By the nature of the beast, politicians have to flirt at least with issues that capture the hearts and minds of voters.
Given the reaction populist positions can garner, it can be tempting for politicians who want to make a name for themselves or who are hungry for re-election to champion causes that provoke powerful public reactions.
It can also be tempting to tar all politicians with the same cynical brush: They’re all in the game to further their own agendas. Now, I don’t really think that’s true, especially at the municipal level. Believe it or not, politicians are people, too (a slogan that will never appear on a t-shirt).
They are equally as susceptible to becoming emotionally invested in an issue as the rest of us.
So, when it comes to statements made in the past week by two Greater Sudbury’s city councillors, I suspect the populist stances they’ve taken have more to do with the latter, than the former.
I’m referring to Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini and Ward 3 Coun. Gerry Montpellier, who both took populist positions on two very hot issues at the moment: The city’s proposal to make major changes to the fire service and Health Sciences North’s decision to switch its laundry provider from a local one to one from southern Ontario.
Both are issues that have struck a chord with the public.
I don’t want to discourage elected officials from fighting tooth and nail for their constituents, far from it. That’s why they’re there. But when you decide to take a strong position, you had better be sure you can defend it and you shouldn’t be surprised by criticism.
Case in point: During a public meeting on March 6 in Dowling, Mr. Montpellier gave an impassioned speech on his concerns about the proposal to overhaul the city’s fire service.
In his view, voters should be deciding the fate of the Fire Optimization Plan, not the municipal councillors who were elected to represent voters’ interests.
Making a change to the fire service is always a hot button issue. And to be sure, the public meetings being held to explain the idea to ratepayers got off to a rocky start. But emotional voters and poorly executed public meetings are not a reason to spend upwards of seven figures on a referendum, especially for a process that’s only partly complete.
Expressing concern and offering criticism are certainly part of a city councillor’s role. But Mr. Montpellier went beyond that, tacitly suggesting city council couldn’t be trusted to look after voters’ interests, so the decision should be taken from council’s hands.
I’m sorry, councillor, but that’s wrong. People are skeptical of politicians enough as it is, they don’t need to be goaded into outright distrust.
What’s more, if Mr. Montpellier is so convinced the plan is bonkers, he should do what he was elected to do: Convince his fellow councillors to defeat it on April 26 when the motion comes up for voting. Send the plan back to the drawing board.
Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini did something similar last Friday, when he was part of a press conference about Health Sciences North’s decision to switch laundry providers. With a decidedly conspiratorial air, the trio who called the press conference argued — with little evidence — HSN was hiding something from the public.
Mr. Vagnini used the occasion to say he believed the city should “leave no stone unturned” and try to turn Sudbury Hospital Services into a “laundry hub” for the region.
Anyone familiar with Sudbury Hospital Services likely found this an odd suggestion, because it used to be exactly that: SHS provided laundry services for hospitals from Mattawa to Sudbury. As the years passed, SHS lost its ability to compete and shed its client hospitals until HSN was its only customer (and therefore the only member left on its non-profit board).
While it appears SHS’s member hospitals may have allowed the business to founder by failing to keep pace with industry changes, that is in the past. Today, as a late-February report to city council details, SHS needs more than $2 million of work just to keep the machines running and millions of dollars more to make it competitive.
Mr. Vagnini should have known this. After all, the report was presented to council. His suggestion to try to turn back time on SHS would just be throwing good money after bad.
To his credit, he’s trying to preserve local jobs. Despite those good intentions though, Sudbury’s taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize what the Greater Sudbury Development Corporation report shows: SHS is no longer a viable entity. Why should the city spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a business model that’s failed?
In the councillors’ defence, I think they are being genuine, but sincerity doesn’t make their suggestions worthwhile or their populist tactics palatable.
Greater Sudbury has some big decisions to make — the fire service plan, the arena decision, and the big projects plan are just a few. We need to keep our wits about us if we’re going to see the forest for the trees.
Being swept along by populist discontent is a sure fire recipe for bad decisions.
Mark Gentili is the managing editor of Sudbury.com and Northern Life.
