Two-thirds requirement not a super idea

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/02/2020 (2274 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Winnipeg city Coun. Kevin Klein wants to make the hill a bit steeper for anyone who wants to close a city pool, arena, community centre or library, by requiring the support of two-thirds of council for any such decision. Although the idea has some merit, Mr. Klein, who represents Charleswood-Tuxedo-Westwood, might not be applying the concept of a “supermajority” in the proper context.

Mr. Klein’s suggestion comes in the midst of a particularly difficult budgeting process at city hall, wherein councillors are trying to set the fiscal guidelines for the next four years with annual spending increases limited to between zero (for some departments) and two per cent (for other departments). That is an enormous challenge, given that the dual impact of population growth and inflation will likely mean the costs of running a city will rise much more than two per cent.

In response, council has asked senior bureaucrats to sharpen both their pencils and their knives to come up with ways of keeping annual expenditures within specified limits. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in a torrent of extremely unpopular proposals for cuts in services and facility closures. In the community services department, which will be limited to a 0.5 per cent annual spending increase, staff has recommended the closure of dozens of wading pools, five full-sized pools, four arenas and three libraries.

In Mr. Klein’s view, these facility closures — if they were to come to pass — would unfairly hurt some areas of the city while leaving other areas unscathed. In such situations, councillors from unaffected wards would have the ability to close facilities in other wards; all that would be required is a simple majority on the council floor.

Mr. Klein is correct to point out the imbalance in decision-making, which might allow councillors in newer, larger suburban wards to prevail over councillors in older, less heavily populated wards. One need only look at the result of the recent plebiscite on the proposal to reopen Portage and Main; voters in outlying areas easily overwhelmed the strong desire of core-area residents to return pedestrian traffic to the intersection.

But is a supermajority the solution to this problem? As we can see in other jurisdictions — the United States Senate comes to mind — supermajorities can become tools of obstruction and manipulation to prevent elected representatives from making necessary decisions. Or any decision, for that matter. When the bar is set so high, it is easy for a decision-making body such as a city council to descend into paralysis.

Mr. Klein has also failed to make the case regarding why facility closures deserve a supermajority requirement but other important decisions made at council — approving wages and benefits, tax increases or investments in major infrastructure programs — do not. Surely, if we are to raise the bar and demand a much higher threshold for decisions, we should be looking at other impactful and possibly more important issues.

Mr. Klein has raised an interesting idea, but seems not to have considered all its potential consequences. He has not adequately demonstrated that supermajorities, in and of themselves, would level the playing field for council decision-making.

Perhaps another of Mr. Klein’s suggestions — to have the governance committee of council commission a study on the idea — was the wisest and most worthy of his recommendations. Fortunately, that proposal requires only a simple majority on council to move forward.