To most city taxpayers, the system of city advisory committees is rather irrelevant.
This system served various councils and administrations well for decades by providing feedback on city policy from interested voters on issues and policies of the day.
Most voters aren’t that interested in day-to-day policy, thus explaining why they have little interest in the system.
The importance of feedback on policy and plans can’t be underestimated, especially when managers are not familiar with the city, as is mostly the case.
The committee system also offers council and the mayor a means to get feedback from interested parties between elections.
The main concern from committee members over the years has been council not listening to recommendations. Council does have the last say.
An October council meeting discussed the committee system and moved to streamline city operations by disbanding some committees.
Three committees were put on the chopping block — economic development, housing and municipal planning.
A fourth — heritage advisory committee — was scheduled for elimination but was maintained after a plea from committee chairman Scott Hellings.
Hellings pointed out the importance of heritage and the need for the committee when city management has no ties to the community’s history or the importance of buildings and sites.
It seems heritage advocates need to be on their toes in future years to keep this committee even though heritage is a key piece of our tourism product.
The municipal planning committee disbanding comes as no surprise. Filling citizen spots on the committee has been difficult and the process has lost public interest since media stopped coverage years ago.
Ending this committee should make zoning approval a bit faster.
The housing committee was set up when rental vacancies were in the one and two per cent range. That problem has been resolved, although a need for affordable seniors’ boarding housing exists.
Loss of the economic development committee reduces local input and reflects city management laziness in not having the committee meet for many months, thereby making it a candidate for elimination.
The committee was formed in 1970 as a consensus group with representatives from all sectors — business, labour, education, health and major employers.
It became unwieldy, especially once most council members wanted to sit on it so they could claim they were working on economic development.
Instead of disbanding this committee, council should have re-organized the committee with people really interested in expanding local business and attracting new business.
The re-organization could have been along the lines of the enterprise region. Now there is no citizen mechanism to do local economic development.
Voters have to rely on the mayor, councillors and city managers to take on this key role.
Will the mayor continue buying wine for prospective investors and will those costs and results be made public?
These committee disbandments send a message to taxpayers: whatever the city does is none of our business.
They also isolate the mayor, council and city managers from public sentiment on various issues.
Do we really want the mayor, council and city manager to work in isolation rather than gather advice from citizens?
Ron Walter can be reached at ronjoy@sasktel.net
