"Municipal election reform ignores biggest problem" - column by Paul Willcocks. Printed in the Penticton Herald on June 2, 2010 and also on his blog - "Paying Attention" - http://willcocks.blogspot.com/
Do big campaign contributions influence politicians' decisions?
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
http://willcocks.blogspot.com/
Thursday, June 3, 2010
"Report on municipal elections step in right direction" - editorial Wednesday, June 2, 2010 Penticton Herald
Report on municipal elections step in right direction
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
For years, lobbyists have known the cheapest and most effective branch of government to influence is at the
municipal level, whether things are above-board or not.
If someone wants to lobby the provincial or federal government, it has to pass through a lot of hands. It was therefore refreshing to see the B.C. Liberals call for a report on electoral
reform for municipal elections.
In the 2008 election, some ridings in the province were a Gong Show when it came to following guidelines. This report, which you can view on-line, is pretty good. There are still some cracks to be filled but that can be expected with any new piece of legislation.
The idea of a four-year term is dumb.
It will discourage more people from running because of that extra year and if a town or city gets stuck with a poor council, they will have them for an additional year.
Once upon a time, terms were only two years and that was far too short mainly because of unfinished business and succeeding councils being able to reverse decisions.
So what was good about the task force report?
- Municipal spending limits will be in place. While this may prove to be an advantage for incumbents (but likely not in Penticton) it limits the big spenders from buying victory.
- Anonymous donations are now outlawed.
- All advertising must state who paid for each ad.
- Third party advertisers must register.
- Complete disclosure must be placed on-line within 90 days of the election. At the present time, anyone wishing to view election
information must go to the inconvenience of visiting their municipal hall.
A common word that was used is "transparency" and this is extremely important.
In an informal poll of candidates in Summerland, both successful and unsuccessful, all seem to agree that this report is an
extremely positive start.
- James M. Miller
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=269369&a=41745&d=12445&k=f3f800001e636ebd8f18d1bf97b04dd2
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
For years, lobbyists have known the cheapest and most effective branch of government to influence is at the
municipal level, whether things are above-board or not.
If someone wants to lobby the provincial or federal government, it has to pass through a lot of hands. It was therefore refreshing to see the B.C. Liberals call for a report on electoral
reform for municipal elections.
In the 2008 election, some ridings in the province were a Gong Show when it came to following guidelines. This report, which you can view on-line, is pretty good. There are still some cracks to be filled but that can be expected with any new piece of legislation.
The idea of a four-year term is dumb.
It will discourage more people from running because of that extra year and if a town or city gets stuck with a poor council, they will have them for an additional year.
Once upon a time, terms were only two years and that was far too short mainly because of unfinished business and succeeding councils being able to reverse decisions.
So what was good about the task force report?
- Municipal spending limits will be in place. While this may prove to be an advantage for incumbents (but likely not in Penticton) it limits the big spenders from buying victory.
- Anonymous donations are now outlawed.
- All advertising must state who paid for each ad.
- Third party advertisers must register.
- Complete disclosure must be placed on-line within 90 days of the election. At the present time, anyone wishing to view election
information must go to the inconvenience of visiting their municipal hall.
A common word that was used is "transparency" and this is extremely important.
In an informal poll of candidates in Summerland, both successful and unsuccessful, all seem to agree that this report is an
extremely positive start.
- James M. Miller
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=269369&a=41745&d=12445&k=f3f800001e636ebd8f18d1bf97b04dd2
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
"Summerlanders comment on Task Force findings" By Susan McIver/Special to The Herald Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Summerlanders comment on Task Force findings
By Susan McIver/Special to The Penticton Herald
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Current and former Summerland municipal politicians and members of the public generally think the task force on local elections did a good job.
The report released Monday by the joint government and Union of B.C. Municipalities task force contained 31 recommendations.
“I think all of the recommendations of the election task force are excellent. What is important is that the task force listened to all of the comments presented to them,” said Mayor Janice Perrino.
The task force received over 10,000 submissions.
“They did a great job. I have the utmost respect for members of the task force,” said former councillor Peter Waterman.
B.C. Community and Rural Development Minister Bill Bennett said the task force was guided by the principle of transparency.
“The public has a right to know where the money comes from, who is spending it, who is buying ads, who is organizing or supporting candidates in local government elections,” Bennett said.
Bennett and UBCM president Harry Nyce co-chaired the task force.
Councillor Gordon Clark agrees with the importance of transparency.
“I am a proponent of full disclosure. More light and more air, as a general matter, are core underpinnings of a free society,” said Clark, who is generally content with the report.
In order to enhance transparency the task force recommends banning all anonymous contributions.
Last fall questions about the financing of the 2008 Summerland municipal election led a group of residents, including Frank Martens, to request an investigation by the RCMP.
Citing the six month statute of limitation on such matters the RCMP declined to conduct an investigation.
Martens was pleased by the recommendation that extends the current six month period for
investigation of an alleged offence to one year.
The deadline for submission of campaign finance disclosure statements is recommended to be shortened to 90 days from the current 120 days after the election.
The disclosure statements would then be published online through Elections B.C.
“I think the task force recommendations are good ones and should address most of the concerns that were raised in the last municipal elections in Summerland,” said John Kingsmill.
The task force recommends that third party advertisers must register and must disclose what they spend on ads and who contributed to them, and prohibit advertising by unregistered third parties.
As well there would be a requirement for all election advertising to disclose who sponsored the advertising and make it an offence to published ads without required sponsorship information.
To ensure accountability a separate act dealing with campaign finance rules in local elections is recommended.
A key role for Elections B.C. in enforcing campaign finance rules in local elections is also recommended as is clarification of roles, power and responsibilities of the local chief election officer with regard to elections enforcement, including explicit powers during elections.
Former mayor David Gregory said that election controversy in Summerland is nothing new.
“During Summerland‘s 2002 municipal election and referendum, a flyer was distributed to every household in Summerland supporting the proposed Protective Services Building.
This flyer was written on municipal council letterhead suggesting that mayor and council supported the referendum. Municipal council never saw the flyer. Municipal council did not support the contents of the flyer,” Gregory said.
In addition to being deceived, Gregory said taxpayers paid approximately $600 in postage.
The complete report can be viewed at www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=269355
By Susan McIver/Special to The Penticton Herald
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Current and former Summerland municipal politicians and members of the public generally think the task force on local elections did a good job.
The report released Monday by the joint government and Union of B.C. Municipalities task force contained 31 recommendations.
“I think all of the recommendations of the election task force are excellent. What is important is that the task force listened to all of the comments presented to them,” said Mayor Janice Perrino.
The task force received over 10,000 submissions.
“They did a great job. I have the utmost respect for members of the task force,” said former councillor Peter Waterman.
B.C. Community and Rural Development Minister Bill Bennett said the task force was guided by the principle of transparency.
“The public has a right to know where the money comes from, who is spending it, who is buying ads, who is organizing or supporting candidates in local government elections,” Bennett said.
Bennett and UBCM president Harry Nyce co-chaired the task force.
Councillor Gordon Clark agrees with the importance of transparency.
“I am a proponent of full disclosure. More light and more air, as a general matter, are core underpinnings of a free society,” said Clark, who is generally content with the report.
In order to enhance transparency the task force recommends banning all anonymous contributions.
Last fall questions about the financing of the 2008 Summerland municipal election led a group of residents, including Frank Martens, to request an investigation by the RCMP.
Citing the six month statute of limitation on such matters the RCMP declined to conduct an investigation.
Martens was pleased by the recommendation that extends the current six month period for
investigation of an alleged offence to one year.
The deadline for submission of campaign finance disclosure statements is recommended to be shortened to 90 days from the current 120 days after the election.
The disclosure statements would then be published online through Elections B.C.
“I think the task force recommendations are good ones and should address most of the concerns that were raised in the last municipal elections in Summerland,” said John Kingsmill.
The task force recommends that third party advertisers must register and must disclose what they spend on ads and who contributed to them, and prohibit advertising by unregistered third parties.
As well there would be a requirement for all election advertising to disclose who sponsored the advertising and make it an offence to published ads without required sponsorship information.
To ensure accountability a separate act dealing with campaign finance rules in local elections is recommended.
A key role for Elections B.C. in enforcing campaign finance rules in local elections is also recommended as is clarification of roles, power and responsibilities of the local chief election officer with regard to elections enforcement, including explicit powers during elections.
Former mayor David Gregory said that election controversy in Summerland is nothing new.
“During Summerland‘s 2002 municipal election and referendum, a flyer was distributed to every household in Summerland supporting the proposed Protective Services Building.
This flyer was written on municipal council letterhead suggesting that mayor and council supported the referendum. Municipal council never saw the flyer. Municipal council did not support the contents of the flyer,” Gregory said.
In addition to being deceived, Gregory said taxpayers paid approximately $600 in postage.
The complete report can be viewed at www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=269355
"More transparency needed for civil election campaigns" by Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun June 1, 2010
More transparency needed for civil election campaigns
By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun June 1, 2010
There will be greater transparency, significantly better oversight of civic-election financing, and a move away from citizen-complaint-driven enforcement of the rules, if the B.C. government puts in place the recommendations of its appointed task force.
Released Monday, the recommendations are aimed at eliminating the kind of electoral shenanigans that occurred during the 2008 civic vote and resulted in court cases and police investigations in municipalities such as West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley and Summerland.
Anonymous donations would be banned.
Elections BC would have oversight and enforcement powers, and more authority will be given to local electoral officers to do things such as take down illegal signs.
All election ads must say who paid for them.
Financial disclosures must be filed within 90 days of the vote and made available online. Currently, municipalities set their own rules about allowing citizens to view the documents, and the disclosures don't have to be filed until 120 days after the vote.
For the first time, the financial-disclosure rules would apply to referendum votes on a wide variety of issues, from rezonings to capital spending to annexation and expansion of civic boundaries.
Still, citizens would largely continue to vote blindly, because there's no way for them to find out who backed a candidate or issue financially until after the election.
While the task force focused mainly on transparency measures, it also recommended capping election spending by individual candidates, parties and interested third parties, to ensure that running for office isn't only open to the rich and well-connected.
However, task-force members -- representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and Liberal members of the legislature -- ducked both controversy and trouble by not suggesting what limits might be appropriate or how they might be applied.
If the spending limit covers the entire term, would disclosures be required only 90 days after the election or would there be annual disclosures?
(Community Development Minister Bill Bennett suggested Monday that mandatory disclosures might be too onerous in small municipalities, but "timely disclosures" would be required. He didn't say what timely means. Is it a month? Six months? Two years?)
In municipalities with civic parties, would the spending cap apply to candidates' nomination campaigns?
And those are just some of the questions that need to be answered. As the task-force report concluded, "the actual design of the expense limits will take significant work."
That work will now apparently be done over the next few months by government staff in consultation with the UBCM so that legislation can be passed next spring. There will be no opportunity for public input.
The task force also balked at recommending contribution limits, refusing even to ban foreign donations despite that being a unanimous recommendation from Vancouver's mayor and councillors.
Both Bennett and Surrey councillor Barbara Steele, a UBCM appointee to the task force, argue that improved transparency is the best regulator of contributions.
It's a view not widely held, as is evidenced by the donor cap at the federal level, limits in most provinces -- not B.C. -- and by a recent trend in other provinces to limit municipal election spending.
Yet neither Bennett nor Steele could explain why transparency is enough -- other than it might discourage citizens from voting next time for a mayor or council member who might, for example, have accepted $500,000 from either a public-sector union or a developer and then voted in line with the donor's best interests.
As for foreign donations, Bennett said the amount is insignificant and not worth worrying about, even though in the 2008 election in Metro Vancouver, total foreign donations far exceeded anonymous donations, which the task force recommended banning.
There's no argument that the task-force proposals to make civic elections more transparent and hold election participants more accountable for their actions are good things.
But the measure of the success of this whole exercise will be determined by if and how the Liberal government fills in the blanks on the spending cap, and whether it has the courage to go further and restrict electoral donations -- not only at the local level, but at the provincial level as well.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/More+transparency+needed+civil+election+campaigns/3096063/story.html#ixzz0phtode3m
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/More+transparency+needed+civil+election+campaigns/3096063/story.html
By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun June 1, 2010
There will be greater transparency, significantly better oversight of civic-election financing, and a move away from citizen-complaint-driven enforcement of the rules, if the B.C. government puts in place the recommendations of its appointed task force.
Released Monday, the recommendations are aimed at eliminating the kind of electoral shenanigans that occurred during the 2008 civic vote and resulted in court cases and police investigations in municipalities such as West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley and Summerland.
Anonymous donations would be banned.
Elections BC would have oversight and enforcement powers, and more authority will be given to local electoral officers to do things such as take down illegal signs.
All election ads must say who paid for them.
Financial disclosures must be filed within 90 days of the vote and made available online. Currently, municipalities set their own rules about allowing citizens to view the documents, and the disclosures don't have to be filed until 120 days after the vote.
For the first time, the financial-disclosure rules would apply to referendum votes on a wide variety of issues, from rezonings to capital spending to annexation and expansion of civic boundaries.
Still, citizens would largely continue to vote blindly, because there's no way for them to find out who backed a candidate or issue financially until after the election.
While the task force focused mainly on transparency measures, it also recommended capping election spending by individual candidates, parties and interested third parties, to ensure that running for office isn't only open to the rich and well-connected.
However, task-force members -- representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and Liberal members of the legislature -- ducked both controversy and trouble by not suggesting what limits might be appropriate or how they might be applied.
If the spending limit covers the entire term, would disclosures be required only 90 days after the election or would there be annual disclosures?
(Community Development Minister Bill Bennett suggested Monday that mandatory disclosures might be too onerous in small municipalities, but "timely disclosures" would be required. He didn't say what timely means. Is it a month? Six months? Two years?)
In municipalities with civic parties, would the spending cap apply to candidates' nomination campaigns?
And those are just some of the questions that need to be answered. As the task-force report concluded, "the actual design of the expense limits will take significant work."
That work will now apparently be done over the next few months by government staff in consultation with the UBCM so that legislation can be passed next spring. There will be no opportunity for public input.
The task force also balked at recommending contribution limits, refusing even to ban foreign donations despite that being a unanimous recommendation from Vancouver's mayor and councillors.
Both Bennett and Surrey councillor Barbara Steele, a UBCM appointee to the task force, argue that improved transparency is the best regulator of contributions.
It's a view not widely held, as is evidenced by the donor cap at the federal level, limits in most provinces -- not B.C. -- and by a recent trend in other provinces to limit municipal election spending.
Yet neither Bennett nor Steele could explain why transparency is enough -- other than it might discourage citizens from voting next time for a mayor or council member who might, for example, have accepted $500,000 from either a public-sector union or a developer and then voted in line with the donor's best interests.
As for foreign donations, Bennett said the amount is insignificant and not worth worrying about, even though in the 2008 election in Metro Vancouver, total foreign donations far exceeded anonymous donations, which the task force recommended banning.
There's no argument that the task-force proposals to make civic elections more transparent and hold election participants more accountable for their actions are good things.
But the measure of the success of this whole exercise will be determined by if and how the Liberal government fills in the blanks on the spending cap, and whether it has the courage to go further and restrict electoral donations -- not only at the local level, but at the provincial level as well.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/More+transparency+needed+civil+election+campaigns/3096063/story.html#ixzz0phtode3m
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/More+transparency+needed+civil+election+campaigns/3096063/story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)