Having reread the actual resolution, “C09-18-23 – Moved by Councillor Andrew, Seconded by Councillor Riemer that Council remain neutral on any debate on Dawson Gas Prices” – it appears ambiguous as to whether council as a governing body shall remain silent or whether individual councilors shall not take sides. This resolution came about as a result of my public statements regarding retail fuel pricing in Dawson. From my perspective it could be seen as an oblique way to oblige members of council not to speak out regarding the issue thereby limiting discussion.
I’ve been speaking out (again) regarding seemingly excessive retail pricing at the gas pumps in Dawson compared to other regions in the Territory. The Yukon News recently published an article suggesting that price gouging may be occurring here and I was quoted in the story as well.
Consequently this raised the ire of one gas station operator who sent his wife to our town council meeting Tuesday to complain in delegation about my public comments. Her presentation was bitter and sometimes personal, which is okay, I can understand the need to vent, God knows I do enough of it myself.
Councilor Diana Andrew then proposed an addition to the agenda with the purpose of discussing whether it was the place of council to debate or otherwise criticize fuel prices. A resolution was ultimately passed that forbids council from engaging in the above mentioned activity.
In other words, the purpose of the resolution was to ensure that the mayor no longer speaks out on fuel prices. In retrospect I must say that to pass or even contemplate a resolution that forbids discussion of a particular topic appears bizarre and rather draconian to me. Even though I respect the views of council it has the appearance of serving the council members rather than serving the interests of the constituents.
Here’s the dilemma; when does the personal opinion of the mayor end and when does the unified voice of council begin?
I’m unable to find any reference in the Municipal Act that suggests the mayor is always obligated to reflect only the views of council and must never voice his own opinion.
Where is the balance between serving one’s constituents as mayor and reflecting the voice of council?
This is probably the most vexatious problem facing a mayor like myself who has opinions that are not always in sync with those of council.
Like
Well how about that! It is one thing for Council not to wish to discuss fuel prices, but to forbid Council from engaging in a debate or a critique of fuel prices, that is one for the books!
I don’t know how Dawson Council procures its fuel, whether you issue a tender call, or how you decide to buy it. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how the decision is made next time Council needs to make a decision on purchasing fuel as you will not be permitted to discuss the price of the stuff.
How about the price of eggs, or hotel rooms, or mud flaps, are you permitted to discuss and debate those?
All kidding aside, take a look at section 178:
“Each member of a council (that includes the Mayor) has a duty to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality as a whole and to bring to the council’s attention anything that would promote the well-being or interest of the municipality.”
A “don’t talk about gas prices” resolution is so far out to lunch that it risks falling off the edge of the table (flat earth).
Surely Dawson City Council has enough strange resolutions in its archives, you really don’t need any more (take my word for it, I have looked at quite a few of them). My recommendation to Dawson Council (this is a freebie) is to rescind that resolution PDQ. The Prime Minister has the power to muzzle his ministers, but a municipal council does not have the power to muzzle its mayor. The reason the PM can do it is because ministers serve at the PM’s pleasure. The reason a council cannot do it is because the mayor is elected by the people directly – even if it is by acclamation. Oh, by the way, I think the constitution’s “[fundamental] freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” (Charger of Rights and Freedoms, sec. 2.b) may have something to do with it too.
“Only in Dawson City you say? Pitty!”
Andre, I had a feeling you might react this way. And yes, it is one for the books, too bad I was outnumbered.
And thank you for clarifying the relationship between mayor and councilors.
All kidding aside, John, I really do believe that Council ought to reconsider that decision. Of course Council does have the authority to say that it does not want to take a position on anything, be that fuel prices or sacrificing virgins, but that is not the same as attempting to silence anybody, be that the mayor or any other citizen. What Council may have failed to appreciate is the difference between “The Council” and members thereof.
The only way that “The Council” can express an opinion is through resolutions, and a resolution, of course, must have the support of the majority present at the time the vote is taken.
However, members of council – and that includes the mayor – and “The Council” are not synonymous. “The Council” can only speak when assembled in a duly constituted meeting. Members of council (including the mayor) may speak their views and opinions at anytime on any subject, whether or not “The Council” shares the individuals’ views and opinions.
Whatever “The Council” may have decided, there is no requirement on its members to abandon their personal point of view or belief. The mayor has an obligation to represent the views of “The Council,” but that does not mean that the mayor is not entitled to express a contrary point of view. For example, “The Council” may vote to hold the line on taxes, and the mayor may believe that there ought to be an increase (or decrease) in taxes. Once “The Council” has decided to hold the line on taxes, the mayor is obliged to see to it that the decision is implemented, but that does not mean that the mayor is prohibited from expressing reservations about that decision.
But on the subject at hand, that is totally out of bound; totally. There are limits on a council member’s freedom of speech, but that concerns matters to be dealt with in camera as provided in the Municipal Act. In that case members of council must shut up.
It would be a good idea for Dawson Council to rescind that resolution, it is ultra vires their powers anyway. It is not a good idea to leave ultra vires resolutions on the books; somebody may look at it as a precedent in future. That can lead to trouble. In my work up there I found a number of ultra vires resolutions adopted by Dawson City Council, and some of them had costly consequences. It is not a good idea to allow this kind of stuff to take root in council proceedings.
As I said, if Council does not want to take a position on fuel prices in Dawson, it would be quite appropriate to introduce a resolution to the effect that “Dawson Council shall not take a position on the pricing of fuel (or any other goods or services) offered for sale in the community” and then vote on it. That does not mean that you, or any member of council, could not continue to be openly critical about gas prices, as it would not prevent other members of council to be critical of the price of coffee, hotel rooms, or tooth picks.
I for one am glad that I live in a community where the Mayor does not take sides on issues based on what would be politically prudent.
We need more politicans that stand up for what is right.
It should not matter whether you sell turnips or gas, you should expect that customers will question the price of goods.
What I don’t understand in this case is why don’t the gas stations justify why they charge so much for gas. Break it down and justify why gas prices have to be 30 cents (sometimes more)per litre here than in Whitehorse.
Shame on the Councillors (especially Ms. Andrew who is probably in conflict, being a member of the local Chamber of Commerce) for putting forward and then passing such a ridiculous resolution.
Rescind the resolution before Dawson good name is tarnished any further.
Come on Dawson, you can do better!
Thanks Andre for taking the time to offer your sage advice, you are the expert on these matters, after all. I’ll broach the subject with council.
The existing resolution directs council not to engage in debate about gas prices in Dawson. As you suggest this is well beyond the scope of the legal authority of council therefore making a dud resolution.
As you suggest, something on the lines of issuing a position would certainly fit the bill.
And thanks to ‘Democracy’ for your comments. I will certainly continue my criticism regarding retail prices at the pumps in Dawson.
The average in Whitehorse right now is around 1.03 per unleaded regular. I believe the highest price in Dawson today is 1.289 with a rough average being around 1.25.
Can we have a resolution that tells Andre to get lost? Ive had enough of him meddling in dawson affairs.
Mary,
That’s not very nice. Andre has devoted his career to understanding municipal governance. His authority on the topic is widely recognized and appreciated, especially by me.
Governing a town is faced with many complexities and challenges regardless of the size of the municipality. There’s lots of room for interpretation of the ‘rules’. Therefore I value his expert opinion when struggling with technical issues that may present themselves to council.
No one is meddling in our affairs. We are only discovering the best way to conduct our own affairs.
Mary, nothing to stop Dawson Council from passing a resolution to direct me to get lost. Where governments at all levels run into trouble when they set out to silence people is in the implementation of their ambition.
Discussion is healthy. People who shut down thorny discussions are usually more worried about themselves than those who want to broach the subject.
It is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that individual Council members be able to publicly disagree with a majority decision and not be shutdown. This would be one of our fundamental checks and balances against poor and/or corrupt governance by the majority. Maybe a little more of that in the late 90s/00s and Dawson could have avoided its embarassments. Of course the formal public debate at Council table could be closed by majority any time but how exactly did Council mean to enforce this direction on you away from that table and did they actually mean to? You are accountable to THE PEOPLE only, Council has no power to discipline you or remove you from office, nor should they, so this resolution has no meaning away from that table. THE PEOPLE can have their say in a few months anyway if you choose to stand again, and you should.
I understand gas is 114 in Carmacks and 125 in Pelly so I don’t think Dawson is being singled out and I suspect your ire, justified or not, would be better directed towards the distributor as I believe they supply all these stations and ours. I still feel though that in our democracy, these businesses must be free to offer a product at whatever price they choose and we as consumers are free to buy and use or not, same as any other. Your efforts would be better directed at a, price transparency around town which is indeed essential to the efficient working of a marketplace and b, if you think and can demonstrate that excessively large profits are being made, work to attract alternative suppliers to invest here and compete with the existing. Although at the retail level we already have 4/5 stations which is pretty intense for our population.
Lastly, that comment from ‘Democracy’ re Ms. Andrew and a ‘conflict of interest’. Get over yourself. Councilors are elected to have opinions and you hope they represent a broad spectrum of the community. You could just as easily say they shouldn’t vote on road maintenance because they drive on the streets. As long as nobody is accruing a personal financial benefit from a Council decision and vote, it’s fine, this is well laid out in the Act.
Ummm Dawson Activist,
If you actually took the time to be informed on civic affairs you would understand where my comment was coming from.
If you actually understood what “conflict of interest” is, you would understand where I was coming from.
With regard to the “get over yourself” comment, “grow up”, this is not personal, that was my observation nothing more.
Small town politics at it’s finest and you represent the “small” part.
Have a nice day and get some help for that pent up anger you have.
Dawson Activist,
Thanks for taking the time to comment and I appreciate your encouragement for me to stand for election.
I don’t think there was any ill will being demonstrated by council regarding the resolution to forbid debate regarding fuel prices in Dawson. There was a desire to say that the mayor should take the path of least resistance and leave the fuel issue alone and thereby express council’s view that fuel pricing is beyond the scope of council and shouldn’t be broached. This can’t be accomplished by resolution. Therein lies the error. Because, as you say, every councilor answers to his or her constituents only.
Your point regarding pricing is well taken.
I am working on the assumption that a tanker filling up at the bulk plant in Whitehorse will pay the same wholesale price per litre regardless of destination. I understand that it costs roughly five cents per litre to transport 80,000 litres to Dawson for a $4,000 freight charge. Not $22,400 in freight if you were to charge .28ยข per litre on top of the wholesale price.
Democracy,
Apologies if my unfortunate choice of words upset you, I didn’t mean to personalize and upset you. I just felt your serious allegation about one Councilor was unfair and made that point. I fully understand what ‘conflict of interest’ is, as defined and applied by section 193 of the governing Act, which is what matters, and it doesn’t apply here, in my humble opinion.
I am plentifully informed thank you and have no pent up anger.
Back to the question at hand, the same beliefs I hold in freedom of speech I also apply to the freedom of a business to operate and charge as it sees it fit for the provision of a service. Sure, question the price as is your free consumer right but if you don’t like the gas price, ultimately, buy it elsewhere, use less of it or not at all, simple. These are not charities and the whole point is to maximize profit (and if you have other shareholders that is an obligation) and a large part of that is charging the highest price you feel the market can bear. In this case though, I seriously doubt the profits are large. It is not the freight charge but the significant fixed costs, capital and operating, spread over minimal volumes compared to a Whitehorse station, that will account for the higher GROSS margin.
End of the day though, this is the private business information of the corporation, as much as my or your personal finances and should be respected as such. They can share with customers if they feel the need and in this case they have done so, publicly.
Lastly, long term, price of fuel and energy is going one way only and everyone should get used to it and adjust behaviour and lifestyles accordingly and stop complaining. It’s just distracting from the bigger picture.
I certainly endorse the free market system and heartily embrace potential for earning profits.
Personally, I believe the consumer has to do more than just play the game of seeking out the cheapest option in a competitive market. The customer must also demand justification for pricing policies as well as the source of consumer goods in some cases. Consumers must stop being the passive half of the equation of simply accepting whatever is in front of them with a shrug of defeatism.
I’m attempting to raise questions regarding the ethics of commerce. Is it right to take advantage of a specific market condition and overcharge at the pumps? Is it right to buy a pair of jeans made by an 12 year old in an Asian sweatshop? Is it right to purchase products at the expense of damaging an ecosystem?
The answer to the above is a resounding no. Even though we all directly or indirectly support unethical business practice it doesn’t mean we should stop putting pressure on those that can possibly offer some account.
Hmmmm……. nope. it’s still censure.