend’s daughter who is just two is already better than I am with Skype for example.)
While it has been my experience frame of mind, rather than age, is usually a much better indicator of willingness to work with – rather than against – the new challenges the world may give you, there is sadly no denying it can be a factor. So with that in mind, here is the list of the ages of Calgary City Council incumbents as of voting day 2010. Decide for yourself if their is an age pattern to the ones you agree with, and compare your philosophies with the ones about the same age as you.
Although, there are none under 40 so I can’t really compare myself on that basis. And I’m not sure how many of my blog readers will be able to either. (Perhaps that’s a naive assumption on my part however.) Either way, I still find it interesting to know the demographics of those who represent me and I thought you might too. So here they are:
Dave Bronconnier – 48
Dale Hodges – 69
Gord Lowe – 71
Jim Stevenson – 65
Bob Hawkesworth – 59
Ray Jones – 57
Joe Connelly – (Couldn’t find his age.)
Druh Farrell – 51
John Mar – 41
Joe Ceci – 53
Andre Chabot – 51
Brian Pincott – 49
Ric McIver – 51
Diane Colley-Urquhart – 61
Linda Fox-Mellway – (Couldn’t find her age.)
These ages are based off of numbers I pulled from the introductory articles of candidates in one of our two big newspapers during the 2007 election, so I can’t vouch that they are 100% accurate. Please forgive me if there is a mistake.
And yes, there is something to be said for having life experience too.
Bronconnier will not run again; so who will?
So Dave Bronconnier has just announced he will be stepping down from the mayor’s chair and handing over his oversized mayoral necklace (does that thing have an actual name?) come October 2010. He will not be running for re-election.
While it is possible we could spend some time reflecting on our 35th mayor’s tenure – after all he’s been mayor of Calgary since 2001, having been elected three times, and before that was alderman of ward 6 for nine years as well – the real fun lays in what this means for the candidates that have been mulling about the starting line of the mayoral race for the past year or so.
Bronco’s announcement today almost guarentees Joe Connolly and Ric McIver will run for mayor, but who else? Will Alnoor Kassam now return for another kick at the can? Could we see Diane Colley-Urqhart or Druh Farrell step up in the coming months?
Personally, my guess is you’ll see one one Brian Pincott, who is currently ward 11 alderman, or frequent civic commenter Naheed Nenshi step up and take a serious run.
Either way, things just got interesting. Tie on your sneakers, because the race is about to begin.
On your marks, get set, GO!
From the high ideals of 1993 to the gerrymander of 2009
Below is some interesting information to help frame the discussion around whether Ald. Chabot’s council approved map is a good solution and if a proper process was followed.
Policy Title: Ward Boundary Determination and Review
Policy Number: CC017
Approved by: Council
Effective Date: 1993 May 03The criteria used by the Returning Officer for reporting or in developing proposals
during ward boundary reviews are as follows:
- Total Population/Total Electors – all calculations will be based on the number of electors and total population. The total population is to be relatively equal between the wards. It is desirable to maintain a relative equality between the wards and the number of electors;
- Deviation – the maximum allowed deviation from the mean population per ward is +/- 25%. The preferred deviation that the Returning Officer should attempt to achieve is +/- 10 to 15%. This is consistent with current court decisions.
- Future Growth – the potential for growth in each ward over the next 10 years is a factor to be considered.
- Community Boundaries – wherever possible the Ward Boundaries and The City developed Community District Boundaries should coincide. Community Association boundaries are given consideration to attain limited splits. It should be noted that these are not controlled by The City and are difficult to guarantee.
- Easily Identifiable Boundaries – wherever possible, the Ward Boundaries shall be readily identifiable to the public by utilizing major streets, significant topography, etc.
- Least Number of Changes – to reduce confusion to the electorate and implementation costs, proposals developed by the Returning Officer should involve the fewest changes possible to accomplish the required adjustments.
- Block Shaped Wards – in accordance with the 1960 October 19 plebiscite, wards are to be relatively “block” shaped and not “pie” shaped with the downtown being the centre of the pie.
- Environmental Mix – efforts will be made to equalize, wherever possible, the distribution of commercial, rural, industrial, institutional and green space areas between the wards.
- Philosophy of Approach – the general philosophy to be used in developing proposals for Ward Boundary changes are two fold; (a) to develop changes which should not require major adjustments for a span of three general elections; and (b) to have the higher population in the more stable inner city wards and the lower population in the growth area wards.
You’ll also notice that no where in this policy – that was first written in 1960 – does it give the criteria of 5 aldermen on the east side of Deerfoot. So why is it appropriate to suddenly give this new criteria to the Returning Officer after she submitted her proposals? After all she’s been at work on those proposals since May 2006…
Here is is the text of C2009-12 Attachment 1 which shows where the ball started rolling at that time:
Council asked Administration to begin the ward boundary revisions earlier than scheduled by the Policy. At its meeting of 2006 May 15, Council adopted the following recommendation, as amended, FCS2006-19:“3. Direct Administration to commence a process for a major Ward redistribution in 2008 January, with a view to have the complete recommendations to Council before spring of 2009.”
Following that the Returning Officer sped things up considerably before returning with Report 2008-83 on 2008 November 28 giving two proposed options. Alderman Chabot apparently was a fan because an excerpt of those minutes show:
“REFER, Moved by Alderman Chabot, Seconded by Alderman Connelly, that Report C2008-83 be referred to Administration to report to the 2009 February 09 Combined Meeting of Council with a comparison to the recommendations which were contained in Options A and B in 2006.”
The Returning Officer did just that. She showed up with the same documents as well as the maps she created in 2006 for the 2007 election that were not adopted. On 2009 February 09 C2009-12 was adopted which states:
“That Council;
1. Adopt Scenario A as the ward boundaries for the 2010 general election; and
2. Direct Administration to prepare a bylaw to amend Bylaw 19M91, Ward Boundary Bylaw, to return to Council no later than 2009 March.”
The bylaw was written. 13M2009 could now have first reading.
Then along came 2009 March 16 with C2009-21 when proposals by Ald. Chabot, Ald. Farrell and Ald. Hawkesworth were also tabled. The suggestion was:
“That with respect to Bylaw 13M2009, Being a Bylaw Of The City of Calgary To Amend Bylaw 19M91, To Establish Ward Boundaries, Alderman Chabot, Farrell and Hawkesworth’s proposals be referred to the Returning Officer for a report to the 2009 April 06 Combined Meeting of Council.”
C2009-21 goes on to state:
That Council:
1. Abandon Bylaw 13M2009; and
2. Give Bylaw 25M2009 first reading.
Confused yet?
And here we are with bylaw 25M2009 – Ald. Chabot’s proposed map – having had first reading and everything the Returning Officer has been instructed to do since 1993 being thrown out the window.
Remember that policy given to the Returning Officer in 1993? How much of that do you see in Ald. Chabot’s map? It’s been a long journey from the high ideals of 1993 to the gerrymander of 2009.
Oh, and by the way: from AOCC2009-58 (the infamous meeting where Aldermen asked the Returning Officer to come up with a proposal showing 5 aldermen on the east side of Deerfoot):
The Committee determined it was uncomfortable with recommending a specific Ward boundary Scenario to Council.
But thanks for the map Ald. Chabot!
And after all that boring blah-blah-blah. How about some maps showing the history of proposals from 2006 until now?
I hope that helps you make a little more sense of it. It’s all very confusing. Suffice to say: don’t gerrymander, let the Returning Officer do what you asked them to do. Sometimes the simplest things that prove to be the hardest…
PS – A big thank you the the City Clerk for tracking down all 17 documents associated with C2009-12 and C2009-21.
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
