CITY OF VANCOUVER

Administrative Report

 

Date:

June 25, 2004

 

Author:

Marg Coulson

 

Phone No.

604.871.6125

 

RTS No.:

04380

 

CC File No.:

1103

 

Meeting Date:

July 6, 2004

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

City Clerk

SUBJECT:

Question on Wards for the Opinion of the Electors

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDERATION

OR

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager RECOMMENDS adoption of A and B above.

COUNCIL POLICY

At the June 24, 2004 City Services and Budgets meeting, Council approved the following motion:

PURPOSE

This report provides information to assist Council in considering a plebiscite on wards as proposed by the Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission (VERC) in its June 8, 2004 report. Included is a draft by-law containing the question for electors, a budget for the election, and a strategy and budget for an expanded voter outreach and information program.

BACKGROUND

The Vancouver Charter, section 184 states that "The Council, for its own information, may submit for the opinion of the electors any question with which the Council has or desires to have the power to deal." The question to be submitted for the opinion of the electors and referred to as the referendum in the VERC report (see footnote 176 on page 132), is hereinafter referred to as the "plebiscite".

The VERC recommended wording for the plebiscite in its report. The Commissioner, Thomas Berger, has since modified the question. The modified wording forms the question contained in the draft by-law in Appendix A.

The VERC recommends that the plebiscite be conducted in the form of the February, 2003 Olympic Vote. The draft budget of $550,000 included in this report has been prepared based on actual costs of the Olympic Vote.

Votes held separate from a general election in Vancouver have generally not drawn a high voter turnout, therefore Council wishes to expand strategies for informing and engaging Vancouver electors. Strategies and budget estimates based on the Olympic Vote and 2002 General Local Election models have been prepared for Council's consideration.
DISCUSSION

Draft By-law Containing the Question for Electors

Commissioner Berger has recommended that the question be worded as follows (with the Commissioner's approval, the wording has been modified from the original VERC report):

"Are you in favour of, or are you opposed to, abolishing the at-large system and electing members of City Council by a ward system, with boundaries as set out on the map on this ballot?

__ YES, I am in favour of adopting a ward system
__ NO, I am opposed to adopting a ward system"

The draft by-law in Appendix A, authorizing the City to submit the question for the opinion of the electors, reflects the wording as shown above.

Draft Budget for the Plebiscite

The model recommended by the VERC for conducting a plebiscite on wards is based on the methodology used for the Olympic Vote. Registration for the vote will take place at the voting place at the time of voting, avoiding the cost of preparing a formal Voters List. The proposed budget is based on actual costs from the Olympic Vote:

STAFF INCL. FRINGE

$110,000

Office staff

OVERTIME

$4,000

For voting days

CONTRACT STAFF

$20,000

ballot design, election equipment support

HONORARIA

$180,000

Voting place staff

ADVERTISING

$50,000

Statutory ads, other advertising material

PRINTING

$60,000

Printing of ballots, householder, forms

POSTAGE

$30,000

Householder mail out

OFFICE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

$7,000

Paper, other office consumables & services

PHOTOCOPYING

$5,000

MFD rental, photocopying from COV Printing

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES

$15,000

Eg. Translation

TELEPHONE

$4,000

Cell phones for voting days

FACILITY RENTALS

$65,000

Voting place rental

TOTAL: $550,000

Election Outreach and Education

To assist Council in considering outreach and education options, it is helpful to review existing outreach models employed by the Chief Election Officer. Information and outreach features which were offered for the Olympic Vote, and have been costed into the $550,000 budget for the plebiscite on wards (representing $90,000 of the $550,000), were as follows:

· Statutory advertising in a daily or weekly newspaper (request for scrutineers, notice of election, notice of special voting opportunities, notice of advance voting)
· "Householder" booklet sent as unaddressed ad-mail (Letter-Carrier delivery), containing information on the issues, the question, voting locations, advance voting days and special voting opportunities (ie. mail ballots, hospital voting)
· Newspaper ads regarding the ballot question and basic ward/at-large facts, translated into French, Chinese, Punjabi, Spanish and Vietnamese.
· Ballot question and some election forms, such as the voter registration form and warning regarding duplicate voting, translated for information and distributed to community centres and libraries
· Web site containing all of the above information, including translations
· Call centre at the Election Office to answer voter questions
· Demographic-driven staffing of voting places and cell-phone based translation service at the polls (though voters are also encouraged to bring a translator)

Council has asked for strategies for an expanded outreach and education program for the plebiscite on wards. As many of the strategies utilized for the 2002 general local election were effective and received positive feedback, features of the program offered are described below:

· A campaign which includes materials that educates citizens on the role of city government and the importance of voting
· A series of print ads containing election information in daily, weekly and multicultural newspapers (some translation)
· A series of 11 x 17 posters encouraging voting, distributed to community centres, public libraries, and public facilities; repeated on the City's Web site, and in transit shelter posters
· "Rack card" style envelopes produced in 6 languages which includes election information, voting procedures and registration cards
· Expanded web site information on election processes, new voting place look-up feature, and demo ballot
· 30-second radio spot and a 30-second TV PSA to be created and circulated
· Interviews with key election staff to be set up on radio and TV
· Special event to be organized to launch the mass media campaign
· Staff undertakes targeted outreach to community groups

Over 500 community organizations and interest groups were invited to utilize these communication tools to engage their respective communities with a focus on youth, multi-cultural communities, and previously under-represented neighbourhoods.

Should Council choose to augment the basic strategies described for the Olympic vote with an extended outreach and education campaign such as that offered for the 2002 general local election, including purchase of additional media for target groups and radio ads, the cost is estimated at an additional $115,000. The additional funding would build on the features offered in the Olympic Vote model with:

If Council wishes to further expand the communication effort with television advertising, the cost would be a further $30,000. This funding would provide for the production of a 30 second TV spot that would play in non-prime on various local TV channels.

To summarize options:

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ELEMENTS:

COST:

TOTAL REFERENDUM BUDGET:

Basic outreach and education efforts paralleling the Olympic Vote model, as part of existing Ward Referendum proposed budget

$ 90,000

$550,000

Add to above: Outreach staff, newspaper insert and radio (no TV ads)

OR

Add to above: Outreach staff, newspaper insert and radio, and TV ads

$115,000

$145,000

$665,000

$695,000

The expanded options for voter outreach and education are set forth for Council's consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of conducting the plebiscite on wards depends on the level of voter education and outreach that Council authorizes. The range of costs are $550,000 (includes basic voter education), $665,000 (includes education and outreach with radio ads) or $695,000 (includes education, outreach with radio and TV ads). The source of funds for all options is the 2004 Contingency Reserve.

CONCLUSION

The Chief Election Officer is committed to providing the highest level of voter outreach and education possible within approved resources. However, it must be recognized that, as with the Olympic Vote, it is the engagement of the public in a debate about the issue of wards that will generate interest and participation. Neutral advertising, promotion and community outreach by the CEO, while essential, will only raise public awareness of the fact that there is a vote and encourage participation. Generating public debate is the role of the Council members and those in the community who are commited to postions about the question.

- - - - -
APPENDIX A

BY-LAW NO._________

A By-law to authorize a question
for electors about the ward system

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VANCOUVER, in public meeting, enacts as follows:

1. Council, for its own information, will submit for the opinion of the electors, on October 16, 2004, the following question:

2. The map attached as Schedule A to this By-law is to be the map set out on the ballot referred to in section 1.

3. This By-law is to come into force and take effect on the date of its enactment.

ENACTED by Council this day of , 2004

__________________________________
Mayor

__________________________________
City Clerk
SCHEDULE A

ag20040706.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver