Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

27 comment(s)

The good part for voters is three of them will be out of office after the election May 12.

It was clear at the Saint John mayoral debate Friday night that the four front-runners don't like each other very much. If anything, it was a snapshot of some of the dysfunctional common council meetings that took place over the last four stormy years. It's probably best these council members don't work together anymore because it's hard to imagine them getting anything done as a team.

Consider some of the dirty digs. The incumbent, Mayor Norm McFarlane, set the bar low early when he went after Coun. Ivan Court, the perceived frontrunner. He accused Court of using Liberal MLA Abel LeBlanc's office - and a provincial employee working there - to help his campaign.

The move smacked a bit of desperation, and if true, it should be investigated by the province. But smears are best left out of a serious debate.

Deputy Mayor Michelle Hooton should have chosen her words more carefully when she accused McFarlane of threatening her in his office over her fight to rescind the controversial LNG tax deal three years ago.

People laughed and booed her, and it's not hard to see why. McFarlane is a senior citizen and he's smaller than Hooton. He has a nice, grandfatherly look and it's hard to imagine him threatening anybody.

"At no time did I ever threaten the deputy mayor," he said. "We talked about it. We even went to Tim Hortons and talked about it."

McFarlane was best when he stuck to the accomplishments of the last four years, such as better affordable housing, funding for harbour cleanup and more community police stations. He was also effective when talking about lowering taxes, promising to lower the rate, if the economy was robust, by six per cent over four years, bringing it level with the city of Moncton's. But he seemed embattled most of the evening.

His worst moment was when he referred to the lawsuit he and other members of the city's pension board brought against Coun. John Ferguson. McFarlane said, "To have Coun. Ferguson refer to us as thieves is unacceptable."

If Ferguson's lawyers get a tape of the debate, they'll no doubt use it against the pension board. Ferguson has criticized the board plenty, but he's never called them out-and-out thieves.

Ferguson avoided smears and was good at getting his points across, coming across as level-headed throughout the debate despite being a polarizing figure around the council table.

He mentioned that he was the only one on council who made a motion during the four-year term to lower the tax rate, a move that went nowhere. Rather than claim he had all the solutions, he promised to engage a panel of experts to lower taxes and solve the city's pension deficit, which has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in extra payments. Ferguson sprinkled his talk with everyday examples, such as citizens frustrated with council debates because they don't know how they come to make decisions. Most of the real debate, he suggested, happens behind closed doors, something that should change.

Ferguson's worst tendency is to get bogged down in details, so much so he can become incomprehensible. He was guilty of this once Friday night when he gave a convoluted response to how he'd lower the tax rate. Something about convincing other levels of government to pay for big infrastructure first. He'd lost the audience by the end of his ramble.

Court was best speaking off-the-cuff, dreadful when reading his notes, which he used too often.

For the most part he played it safe, making few promises, not even on the tax rate, which polls show is the biggest issue.

The only guarantee he'd make is that taxes would be fair - a reference to the multimillion-dollar tax concession McFarlane brokered for Canaport LNG.

On transparency, he said the problem was the mayor's backroom meetings, not closed council sessions. He pledged to start holding Saturday morning budget sessions to improve openness.

He was at his worst when he blamed actuaries for making the pension deficit worse. Court seems to have a problem with the fact that professional actuaries ask pension boards to have realistic life expectancy and investment return tables.

Hooton was the clearest speaker and sharp on plenty of issues. She garnered big applause when she said she'd remove all councillors from boards and commissions in the city and try to ensure they were balanced with more women, youth and minorities.

On the contentious water issue and possible privatization, she made a subtle jab at Court, promising never to turn city water into a commodity. Court has mused in the past that Saint John could bottle its water and sell it.

When asked about her number one priority, she said reducing the tax rate, a popular item with Saint Johners who have been hit by escalating assessments.

New candidate Mike Richardson, a relative unknown, received one of the biggest cheers of the evening after a cantankerous exchange between the four incumbents.

"I think everyone can understand why I am running for mayor. ... Just like you I'm tired of the same antics."

Richardson will never win, but he proved he has the chops to be on council and should consider running next time as a councillor.

Boasting that no one donates to his campaign and that he's truly independent, Richardson went after Court, asking him if he'd stop accepting donations from any organizations, a reference to the councillor's strong support from civic unions.

Court sidestepped it, saying he couldn't make a promise he couldn't keep.

"I will make that same promise if every single person running here today will do the same."

John Chilibeck is a Telegraph-Journal reporter. He writes about issues that affect the Saint John region. He can be reached at chilibeck.john@telegraphjournal.com or by calling 645-3267.