Random Access

How's this for convoluted logic?
It's virtually impossible for an incumbent municipal politician in Ontario to be defeated, unless he is found guilty of a criminal offence, a la L. Cliff Gyles, so.... let's extend their terms of office for an extra year.
For some reason that only he, and a lot of municipal politicians and school trustees may be able to appreciate, Premier Dalton McGuinty thinks that municipal politicians need longer terms of office.
He's proposed that the term for which we elect those politicians be extended from three years to four, beginning in the term of office for which we go to the polls Nov. 13.
If anyone had bothered to ask the public, the popular sentiment would have been to reduce the term of office, not to lengthen it.
Once upon a time, municipal terms were just one year. When Mississauga became a City in 1974, there was an initial three-year term. Then, there were two-year terms in 1976, 1978 and 1980. That probably was too short to be effective and three years became the norm again in 1982. That seems to have worked very well since.
So why the need for change?
"It's a matter of respect," said the Premier. "We have fixed four-year terms at the provincial level and federal terms can run a maximum of five years. It's also a matter of efficiency. Three years is too short. A four-year term is the ideal period of time for a council to forge an agenda, implement it and then seek the people's judgment."
What a load of McGuinty.
Municipal politicians don't generally run on a specific platform, like provincial and federal parties do, or even put forward anything anyone would recognize as an agenda. It's a lot more like, "Here I am again. Things are going well. Re-elect me for more good government."
To their credit, not all municipal politicians are automatically accepting what is obviously in their own interest. Ottawa Councillor Alex Cullen said four-year terms weaken public accountability.
"Extending terms just means someone could inflict damage for a longer period of time before they have to face the reality check of an election. I'm not a fan, and I think voters should look at this closely."
If four years is better for implementing a long-term vision and building a city, why should we stop there? Just imagine how much a mayor and council could do with a six or seven-year term? It's a specious argument.
If we want to improve voter turnouts that have generally been in the 20-25 per cent range for the past several elections in Mississauga, doesn't it make sense to hold elections closer together, rather than farther apart?
Then again, elections are sort of formulaic here anyway, unless someone has retired or they're adding new seats, as is happening this year.
I don't think people really care about how long the terms are, as long as they're getting that good government that so many talk about, and so few deliver.
Let me ask a hypothetical question: If voters in Mississauga were asked if we should suspend the municipal electoral process entirely until a certain short, indestructible, wizened troll-like Smurf is no longer on the municipal scene, would it pass?
Yeah, I think so too.
Makes you think about democracy in an entirely different way, doesn't it?