Councillors must listen to electors
If election candidates propose a platform of specific actions, it would be fair to expect them to carry out those actions if elected, probably without a great deal of further consultation. On the other hand, if there are significant actions they wish to pursue and which were not part of their campaign platform, their first step should be to consult with the people who elected them. In a democratic society, election to office – while it may give the legal right – is not intended to confer the moral right to pursue personal agendas that run contrary to the wishes of the electorate.
Municipal amalgamation is not an issue in the current elections. Hopefully that issue is behind us. However, looking to the past can give us insights on how candidates are likely to act in the future. Municipal amalgamation was not an issue in the last elections, and therefore moving forward without consultation was not justified. Spending nearly $1 million of taxpayer money on an ill-conceived proposal before hearing from their electorate is not a strong recommendation for several of our current candidates. Clearly 75 per cent of the voters in the county and Stellarton did not simply wake up on May 28 and decide to vote no.
Similarly a smaller majority of Pictou voters and a significant minority of New Glasgow voters held views contrary to their representatives. At this point, it should be clear that councillors Baillie, Thompson and Wadden from the county, and councillor Beaton from Pictou did not listen, and chose to very publicly and forcefully pursue personal agendas contrary to the wishes of their electors. It should also be clear that New Glasgow councillors Dicks and Lewis failed to listen to a significant portion of their electors in pursuing the proposed amalgamation without any apparent attempt to accommodate the wishes of that significant minority by finding a compromise.
Over the past two years these councilors, all candidates for reelection, demonstrated either an unwillingness or inability to listen to their constituents. Amalgamation may be behind us, but there will be other decisions in the next four years. Have these candidates learned to listen? Or if re-elected, will they again choose to act without listening?
Brian W. White New Glasgow