Will Stone Tablets Make a Comeback?

A local politician made the excuse that paper correspondence delivered by Canada Post was not the best way to bring a citizen’s concern to his attention.

Stone tablets are hard to miss.

Digital communications and computer networks held the promise to improve communications between people and institutions. It seems that some of our older political representatives have not adapted very well to these changes.

A friend of mine, Peter, is 87 years old. For over thirty years, he has written letters and emails, and attended Council meetings to do what any intelligent and concerned citizen does….

… to stay informed about municipal affairs that affect him and his family, and to reach out to his elected representatives when he witnesses decisions and actions that concern him.

Peter and I share the believe that the centralization of government operations have created monolithic structures of public governance that are enormously expensive and notoriously bureaucratic. We advocate for the decentralization of government services along the traditional model of Direct Democracy that Switzerland practiced quite successfully for centuries prior to recent decades.

Peter’s ignored request.

A few months ago, Peter sent a detailed letter my email to City Council concerning its budget in which he pointed out several mistakes and offered constructive suggestions that most residents would likely approve. I was cc’d. He received no reply. Next, he sent a follow up letter on paper and delivered by Canada’s Post believing that it’s receipt by the City would at least be acknowledged. Crickets again.

A few days ago, Peter sent another email to all Council members requesting acknowledgement that they had received and read his prior correspondence. Again, he cc’d me. I replied copying all to express my interest in Peter receiving a response to the excellent work he had done. I have since received two emails from City Council members. One cryptically read:

Thank you, I have been dealing with [Peter] for many years, he insists on using the mail service, and that is sometimes difficult to accommodate.

I will certainly provide some response to some messages, as I can.

Regards

[council member]

I suggested (toc) to Peter that his next message should be on stone tablets (see an sample of one found in Iraq some 5000 years ago in the image posted.) They are easy to pick out from a pile of paper on a desk, not readily tossed in the waste basket or destroyed in a fireplace, and will serve as a nagging reminder to each member of Council that it must be addressed before it is “filed away”.

Dissatisfied

The above reply by the Council member was less than satisfactory to me.

Knowing Peter as I do, and how much work he put into the City budget review and analysis, I share his frustration that those sincere and informed efforts have been dismissed so easily.

While our local City Councillors receive a salary of only ~$50,000 and earns additional stipends for each committee in which they participate, they all accepted their jobs and responsibilities voluntarily. In addition, the mayor earns a salary well over $100,000 plus unknown perks. Perhaps I naively misunderstood that they were elected by our City residents and paid by us to represent our interests?

Also, the City’s employees, who are also well compensated, are paid to make the best and most cost-effective decisions in service to the City’s taxpayers. Are we getting measurable value for their work?

Is it time for REAL CHANGE?

If our elected representatives are so overwhelmed by emails and paperwork that they cannot make the time to respect and honour efforts by people like Peter, then the only reasonable conclusion is that a decentralization of their responsibilities to the community level would be superior to the status quo.

Prior to the push to amalgamate smaller county government operations into the much larger City of Kawartha Lakes, public services operated in a similar manner to those of Switzerland during the twentieth century. The 26 Swiss cantons each separately served the local citizenry in a more prompt and personalized manner. Today, in Ontario’s, attempts to navigate “the system” to get results is so difficult that it has become the #1 deterrent to even try.

Voter turnout in the 1970s for federal and provincial elections was in the 70% range. Today, it hovers around 50%. Municipality election turnout are much lower.

Growing frustration from past attempts to deal with “city hall” has led to increasing apathy by our citizens. Fewer people than ever bother to vote, or reach out to their elected representatives, because dismissive responses like the one Peter received have been inevitably the result.

The MYTH of ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY.

In every one of the 9 elections in which I was a candidate, I never sought to get elected. Instead, I use elections as a soapbox from which to ask one simple question.

Do we have too much government and, if so, what can we do about it?

Peter is asking the same question.

Since the excessive taxations and use of regulatory force that we all experienced in the name of the recent pandemic and climate change, our numbers of frustrated and intimidated citizens are growing. There are over 70 “freedom groups” across Ontario that meet regularly and informally to address this question. Hopefully, our numbers will soon reach the proverbial “inflection point” when they begin to skyrocket and reach the required critical mass to get real political and regulatory change. This seems to be to only way that we can save ourselves us from a slow march towards some form of digital communism.