Three Ways We Can Improve our Local Democracy

*this is an amended version to the article that I wrote on GuelphToday.

1. The current system is costing us more than it needs to.

Unlike most Ontario municipalities, Guelph elects two part-time councillors per ward rather than one full-time councillor.

While that may not sound like a major difference, it means the people making some of the city’s most important decisions about budgets, housing, transportation, infrastructure and public services are expected to do so in roughly 15 hours a week. That inevitably increases the risk of delays, duplicated work, or issues falling through the cracks simply because everyone assumes someone else is handling them.

Over a four-year term, we spend roughly three-quarters of a million dollars on councillor salaries. For substantially less, we could instead have one dedicated full-time councillor representing each ward. At a time when every municipal dollar matters, we should be asking whether our current structure is delivering the best value for taxpayers.

2. We aren’t attracting the broadest range of candidates.

The salary sits in an awkward middle ground: attractive for a part-time position, but difficult to justify as a full-time career.

As a result, the role is often most accessible to people who are retired, nearing retirement, independently wealthy, or have another source of financial stability. That inevitably narrows the pool of people who are realistically able to run. It is no surprise then that the majority of our current councillors are older people.

The city benefits when council includes people from a wide range of backgrounds, professions, and life experiences, including younger residents, renters, parents, entrepreneurs and people currently navigating today’s affordability challenges. Our governance structure should make it possible for those voices to serve.

3. City Councillors from the same ward can cancel eachother out.

Having two councillors represent the same ward can sometimes dilute that ward’s influence. If one councillor supports an issue while the other opposes it, their votes effectively cancel one another out, leaving the community without a clear position.

A smaller council would also mean fewer interpersonal dynamics, fewer voting blocs to navigate, and a more straightforward decision-making process.

This is particularly relevant under Ontario’s strong mayor system. Overriding a mayoral veto requires a two-thirds vote of the entire council. With a smaller council, building that level of consensus would require persuading fewer colleagues than it does today, making collaboration more practical within the limited time councillors have available.

These changes are entirely achievable with a council that is willing to move beyond the status quo and put Guelph residents first.