The issue of term limits for municipal representatives comes up now and then. It is a controversial subject with good arguments on both sides. I've thought about the subject as well and I'm torn. I can see both sides, but all ideas are worth debating in a democracy. The conversation typically occurs at the local level. Natural because it concerns our level of government. But it's also pointless to talk about the issue only at the local level because currently municipalities don't have this option.
The Local Authorities Election Act governs municipal elections in Alberta. The Act does not authorize any city or town to consider any restriction on term limits. Until the provincial government amends the Act debate of the issue will be purely academic.
There is no single strategy to make progress on this issue. For example, this past January two Calgary councillors, Joe Magliocca and Sean Chu, introduced a motion asking the Provincial Government to amend the Local Authorities Election Act to set term limits of three terms for Mayors and Municipal Councillors. The motion failed 9-6. I would have voted against this motion as well—for these reasons.
The motion introduced by Calgary councillors Joe Magliocca and Sean Chu on January 29.
1. The amendment proposed was for a blanket rule. If the provincial government had acted on this recommendation all municipalities would have had to abide with this specific term limit.
The Municipal Government Act of Alberta recognizes that Alberta’s municipalities require flexible approaches to local governance. A universal rule on term limits would not give cities and towns any flexibility on this issue. While term limits may make sense for some municipalities, it may not for others. And those that choose to restrict term limits may define term limits in different ways and for different lengths.
2. This motion also presumes that there exists enough support across Alberta to warrant this amendment. Their proposed amendment would have far reaching implications for all municipalities, yet makes no effort to ask for their input.
The logical place to discuss a rule that would impact all municipalities is the annual convention of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA). Every year municipalities from across Alberta gather and debate various resolutions that require action at the provincial level. A resolution passed here would be an indication of broad support.
However, before a resolution can be debated at AUMA’s convention a municipality must pass a motion asking the delegates to consider the issue. My strategy would be to first debate the issue at AUMA to gauge what level of support there would be for such an idea.
The motion I introduced on May 7.
My motion also differs from Councillors Magliocca and Chu as I have not asked for an amendment for a specific term limit. Rather I have asked for an amendment to the Local Authorities Elections Act that would allow each municipality the option of term limits, should they choose to do so. That is an important distinction.
Finally, my resolution further narrows any potential restriction to only consecutive term limits. Because any type of restriction on term limits hasn’t been seriously tried in Canada it’s not clear if such a restriction would be constitutionally allowed as the courts hold the right to run for public office on par with the right to vote. I think the option of consecutive term limits would have the benefit of creating turnover at councils, while not limiting, by too much, a person’s ability to serve their community.
This motion was the first step in a very long process where success is by no means guaranteed. My overall strategy doesn't matter at this point because my motion, Step 1, failed 4-5. You can watch the debate on the City's YouTube page. The debate occurs around the 35 minute mark of the meeting. The debate got bogged down on the potential drawbacks of consecutive term limits. There certainly would be drawbacks, but was not the focus of the motion. This was a procedural motion to get the issue to AUMA. However, obviously the onus is on me to make a persuasive case, which I failed to do, but I'm always grateful for the opportunity to make my case, regardless of outcome. In a democracy the process, not the outcome, is what's important.