Recently, we have begun to see letters favoring one candidate or another. This is a good sign.
But some these letters give rise to a the question as to whether the writers actually understand what municipal government is about, how existing regulatory frameworks function, what the issues are, and what factors are within or beyond the power of local governments to control.
To my mind, many of recent letters speak in generalities, not specifics. I am finding it hard work to inform myself about relevant issues.
I do not want to vote for personalities, for promises, or for empty rhetoric. Telling me that “he’s our man” or “we need another captain on the bridge” does not tell me anything or convince me to do anything.
The electorate is intelligent; it does not want a popularity contest.
It is surprising to me how little of the discussion so far has focused on the question of what actual knowledge, experience, and proven relevant achievement do they have for the job, or what is their understanding of the implications of established sustainability policies, official community plans, and regional growth strategies? Have they demonstrated they can work effectively in collaboration with others? After all, if I were looking for work, I would expect these questions.
The most serious issue in these elections involves our perception of what it takes to govern. The job is not about personalities, it’s about careful committed informed hard work. The reality is that from now on we are seeking complex solutions to complex problems.
We need to understand what will be the components of the emerging sustainable economy, and how we move the community toward it. The candidates should sit down, do their homework, and answer the questions above. If they can’t do this or won’t do this, they are wasting the community’s time.
Andrew Brown
Qualicum Beach
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Steve Heywood wrote:
Hi Andrew,
If this is meant as a letter to the editor, I’d like you to edit out all of the questions. It’s unlikely the candidates will answer you through the letters forum (and even less likely that we’d allow them to campaign there).
The area between “… what they are FOR” and “The most serious issue …” could be dropped without changing the meaning of your letter.
Regards,
Steven Heywood, editor
PQB News
On 29-Oct-11, at 12:19 PM, Andrew brown wrote:
Editor
PQB News
Facing the Serious Issues in Municipal Elections
Recently, we have begun to see letters favoring one candidate or another. This is a good sign. It is vitally important that people take an interest in local government.
But some these letters give rise to a the question as to whether the writers actually understand what municipal government is about, how existing regulatory frameworks function, what the issues are, and what factors are within or beyond the power of local governments to control.
To my mind, many of recent letters speak in generalities, not specifics. I am finding it hard work to inform myself about relevant issues.
I do not want to vote for personalities, for promises, or for empty rhetoric. Telling me that “he’s our man” or “we need another captain on the bridge” does not tell me anything or convince me to do anything.
The electorate is intelligent; it does not want a popularity contest.
It is surprising to me how little of the discussion so far has focused on the question “what actual knowledge, experience, and proven relevant achievement do you have for the job? “ “What is your understanding of the implications of established sustainability policies, official community plans, and regional growth strategies”? “Have you demonstrated that you can work effectively in collaboration with others?” After all, if I were looking for work, I would expect these questions to be directed at me.
I notice as well that many candidates welcome the chance to talk about what they are against, but what I want to know is what are they FOR?
Can you follow up on all the questions below with convincing arguments details?”
“Exactly how, in practical terms, would you deal with managed but sustainable growth? with the need for affordable, as opposed to more, housing? with the need to provide economic opportunities for young families?”
“Would you be willing to tell your constituents that “more tax dollars may be required to do things that are necessary to have the kind of community you want?”
“Would you be willing to tell your engineering department that maybe it’s time for standards and practices for engineering, utilities and lighting to be reconsidered?”
“Would you be willing to explore new physical and financial models that would allow for new and innovative development?”
and the most urgent question of all:
“What will be the components of the emerging sustainable economy, and how will you move the community toward it?”
The most serious issue in these elections involves our perception of what it takes to govern.
The job is not about personalities, it’s about careful committed informed hard work.
The reality is that from now on we are seeking complex solutions to complex problems.
Those who claim to have the simplistic one line magic solution or the refreshing new approach that will somehow address all our challenges should sit down, do their homework, and answer the questions above.
If they can’t do this or won’t do this, they are wasting the community’s time.
Andrew Brown
526 Tamarack Drive
Qualicum Beach
