What’s the cost of bad advice?
I’ve been pondering this question a lot lately. It’s November, and in Burlington that invariably means it’s budget time. Currently, inflation in Canada is running at a rate of 2%. However, that didn’t stop our municipal public servants from developing a 2026 budget that is nearly three times the rate of inflation. Financial prudence also wasn’t top of mind either when Art Gallery of Burlington executive director Emma Sankey recommended a master plan to Burlington Council’s Committee of the Whole on June 9th that called for a new 77,000 square foot building at a cost of $116 million.
Despite the challenging times in which we live, and the uncertainty caused by the Trump tariffs, economic challenges don’t seem to weigh heavily on Finance officials. Questionable programs such as “Love Your Neighbourhood” and “Food for Feedback” show no signs of being curtailed despite the fact that Focus Burlington’s recent survey yielded precious little in the way of support from readers.
Why, in the face of overwhelming uncertainty, when many are facing layoffs or loss of employment, and at a time when many readers tell us how challenging it is to live in Burlington, do our public servants not exercise more financial restraint? Is it because they are entitled? Is it because they aren’t attuned to the prevailing mood of the public? Or is it something else?
Policy Making in a Perfect World
In its simplest form, public policy formation should follow a series of steps. Logically, the first should be problem identification. Sometimes, that may emanate from within the ranks of the public service. Often, it may be dictated by changes in provincial or federal legislation. On occasion, it may be due to issues raised by the public. One would hope that our elected officials would also contribute to this discussion.
The second step invariably falls within the ambit of the public service, who research and analyze different issues, and then formulate options and policy recommendations. Depending on the nature of the issue consultation with community groups, stakeholders and subject matter experts may occur.
After being reviewed and tweaked, a policy recommendation is then presented to Council. A discussion ensues, and at this stage it is either accepted, rejected, or, perhaps, modified. Depending on the issue, a by-law may be adopted.
The fourth stage involves implementation. This may entail the development of procedures and the determination of where and how the initiative will be paid. Finally, one would hope there is a process of evaluation in which the policy is evaluated according to its effectiveness, shortcomings, and its ability to meet the intended goal.
Out of Touch or Untethered to Reality?
If the preceding is how policy making should be conducted in an ideal world, then what is happening in Burlington? Why is there a growing undercurrent of public frustration and anger with the policy direction of our municipal government? Why does it feel that so many policies being advocated by this Council seem so out of step with public sentiment? Why can’t public servants sense the mood of the public, and why do so many of their proposals run counter to public sentiment?
Back to the proposal to replace the existing Art Gallery. The existing building was constructed in June 1978. Evidently, that is too old by comparative standards. What is being proposed is a new facility with 29,000 additional square feet. However, here’s the catch: many residents in this city are living in homes that are a lot older than fifty years. Why does the Art Gallery, at a time when taxes are escalating and many residents are feeling the financial pinch, warrant a new facility? Whatever happened to refurbishing the existing building?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a strong supporter of the arts and culture. It is an important element in our city’s character. It adds enormously to community connection and understanding of the arts and history. I personally love live theatre, and am a regular attendee at the Shaw Festival. However, the Festival Theatre, the largest of all the theatres in Niagara-on-the-Lake, was built in 1973. I don’t see or hear their Board of Directors clamouring to tear it down just because it is fifty-two years old. Renovate maybe, update if required, but don’t replace it unless it is absolutely necessary.
Which begs the question: who deems that it is a policy necessity to replace the existing Art Gallery? Is it stakeholders with a vested interest in the arts? Is it ordinary citizens who take courses or seminars? Who is driving this proposal?
FOMO is Running Amok
FOMO, or “Fear of Missing Out”, is a strong prevailing sentiment in Burlington. It drives a lot of decision-making, and it plays into a mindset and attitude that is deeply ingrained within our local public service culture. We saw it play out about fifteen years ago when we were told we had to have a Burlington Performing Arts Centre because, heaven forbid, Oakville and Hamilton had one. Yes, the BPAC is a nice facility, and I don’t question the architectural design, but there’s a profound difference between needing something and wanting it. In the case of the Art Gallery, it amounts to about $116 million.
No Constraints and the Rise of Special Interests
I wrote previously about the role of special interest groups. Many have a single-minded fixation on specific projects or perspectives that support their ideals and play to their agenda. Most don’t care about the secondary consequences of their proposal so long as they get their way. Politicians, ever mindful of the need for re-election, placate one special interest group after another mindful that to take a stand, or reject pet proposals, may incur the ire of those same special interests. However, where is the counter-weight to special interest groups. Is it council? Is it the mayor? Is it the public service? Or, is it the electorate?
The critical difference between municipal and provincial or federal politics is the role of political parties. Political parties have a policy platform, and when a party assumes office one expects that the public service will adhere to that platform in formulating policy proposals and recommendations. For instance, a political party that is elected on a policy platform advocating balanced budgets, financial constraints and curtailment in public services would quickly come to loggerheads with a public service promoting deficits, increased public expenditures and expansion of public services. No small wonder then that when a provincial or federal government changes hands senior public servants like Deputy Ministers or Assistant Deputy Ministers are often shuffled sideways or out the door. Theoretically, one can preach about an impartial public service, and everyone hopes that is how things happen. However, bottom line is that an incoming administration needs people who will toe their line, not give them endless pushback and grief.
In places like Montreal and Vancouver there are municipal political parties. Those parties support certain principles and ideals, and candidates running for mayor or council align themselves with the party that best expresses their views. In the recent Montreal municipal election, there were eight political parties, five of whom were successful in electing councillors to Council. That party structure ensures some discipline and adherence to values.
In Burlington’s case, due to the Strong Mayor Powers, Her Worship has the final authority, and her position and influence pre-determines the outcome. It is the mayor who sets the course and agenda. However, if that elected official lacks a strong ideology then what you get is incrementalism and transactional policy-making. Horse trading becomes the norm. Interest groups control the agenda. In this environment, constraints aren’t apparent, and there are no clear guardrails. Anything goes, including $116 million to replace a building that is newer than many taxpayers’ residences.
Learning to say “No”
If municipal political parties aren’t feasible, then what becomes an effective counter-weight to incrementalism and special interest politics? It is, I suspect, candidates with a clearly defined philosophy. Too often, our political system has been dominated by persons who, although well-intentioned, don’t have a coherent or well-reasoned philosophical viewpoint. Many are guided by a transactional view of politics which, by its nature, perpetuates and supports special interest groups. “Horse-trading” is the norm, and placating one group one moment, and another the next, becomes the prevailing norm.
Ask many candidates to define their approach to municipal politics and they’ll likely utter things like “promoting the public good” or “making Burlington better”. That’s all nice, but “public good” and “better” are simply bromides designed to assuage an undecided electorate.
What is needed are men and women who understand the political system, and who also recognize that a community is made up of many unique components. Balancing competing interests is important, but so too is taking a holistic view of municipal administration and prioritizing policy objectives. Being able to differentiate between a “need” and a “want” is vital. Once in a while it requires a firm “no”, and the backbone to stand behind your convictions. Households do it all the time in an effort to live within their means. Similar constraints should exist in local government.
Parents with children understand that sometimes you have to tell your child that they can’t have something. It’s not that parents are driven by some selfish interest, but rather, they understand that a child’s request may not be realistic, practical or affordable. Parents understand the notion of constraints and guardrails. I’m just wondering when our municipal officials will twig to this realization.
Discover more from Focus Burlington
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A few years back there was a proposal to have a developer use the land that the Burlington Art Gallery is on to build a condominium. In exchange for height/density the first floor of the building would house a new Burlington Art Gallery.
It makes sense that the developer would pay for the Burlington Art Gallery.
Well, not quite the proposal that I remember Penny. As I recall, the deal was for the owner of the waterfront property (Vrancor) to trade that property for the art gallery and the COB town hall properties. The City would relocate the town hall to the waterfront and the first floor or two (atrium plus) of the new building would be a built for purpose new AGB with grand vistas onto the lake. Of course, this never materialized because Vrancor are not fools, the proposal had no serious traction and the property on which the AGB now sits has a series of very daunting challenges that make redevelopment problematic.
As an aside, I think that Focus Burlington needs to temper its commentary. The timing of Sankey’s delegation was incredibly off but I commend the fact that the AGB is looking ahead and planning. I don’t believe that they were requesting funding but simply advising the City of future need and had an initial scope of requirement. I wish that more were as forthcoming – but I agree that timing is everything.
Sankey plans to build an art gallery that is larger than Hamilton’s. Is this really a “future need” for residents and taxpayers? She also stated that the current gallery is approaching the end of its 50-year life span, framing the project as a near-term requirement.