By Justin Frape
An election is supposed to be a job interview.
In Thunder Bay, we are in danger of posting the job and discovering that hardly anyone wants it.
As of August 2, six people have filed to run for mayor. That part of the ballot is healthy. But only four people have filed for the five at-large council positions. Red River, McIntyre, Westfort and Neebing each have only one candidate. Three other wards have two.
Nominations remain open until August 21, so the picture could change. It probably will.
Thunder Bay has seen late surges before.
But we should not dismiss what the present numbers are telling us.
Five current members of council have already said they will not return, while another is leaving the at-large contest to run for mayor. Open seats would ordinarily attract fresh energy, ambitious community leaders and people eager to offer a different direction.
Instead, in several races, we presently have little or no contest at all.
The crude explanation heard privately is that nobody wants to “enter the shit show.”
The more diplomatic explanation is that Thunder Bay has made municipal public service an increasingly irrational bargain.
Consider what we ask of a councillor.
We ask candidates to finance and organize a campaign, knock on doors, recruit volunteers and put their professional and personal reputations on the line. Once elected, they are expected to attend council and committee meetings, read enormous reports, return calls and emails, attend community events and be available whenever a constituent is angry about a pothole, an encampment, a tax bill or a zoning decision.
We expect them to understand policing, housing, engineering, finance, labour relations, social services and economic development.
We expect them to absorb public hostility calmly and graciously. Their spouses, children, employers and businesses may be dragged into the argument.
For much of Thunder Bay’s history, we have treated this as a part-time job.
That arrangement selects for a very particular kind of candidate: someone who is retired, independently secure, self-employed with considerable flexibility, or willing and able to make a substantial personal sacrifice.
It excludes many of the people we say we want.
A mid-career professional may have valuable experience in law, finance, construction, health care, technology or organizational leadership—but also has an employer, clients and a mortgage. A young parent may understand exactly what families need from this city—but cannot spend several evenings a week in meetings while finding childcare. A business owner may know how to make decisions and control costs—but may reasonably conclude that municipal office could damage the business that supports their family.
Then there is the abuse.
There is an important difference between holding elected officials accountable and treating them as public property.
We should criticize votes. We should challenge budgets. We should question priorities and demand explanations. That is democracy.
But personal attacks, online pile-ons, rumours, insults and threats are not accountability. They are deterrents. They tell every thoughtful person watching from the sidelines that public service may mean exposing themselves and their families to years of hostility.
Thunder Bay also presents its councillors with an almost impossible political bargain.
Build a facility and you are wasting money. Refuse to build it and you are holding the city back.
Raise taxes and you are irresponsible. Reduce a service and you do not care about the community.
Consult the public and you are delaying. Make a timely decision and you are arrogant.
Try something new and you are reckless. Preserve the status quo and you lack vision.
Council itself is not blameless.
In a previous editorial, I argued that Thunder Bay too often makes decisions like a parochial “small town”: studying issues for years, reopening settled questions, protecting individual wards and neighbourhoods at the expense of the whole city, and focusing so intensely on the immediate price of action that we ignore the long-term cost of doing nothing.
The shortage of candidates may be the other side of that problem.
Decisive and accomplished people generally want to know that their time will matter. They want to know that, after the studies are complete and the evidence is available, a decision will be made and implemented.
They are less likely to volunteer for an institution where major issues can circle through reports, committees, reconsiderations and political reversals for years.
This does not mean that the people who have already filed are unqualified. Putting your name on a municipal ballot takes courage, and every person willing to do it deserves to be heard and evaluated fairly.
Nor does it mean that every departing councillor is fleeing dysfunction. Some are retiring. Some have career or family priorities. After years of service, they are entitled to make those choices.
But when municipal government depends upon unusual levels of personal sacrifice, we should not be surprised when the candidate pool becomes narrower.
And when capable people look at the bargain and decide that staying out is the prudent choice, the problem is not simply a lack of civic spirit. The institution and the community have made service too costly.
Fixing that will require more than waiting until nomination week and asking why nobody came forward.
Thunder Bay needs to recruit civic leaders deliberately. Our business organizations, labour groups, educational institutions, Indigenous organizations, neighbourhood associations and nonprofit sector should be identifying and mentoring potential candidates years before an election—not merely posting encouragement on Facebook three weeks before nominations close.
We need to be honest about the workload and properly support people who serve. Compensation should be determined through a credible independent process. Childcare, accessibility, safety and training should be treated as democratic infrastructure, not political perks.
We also need a civic ceasefire—not an end to criticism, but an end to dehumanization.
Disagree fiercely with a councillor’s vote. Demand better evidence. Vote against them.
But do not lie about them, threaten them or attack their families. A community cannot complain that good people will not run while making examples of everyone who does.
Finally, the next council must impose decision discipline on itself.
Set deadlines. Publish priorities. Explain who is responsible for what. Stop reopening settled decisions unless genuinely new evidence exists. Measure results publicly. Make the administration accountable for implementation and council accountable for direction.
Thunder Bay cannot demand first-rate government while treating public service as punishment.
There is still time before nominations close on August 21. Capable people who have considered running should take another serious look.
But the rest of us also have a responsibility. We must encourage them, volunteer for them, support fair debate and create a political culture in which public service is difficult but not destructive.
A municipal ballot is more than a list of names.
It is a report card on whether a community has made leadership worth attempting.
Right now, Thunder Bay’s report card should worry us.
