Winnipeg City Council Term Limits

Greco Roman · #1 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 3:52 AM**

So, while still dealing with my post 100 Main St. frustration, I feel this is a prime example of why Winnipeg needs term limits on their beloved representatives. Is this possible? If implemented, would it help in creating more friendly conditions for private developers? Am I completely off my rocker?

Let's discuss.....................

nordique · #2 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 3:55 AM**

we need fresh blood, absolutely.

1ajs · #3 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 4:32 AM**

We need to get rid of every one on councle period. Wana do that, nows the time to get ones name out there.......................................

nordique · #4 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 5:17 AM**

does anyone have a list of how long each current councillor has been holding on to their seat for dear life? furthermore, i'd like to see some sort of graph listing their accomplishments during their tenure.

nordique · #5 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 5:26 AM**

i'd like to hold their stagnant feet to the fire

1ajs · #6 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 5:37 AM**

check wikipeadia

JayM · #7 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 10:49 AM**

new blood yeah i think so, some of these ppl have been in for sometime now and i think it would only be in the city's best interest that they have term limits to allow others in. if they ever want to run again fine, but wait a couple of years to allow the others to have a chance and a say in whats going on. i think the mixture of new and old, its a lot better then just flat out old. other cities that are on track have limited terms, and they aren't doing that bad off.

The Jabroni · #8 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 4:40 PM**

Here's a better question. Is there any other city in North America (or the world) like Winnipeg who has councillors that don't have term limits? How are they coping?

Boreal · #9 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 4:52 PM**

I completely believe in term limits ...although, I would high watermark it at 12 years so that it would be more easy to pass.

Adrian, I think its far too presumtuous to suggest that EVERY councillor needs to go. If you have a few flat tires, you don't replace the transmission too.

Overall, I think more than half of council is doing alright. Complaints arise, as will ALWAYS be the case, but aside from about 4 or 5, I think the rest do a decent job. Even a guy like Dan Vandal who I generally disagree with at most turns at least is raising many questions, which some of his contemporaries never venture to do. In my opinion that makes him a valuable member. He frustrates me, but he represents a view point to the best of his ability.

Lillian Thomas, Harry Lazarenko, and Harvey Smith to me appear to be 3 who were fresh out of any ideas years ago, and don't appear connected to the people of Winnipeg.

LilZebra · #10 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

check wikipeadia

They'll sure have a hell's chance in finding it if you mis-spell Wikipedia though.

vid · #11 Posted **Apr 1, 2008, 8:14 PM**

Term limits for city councillors? Great idea.

Some of Thunder Bay's councillors have their roots in the councils of Port Arthur and Fort William. And like their Winnipeg counterparts, are pretty much useless. My councillor has been around since the early-mid 90s, and I honestly cannot think of a single thing he has accomplished.

They should have an accomplishment quota, too. If you just sit on your ass and do nothing, the runner up should get the spot. (Or in my case, the runner up to the runner up as the guy who won, quit.)

thegreattait · #12 Posted **Apr 2, 2008, 12:38 AM**

There is a system for getting rid of underperforming members of coucil, its called not voting for them in the next election. Those members who we may feel are doing a bad job have been voted into power by their constituants.

If someone is performing well and is continueing to bring new ideas to the table, this would limit their impact to "12 years" of positive action.

I do however believe in requirements to be placed on their terms such as % of meetings to be attended and the # of votes that they are allowed to miss each term etc. This ensures that there are no free rides.

I believe in greater accountability not necessarily change for the sake of change.

Holmes_on_Regina · #13 Posted **Apr 2, 2008, 12:50 AM**

I like this idea, increase terms to 4 years and limit them to 2. Get new blood in and with it new ideas and greater progress.

JayM · #14 Posted **Apr 3, 2008, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegreattait

There is a system for getting rid of underperforming members of coucil, its called not voting for them in the next election. Those members who we may feel are doing a bad job have been voted into power by their constituants.

If someone is performing well and is continueing to bring new ideas to the table, this would limit their impact to "12 years" of positive action.

I do however believe in requirements to be placed on their terms such as % of meetings to be attended and the # of votes that they are allowed to miss each term etc. This ensures that there are no free rides.

I believe in greater accountability not necessarily change for the sake of change.

yeah im not sure why these people who do vote, vote the same people back in, and yet make a stink over it, pretty much said right there, don't vote them back in.

Boreal · #15 Posted **Apr 3, 2008, 6:57 AM**

I love democracy, but the problem with democracy is that the masses (especially post Christmas Day 1991) don't keep a keen ear to the political goings-on. Thus, elected officials are largely decided by those who don't pay much attention. Democracy is only great when people actively participate. This is any issue that I have great difficulty with. General apathy just makes my blood boil.

JayM · #16 Posted **Apr 3, 2008, 8:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff1987

I love democracy, but the problem with democracy is that the masses (especially post Christmas Day 1991) don't keep a keen ear to the political goings-on. Thus, elected officials are largely decided by those who don't pay much attention. Democracy is only great when people actively participate. This is any issue that I have great difficulty with. General apathy just makes my blood boil.

in Australia when elections come theres like a 99.99% turn out rate because they state if you don't vote you must pay some huge fine and thrown in jail. i think. thats for federal. dunno about lower levels of government.

nordique · #17 Posted **Apr 3, 2008, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayM

in Australia when elections come theres like a 99.99% turn out rate because they state if you don't vote you must pay some huge fine and thrown in jail. i think. thats for federal. dunno about lower levels of government.

and how is that going? do the people make generally good decisions, or are they just voting for whomever they recognize most from the tv commercials?