Power to the People? … Really!

One of most overused phrases in politics and government is some form of “power to the people”. More so now during this time of populist cheerleading than ever before it seems. The reality is when the rubber finally hits the road, few have the professional development, self security or personal depth it takes to actually follow through. 

If we apply this understanding to the layer of government most connected to the population, the municipal layer, we start to understand why this institution tends to be mired in mediocrity more than basking in the extraordinary. How often have we heard, or even said, “the City (or Town) will mess that up?” or “why would they do such a poor job of ….” The understanding is even more accentuated in rural communities where capacity, resources and the personal nature of the relationship between the population and the municipality are even more prevalent. Coincidently, it can be argued that the country at large is rural in nature as about 90% of the population exists some 100 kms from the U.S. border, but there is still 5,000 kilometers to the north, and another 10,000 kms to the east and west, where the rest of us live. In Northern Ontario for example, some 96% of the communities have populations 3,000 people or less while 92% of them are 1,000 people or less. Clearly rural and clearly closely personal with the populations they serve, and a typical cross section of the rest of the country outside of that 100 km band.  

Aside from municipal operations having evolved into complicated and costly bureaucracies that are administrative and procedurally oriented (a discussion for another time), with the wide net of liability today, they are not always geared to achieving the best results. In fact, the culture has developed into more of a disabling one that more often leads to mediocrity as opposed to an enabling one that seeks to be extraordinary.  

Wouldn’t it stand to reason that empowering the public itself, the very folks who must live with the outcomes of their municipal operations (good or bad), could be beneficial. Especially if they are working for free as volunteers. This brings us back to the notion of “empowering the people”, but, as the old adage goes, “it’s easier said then done”.  

The natural tendency of the bureaucracy is to control and limit liability through that control. There’s also a natural tendency for departments to be a little territorial as well, even silo orientated, seeking to do it all in-house themselves in some cases. While they work to maintain maximum control, the invariable challenge is that they don’t typically have the staffing levels, time and resources to do it all. As a result, what tends to follow is actually rationalizing mediocrity resulting from not having the staff or time to chase the extraordinary. So, we tend to minimize and settle for less. The reality is that no matter how proud they are or how much they want to, or how well intended they are, there will come a point where either more staff will need to be hired, or services and expectations are left to suffer. Typically, it’s the latter.  

Then, there’s the governance dynamics around control, trust and micromanagement that many smaller communities face which contributes to the reluctance to follow through with empowering others. Especially if there are personal dynamics at play. After all, how does one maintain the popularity to be re-elected if things fail?

 The irony is that the institution is just not geared to accomplishing the type of extraordinary results that in fact create more efficiency and realize the kind of extraordinary outcomes that positively influence the very popularity being sought. Instead, when all is said and told the institution is mired in mediocrity. There are always plenty of reasons and rationale why this is the case, but the result remains the same.

 So, the typical question becomes, “what can you do?” 

 Well, one can resist the tendency to accept conventional thinking and start to challenge it instead. One of the hardest things to do for an institution historically in the box and adverse to change, is to get “out of the box” and the comfort that it provided, let alone throw the entire box away every now and then.

The good news is the tools to actually empower people already exist in the Municipal Act. The not so good news is it takes a developed level of professionalism, personal security and fearless depth to truly take this step.

 The “box” today is to deploy committees of council as a means to “empower the people”. Unfortunately, committees have no decision making power and effectively are only advisories that require council approval to make decisions. What happens in small communities when a council has folks on it who may not have the experience or capacity to understand the recommendation? What happens when there are small town personal issues at play? How does council benefit from all the dialogue, research, leg work and expertise the committee was engaged in? How does a committee of superstars react to having wasted their time and energy on the rejection of their recommendations? Committees tend to become vehicles of frustration and discouragement for people to get involved, resulting in high turnover and either eventual failure or mediocrity.

 Getting out of the “box” could be to minimize the use of committees instead, except on a short term, ad-hoc basis for a very specific purpose, while alternatively deploying Municipal Boards that are designed to be arm’s length from council. Another layer of governance where some powers and authorities of council can be delegated. Council’s control comes in the form of them actually developing and writing the board mandates in a terms of reference while also allowing themselves final say on who sits on the board, followed by regular updates and briefings. After all, anything more than that could in fact be micromanaging. However, the people are now truly empowered to make decisions within the white lines provided to them by council, which avoids the constant stop and go, and rejection, of a committee. It also is an opportunity for council to empower the higher capacity community champions that would be motivated by this. From council’s perspective, the added layer of governance is added horsepower that is better connected to the service in question. It helps to create a more efficient and expedited council table more focussed on the important higher level, strategic priorities.

 It just stands to reason that tapping into the superstars in the community with a vested interest in a particular municipal service, and creating the added horsepower of that, for free or nominal cost, is the kind of changed thinking that helps evolve an institution. It’s the kind of thinking that elevates communities, especially rural communities, from being disabling in nature to being enabling instead. 

 All it requires is the fearlessness and will to challenge the mediocre, conventional thinking of an old and tired institution that everyone else seems content to rationalise, and just cut your people loose! Place strong leaders in the leadership roles (Chairs) with clean, and clear direction (Terms of Reference) to keep them between a set of white lines, and then just get out of their way. And not “white lines” to control or even disable, but to providing focus that guides them to greatness and achieving the extraordinary vision set by council. 

 “Leadership is not measured in how many followers one has but in how many leaders one creates.” - Mahatma Gandhi

If our local leadership can take us past the natural populist influences that foster cynicism and resist change, no matter how good it is, while encouraging the evolution of enabling thinking and the development of the culture, a whole new world begins to become accessible...

– maybe, just maybe... even opening the door to a renaissance! How often does that opportunity present itself?

 Peter Politis www.forevergreen.ca