Online petitions no substitute for political decisions

Councillors elected to study issues and make tough choices

Following a close city council vote in December to impose a limited window for backyard fire pits in Saskatoon from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m., Coun. Zach Jeffries posted an online petition on the issue.

Jeffries, who opposes any time limit and backs better enforcement of existing rules, characterized the website as an attempt to communicate with residents. Jeffries said he had no threshold in mind, nor did he intend to put the results to any specific use.

The petition was no different than receiving emails or phone calls from taxpayers, Jeffries said, regardless of whether it looked like a politician upset over losing a close vote.

Residents can judge for themselves, but the website calls on people to “show your support for balanced fire pit regulations in Saskatoon.” The preamble explains the “undersigned” back better enforcement and oppose the new “arbitrary” time limits.

Jeffries’ move raises another issue, whatever his motives may be in this case. If gauging residents’ support is important for fire pit rules, why is it not just as vital for other issues, like bus rapid transit, user fees for trash collection and the other biggies facing Saskatoon city council in 2018?

Ultimately, who needs politicians when we have online petitions?

The difficulty with the online petition lies in its lack of accountability. Jeffries’ effort has attracted more than 800 “signatures.”

The website asks supporters to submit their names, street addresses and email addresses. Will those be vetted for authenticity? Jeffries works full time in addition to his councillor duties, so that seems unlikely.

Incidentally, his petition does not guarantee privacy as two other petitions on Saskatoon backyard fire pits do.

One of them, urging fires be allowed to “burn freely,” appeared on a petition website after council’s fire pit decision in December. It has about 800 signatures. It’s clear from the names displayed that at least some of those signing on are not from Saskatoon or even Saskatchewan. Whether vetting is done to ensure these people exist is not apparent.

That’s also true of another online petition posted in May that urged Mayor Charlie Clark to “save backyard fires in Saskatoon.” This petition, which has attracted more than 9,700 “signatures,” has been inaccurately cited as showing opposition to council’s December decision.

A move to phase out the backyard burning of wood, by the way, was soundly defeated by council in December. This petition also includes people — if they truly exist — from beyond Saskatoon.

Whether the people signing these online petitions are real is one concern. Another concern is whether they are informed.

We elect representatives so they can study issues and make informed decisions. None of the three petitions mentions the harmful effects of wood smoke on human health and the environment.

The ignorance displayed on social media about the fire pit issue is astounding. Jeffries posted a lengthy Facebook message decrying the “downright ugly” tone of some. He slammed the “thoughtless keyboard warrior,” but it takes very little thought to sign an online petition.

Some councillors who voted in favour of the new time limit suggested Jeffries’ petition showed a lack of respect for council’s decision. Coun. Hilary Gough noted the issue was debated three times by council and committees in 2017 with lots of opportunity for residents’ input.

Coun. Darren Hill, conversely, has used social media to promote Jeffries’ petition and another one. Hill, who was also on the losing side of the firepit hours vote, posted on Facebook that the petition did not amount to sour grapes — “it’s about doing what is right.”

Intriguingly, Hill said he cast a vote against a backyard chickens pilot project in August after gathering input by email and Facebook.

Will this approach become the norm? Government by Facebook?

Residents have always helped guide the decisions of council, as they should, but now contact is easier and, arguably, less accountable.