Running for two seats in the same election

Thursday, October 18 ~ LANGFORD.

There’s been a minor ruckus in political circles in recent weeks along with a casual line of questioning among some voters, as to why one one long-time Langford resident is running both as a municipal council candidate and for re-election to the school board as a trustee.

Voters in Langford will see Wendy Hobbs listed on their ballots in two spots: once among candidates running for a seat on Langford council, and also among trustees running for a seat in the Belmont Zone of Sooke School District 62 (SD62).

Is this allowed under the Community Charter. Simply, yes. Is this something everyone feels comfortable about? Obviously not. Hobbs has had to spend time during her campaign defending her dual-race. She tells interested voters that she is keen to continue serving her community as much as she can, continuing on from seven terms as a trustee on the SD62 board (including having been Chair of the SD62 board). She says she received two phone calls about it directly.

If she were to be elected to both Langford council and the SD62 board, she would likely have to officially recuse (excuse) herself from discussions having to do with land, zoning and other areas of decision-making that overlap between municipality and board of education.

“If she is elected to both positions, with the amount of stuff the city and school board do together, she would have to recuse herself so much she wouldn’t be there three-quarters of the time,” says Langford resident and business man Nirmal Johal of NAN Site Servicing Ltd. This would not be the best way for a councillor to serve her community, he suggests.

Johal says many aspects of city decision-making would require an adjunct consideration of Hobbs (i.e. whether or not she would have to recuse herself) if she were to sit on both council and school board. Some of those decisions could include rezoning, asking the city for a school amenity, joint agreements about parks, and transportation as it relates to road usages around schools. “It all gets clouded,” says Johal, adding “she’d have to step aside so much”.

Long-time Langford Councillor Lillian Szpak (who is seeking re-election on October 20) says “that’s a very difficult position to serve your community in (to sit on council and school board)”.

“Why would a candidate choose to try and fit into two elected positions at the same time,” Szpak pondered today, adding it would likely “inhibit the person’s ability to serve the community”.  She says the level of concern for some is about the best interests of the whole community.

Hobbs is just about ready to retire from her insurance-industry career and says she would have a lot of time to be working full-time on community service in two roles. She compares that to one or more members of the current council who have businesses, jobs or work in other areas that demands their time.

Hobbs says the idea of conflict of interest does not only possibly apply to her particular scenario (if in fact it does), but that “there could also be conflicts for any of the current council members”. Hobbs is referring to contracts being awarded to companies in which she says some members of council might have a business interest.

This level of political debate is not everyday conversation for many voters. But where it catches people’s attention is that ultimately, the underlying angst of this scenario probably points to two larger issues that strike a chord with people. That would be about choices an aging generation is making regarding income and use of time after regular employment retirement, and also that business and politics oftentimes have a tight integration that highlights the ‘haves and have not’ dilemma of our capitalist socioeconomic system.

Some of the political sniping in this election season has been bordering on ‘nasty’ over this issue, which is also unpalatable for voters who may tune into it.

The likelihood of one candidate achieving enough votes for two seats is almost entirely without precedent. And given the swirling debate over the action by Hobbs to do this may in fact leave voters effectively ‘throwing up their hands (votes)’ in indecision, and leave Hobbs with no win.

Politically-inclined people know this, so their level of interest in challenging this whole scenario cuts to two things: a sense of ethics about how things are done in community service (a general concern also shared by some regular voters), and having to do with some business dealings with historical angst between some of the challenging parties and Hobbs. “We are involved in a neighbourhood dispute over the use of Nirmal’s family property,” says Hobbs, and she says she feels this is why she is getting pressure about running for two seats.

All parties are both defensive and on the offence at the same time. With only a day or two until voting on October 20, this is a distraction for many and an uncomfortable tangle to deal with on many levels.

~ MPB, editor