ELECTIONS MINI SERIES: Don’t Hold out for a Hero; Hold out for People who Work Well with Others

Image created by AI.

Editor: Laurel Davies Snyder

Since kindergarten, we’ve been told that working well with others is important. And for good reason; working well together for common goals benefits everyone.

However, in every election, there is at least one candidate who promises to be a fighter and your “local hero”. They will fight for taxpayers, fight for transparency, fight for better roads, fight against wasteful spending, fight for accountability, and fight for whatever issue happens to be the most frustrating issue for the community during that election cycle.

The “Local Hero fighting for YOU” is a message that works because it feels strong, simple, and reassuring. It’s especially effective when people are annoyed or disappointed with the way local government has been functioning and think “there’s got to be a better way”.

At some point, most of us have wished for someone to walk into the Council Chamber and finally say the things we think everyone else is too afraid to say. We like the idea of a strong voice at the table. We like the idea of electing someone who will not be pushed around, who will ask difficult questions, and someone who will stand up for the community when something does not seem right.

There is nothing wrong with wanting our elected officials to be prepared, courageous, innovative, and willing to challenge the status quo. However, we all need to remember that municipal government is not built around one person. It is not designed for a lone hero, and it is not a system where one Councillor - no matter how passionate or well-intentioned - can simply walk in and force changes into existence using their willpower. Effective Councils are collective decision-making bodies, which means that once the campaign signs come down and the meetings begin, every person elected to Council must work within a system that depends on working as a group, having open discussions and following established policies and clear processes. As cliché as it sounds, you need to think about electing someone who can and wants to work well with others to achieve common goals.

Campaign literature rarely explains how change happens, and how a Councillor can move items forward. A candidate may be passionate, visible, and absolutely convinced they are right, but if they cannot work with others, build trust, understand and work within the process and bring enough of their colleagues along with them, their effectiveness will be limited. They may still be popular. They may still get attention. They may still have a loyal following of people who believe they are the only candidate speaking the truth. But popularity and effectiveness are not the same thing.

High Visibility Is Not the Same as Effectiveness

There is a type of elected official who is very easy to notice. They frequently speak in public, challenge almost everything, frequently post online, use forceful language, and usually make it very clear where they stand on every issue. To the public, this can look like leadership, and sometimes it is. Certainly, there are times when communities need elected officials who are willing to ask challenging questions, push uncomfortable issues into the open, and make sure that decisions are not moving forward simply because “this is how it has always been done.”

But there is a key difference between a Councillor spending their time on being highly visible versus spending their time to be effective. A Councillor can give a passionate speech about any issue on the Agenda and still lose the vote. They can criticize every recommendation in a Staff Report and still fail to offer a workable alternative. They can position themselves as the only person fighting for the public and slowly become someone no one else at the Council table trusts to work with. They may generate attention, but attention does not necessarily generate results that benefit the community.

The Councillors who get things done are often less dramatic, and often willing to be in the background. They are the ones who don’t wait for the meeting to become informed; they ask questions and do their research before the meeting to make sure they clearly understand the issues. They work with their colleagues and understand what they are worried about. They know when to challenge a report and when to listen to the expertise in front of them. They can disagree without making a disagreement personal. They can push an issue forward without poisoning the room. This kind of leadership does not always make for exciting politics, but it often makes for better government.

Being Right Is Not Always Enough

One of the more difficult lessons to learn about municipal government is that being right does not guarantee that you can move an issue forward. A Councillor may be right in determining that a municipal road needs attention, that a policy is outdated, that there are legitimate concerns with a development proposal, or that a particular service level no longer meets the needs of the community. But being a Councillor is not like being in the comments section in chat room; it is not enough to simply point to a problem and announce that it exists.

The job – and the challenge - is to move from concern to a decision to start change moving ahead. That usually means asking what the process allows, what the approved budget can support, what the legislation requires, what staff are recommending, what information is still missing, and what trade-offs are attached to each option. It also means understanding whether an issue can be addressed immediately, whether it needs to be built into a future budget, whether it requires process or policy changes, or whether Council is being asked to respond quickly and without due process because of high emotions in the community. Sometimes addressing issues mean that the right decision requires a longer-term and more complex solution.

This is where some candidates may struggle, particularly if their campaign is built mostly around their frustration with how things are and their conviction that “nobody is doing the right thing”. During an election, a candidate’s frustration can sound like leadership, anger can sound like courage, and certainty can sound like competence. But once you’re at the Council table, frustration, anger, and certainty from the outset aren’t helpful or useful. Addressing an issue needs to be a motion, a direction to staff, a budget decision, a policy change, an amendment, or a path forward that secures support from enough members of Council to start the change. Otherwise, it remains only a performance of concern, not an act of good governance.

Understanding this especially matters in an election year. We are not choosing who sounds strongest on a stage, who provides good soundbites, or who gives the most confident answer at a debate. We are choosing people who understand how to sit together and listen to one another, weigh advice, disagree respectfully, ask challenging questions, and make informed decisions that affect an entire community. Leadership in the municipal environment is not the same as control. It is more about being patient, having restraint, understanding appropriate timing, taking time to build relationships, and knowing how to create enough common ground to move forward as a group.

Disagreement Is Not the Same as Dysfunction

One of the mistakes we often make when watching Council from the outside is assuming that disagreement means that something is wrong. Sometimes it does. We have all seen examples where disagreement is personal, performative, and exhausting. Meetings drag on, staff get caught in the middle, residents lose confidence, and the same arguments are repeated until it feels like the municipality is stuck in place.

But disagreement itself is not the problem. Communities are complicated, budgets are limited, growth and change create pressure, infrastructure is expensive, and people often want different things. A Council that never disagrees may not be asking enough questions or allowing enough time for debating options. Healthy disagreement and debate are part of democracy, and a good Council should create room and allow time for considering different perspectives, strong debate, and thoughtful challenges.

Whether members of Council can disagree and still move forward together is a key part of an effective Council, and important part of being an effective Councillor. Can they challenge an idea without attacking an individual? Can a Councillor or group of Councillors lose a vote without trying to retaliate or recoup the perceived “loss” at every meeting that follows? Can they respect staff even when they disagree with a staff recommendation? Can they explain their position without turning every issue into a fight over who cares more about the community? These questions matter because once the vote is over, the municipality must still function. Staff still need direction, residents still need services, and the work will continue.

Be Careful of the Candidate Who Wants to Burn It All Down

There is a difference between a candidate who wants to improve local government and a candidate who seems to resent everyone involved in it. A good candidate may challenge staff recommendations, question spending, push for better communication, demand more transparency, or advocate for a different direction. Those things are fair, and in many cases, they are part of the job.

But voters should be cautious with the candidate whose entire campaign is built on contempt. The one who speaks as though staff are “the enemy”. The one who suggests that every current member of Council is incompetent, corrupt, lazy, or self-interested. The one who treats planners, engineers, lawyers, consultants, agencies, neighbouring municipalities, and provincial rules as obstacles to be defeated rather than factors to be understood. A campaign based on anger is not a governance plan.

Once elected, that candidate will still need to work effectively with the people they spent months attacking during their campaign. They will still need staff to implement decisions. They will still need professional advice to make defensible choices and need colleagues to support motions based on this advice. They will need relationships with other governments, agencies, boards, community organizations, and residents. A Councillor who burns every bridge may eventually find themselves standing alone on an island, still loud and still convinced they are right, but unable to get much done.

What Voters Should Listen For

When you meet candidates this election season, listen carefully to how they talk about other people, especially the people who do not agree with them. Do they understand that Council is a group decision-making body? Do they talk about collaboration as part of the job, or do they treat it like weakness? Can they explain how they would build support for an idea? Do they respect the role of staff while still recognizing Council’s responsibility to ask questions and make decisions?

One question I wish more voters would ask candidates is this: “If the rest of Council disagrees with you on something important, what would you do next?” Their answer will tell you a lot about how they understand the role. Another useful question is “How would you handle losing a vote?” Every Councillor and Mayor will lose support on something, and at times, every Councillor and Mayor will watch the table move in a direction they would not have chosen. What really matters is whether they can handle a vote that doesn’t go their way with maturity and professionalism. If someone can only function when they are winning, they are going to have a very difficult time serving on Council. Local government requires people who can disagree, lose, regroup, and continue doing the work without turning every setback into a personal battle.

You Are Electing One Seat at the Table

In every election, individual candidates try to convince us they are the answer. They will fix it. They will fight. They will finally get things done. But municipalities are not changed by one person with a microphone. They are shaped by groups of people who can make decisions together, even when decisions are difficult.

This does not mean everyone needs to agree, and it certainly does not mean Council should avoid debate. Strong opinions have a place at the table, but the strongest opinions still need to be paired with judgment, preparation, respect, and the ability to work with other people. Before you vote, it is worth asking whether the candidate in front of you understands that.

Are they trying to be a local hero, or are they ready to be one responsible member of a Council and work well with others?

The next Council will not be judged by who gave the best campaign speech. It will be judged by what it was able to move forward, and this depends in a large part on whether the people elected around that table know how to work together.