For those pondering throwing their hat into this year's campaign for mayor, city councillor, regional district director and school board trustee, the best way to decide if it's worth suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for four years is to ask one simple question: if elected, will you be a trustee or will you be a delegate?
For voters who want to send the best people into office and are suspicious of promises made on the campaign trail, it's the only question worth asking.
In their recent book Tragedy in the Commons, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan explore how Members of Parliament struggle with the distinction. A trustee consults with constituents on most matters but votes according to his or her best judgment on difficult issues where there is no clear consensus. A delegate, meanwhile, votes according to the wishes of their constituents on all maters, even if he or she thinks the voters are wrong.
While obedience to the political party and loyalty to the leader further complicate matters for MPs and MLAs, that is not an issue at the local and regional political level. The only factor for local elected officials is the expectations of voters.
Some residents believe that elected officials are delegates and their decisions should reflect the their communities on the issues of the day but that, even in the age of social media, is a tall order. What is the will of the electorate on snow clearing, pothole repair, funding for arenas, pools, the library and the arts? Just because there are a group of people at the ready to fill voice mails, emails, letters to the editor, Facebook pages and blogs (or write newspaper editorials or columns) with their two-bits doesn't mean that group speaks for the vast majority who follow the conversation but choose not to take part in public.
In reality, the only way to know what residents want is at the polls, but even that method is unreliable. Since just 28.5 per cent of eligible voters took part in the 2011 municipal election, it is easy to argue that the current crop of elected officials are operating on a mandate from just one-quarter of adult residents. That is one of the reasons why the Citizen has championed Your Vote Matters for this year's election and is urging a 50 per cent or more turnout at the polls. The victorious candidates should better reflect their communities and have the social licence to make decisions if a majority of voters gave their blessing on the ballot.
That being said, politicians should be more than delegates when it comes time to make decisions. The whole point of electing members of the community to public office is to name individuals who, on our behalf, will educate themselves on the issues, will read reports from knowledgeable staff, will ask questions of experts and will listen to input received at public hearings. Once they have all of that information, the public should trust their elected leaders to make the right choice and to justify those choices.
Politicians behaving as trustees allows them to lead, to seize opportunities and to set agendas they feel are in the community's best interests. Some voters don't want politicians to have that kind of freedom but it is a freedom with a limitation. Good decisions, leadership and results are rewarded by voters but mistakes, indefensible stances and failure are punished at election time.
Thinking of our elected leaders as trustees should engage residents more to vote. Embedded in the word trustee is the expectation that the person holding that title is trustworthy but also that there is an agreement - a trust in the more legal sense - that the politician serves voters and their interests.
Trust is the only meaningful currency candidates can offer and it's the most important standard for voters to gauge their choices.
