Comments

You don't speak for me Written by Citizen Wilson on 2006-10-23 10:39:27 As a young organization, you'd might want to ask yourselves: do Regina voters want Party Politics to invade City Hall? Its why I prefer to consider INDIVIDUAL candidates, and will continue to support those candidates that prove to act in the best interest of the long term administration of this City regardless of party politics.

In for the long haul? Written by Guest on 2006-10-23 12:30:09 While the CCFR is much better organised, better prepared, more inclusive and more democratic than its predecessor, A.C.T.O.R.S., and while its campaign in this civic election has significantly raised the interest of the public in civic matters (always desirable), the organisation needs to give serious consideration to a number of issues if it wants to remain an influence in Regina. There is, as Citizen Wilson has pointed out, the issue of party/quasi-party status, and all the implications of same. Will winning candidates owe their first allegiance to their constituents and to the city, or to the CCFR? Will any CCFR-endorsed Councillor/Trustee who differs from its policies or platform, even once and for sound reasons, be ousted? Will the public perceive that their concerns are getting a fair hearing, if these differ from the platform/policies of the CCFR? Will successful CCFR candidates be willing and able to work with those who dissent from their views? Then there is the issue of credibility and tactical intelligence. It was unwise to change the very clear CCFR policy requiring candidates to live in the ward/subdivision they hope to represent. Reginans are leery of parachute candidates (witness the brouhaha in Ward 1 in re: Louis Browne, not to mention past failures of drop-in candidates to be successful), and those who respected the CCFR for being principled might be forgiven for thinking that the movement acts as cynically as any other political organisation when things don't work in its favour. And, before this comment gets too long, what will happen if the CCFR doesn't do very well in the election? Will they be able to learn from the experience, and move on? Will they settle themselves to the long-haul educational and advocacy work - the grunt work, not the sexy stuff - that will be necessary to swing a higher proportion of voters their way next time? If the organisation wants real change, it has to commit for a long time. Can it do that? We'll see.

Long haul? Written by Guest on 2006-10-23 13:53:40 Well put - my sentiments and thoughts exactly - too many times we have seen a rush of enthusiasm starting to snowball somewhat and then dissapear into the wind - if the polls that have been taken are a fair concensus and one must assume they are - the CCFR is a long way from being anywheres near the golden goose so to speak. Will this fledging movement have the wherewithall to stand the test of time after the people have spoken? - one hopes that this is more than just a flash in the pan and can be looked on to try their hand again in another 3 years.

Not a Party Written by Guest on 2006-10-23 15:53:23 I've attending a number of public forums and have noted that the CCFR candidates in fact represent a greater variety of viewpoints and issues than you might expect. What they have done, though, is to jointly agree and publicly state that they stand for some basic shared principals. If you want to see a one-party state in action, look at the current city council. They overwhelmingly are involved in real estate and land/property development, they vote on issues unanimously and they stifle debate whenever possible. The only difference is, they don't give themselves a name, like The Landlords Coalition or the Property Development Coalition or the Construction Association Party. If you think incumbant city councillors have been voting independently on issues, you haven't been paying attention.

Clarification Written by Guest on 2006-10-23 16:31:35 The description of the CCFR as at least a quasi-party is sound. It's a political organisation that sells memberships, has principles and policies agreed on by the membership according to a carefully-drawn procedure, vets and endorses (or declines to endorse) candidates, fundraises for election purposes, and co-ordinates media releases and election advertising. It's reasonable to expect the successful candidates to form a caucus and vote as a bloc, and several CCFR candidates have expressed just that intention. All the other comments in re: the long road ahead of the CCFR also stand, and those within the organisation who are in it for more than just one election know about those issues and will no doubt meet their challenges.

Where's checks and balances? Written by Guest on 2006-10-23 16:34:15 What happened to term limits for elected officials?

Term limits Written by Citizen Wilson on 2006-10-23 21:46:13 There are term limits in place...you are in until you are voted out. Long term sitters are not that uncommon...have a look at City Hall records...some Councilers have sat for more than 10 years. Did that mean they were out of touch, or did their ward residents like them? They had to requalify every election unless they won by acclamation. Further more, longevity does have an up side....experience....seems new folks elected spend their first term learning the ropes and how to do the job. In my opinion, I think the CCFR has a lot to learn about leadership and what it really takes to run a city.

Checks and balances redux Written by Guest on 2006-10-24 09:39:32 While it was a CCFR supporter who introduced the topic of term limits, the subsequent elaboration was offered by an independent. Citizen Wilson cites the main reason for not going to term limits: the arbitrary abridgement of the people's right to choose. He also mentions the steep learning curve faced by newly elected candidates, which is a fact; most 1st-term officials want the chance to improve in place. The term limits I'm suggesting are reasonable: no more than 3 consecutive 3-year terms (we're talking municipal and school board level, here). This would give every elected official a possible 9 years to get things done. It would put a limit on the incumbent advantage; ensure a degree of turnover; spread the work and experience around; awaken more public interest; produce a more informed electorate; put the focus on the office rather than the person; guard against entrenchment, complacency, entitlement, failure to listen, and other abuses of office; model behaviour required of others (e.g. staff transfers); give citizens ample time to ponder running for office; discourage career politicians; and keep administrations flexible and alert.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!