Full-time pay, part-time accountability

Welcome back, dear readers.

On returning from my vacation, I was surprised to learn that Inuvik Town Council had held a special meeting to discuss and vote the issue of a full time mayor.

The special meeting was held with barely a quorum and the vote was pushed through before the three vacationing councilors returned. Although there is a precedent for electronic voting via email, that option was not allowed here.

I’ve resisted the urge to comment in my blog on issues facing town council, but since I was denied that forum, I will for the record, put my thoughts here.

The reasons Inuvik’s previous town council voted in favour of the full time mayor’s position were because of the increase in oil and gas activity in the region, the onerous duties required with presenting to the Joint Review Panel and organizing the Inuvik Petroleum Show.

The reality today, is that there is virtually no oil and gas activity taking place here, the Joint Review Panel hearings have concluded, and the mayor thinks the Inuvik Petroleum Show has run its course.

When we voted this to be a full-time position our part-time mayor, Peter Clarkson, was also providing monthly reports and bringing in new funding that far exceeded the salary proposed. If there is a need for a full-time mayor, the current council would not be aware of that, because, in truth, we don’t know how the mayor spends his time. The current mayor has filed only two reports in three years and any new funding was brought in through the initiatives of our town manager, Sara Brown.

The lack of information flowing to council prompted me to move a motion that re-established committees. Although new committees were established, regular meetings were never held. The Administration Committee met just twice over the three-year term, despite having passed three capital/operating budgets and numerous staff issues and shortages which all should have come to committee.

For a mayor who campaigned on being “open and accountable” this mayor has done more to cut off the flow of information than anything.

Although Peter and I disagreed loudly on many issues, his work ethic was never questioned. Quite the opposite in fact. We once had to rein him in for being too involved.

This contrast in two mayors illustrates another reason why this position should be part-time – the job is so dependant on the drive and ability of the individual elected.

I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but my political position is best described as Libertarian, where the best government is no government. Why should taxpayers fund elected amateurs to manage the future of their community, when there are professionals who can do a far better job?

The money used to fund a full-time mayor could be otherwise channeled into attracting professionals to the town staff in key areas like finance and engineering. We have been without an engineer for about six years and without a finance officer for about six months.

A mayor can be a ribbon cutter and ambassador for the town or he can be a dedicated and driven workaholic. The flaw in democracy is that often the voter won’t know which until it’s too late.