Letter 11 of the College of Politicians Series

Attached below is a letter I addressed to Dave Mitchell, who was my union president at the time. The timing was pretty bad as shortly after I sent it he was in the news for allegedly being bribed by his Vice President.

Anyway, enjoy.

Thank you :)

Date: Monday, January 31, 2022.

To: Dave Mitchell, President of Local 79.

I have a political request.

I have been advocating for the regulation of politicians by way of a college of politicians for a number of years, predominantly in writing via personal correspondence, to a number of different politicians and leaders. I haven’t made much headway; meaning, I have yet to be acknowledged in any way by any person. As a result, I think I need to escalate to consolidate the position and the legitimacy of my arguments (attached). Below I will argue two more reasons to regulate politicians.

Don Andrews is a racist and white supremacist who has run for Toronto Mayor as recently as 2014. Representing the neo-Nazi Nationalist Party of Canada, he obtained 1012 votes, beating out 90% of the other candidates (seventh out of 65 other candidates; CBC News, 2014; Toronto, 2014). Permitting a politician with a pathological belief (i.e. white supremacy) to run for or hold elected office is a danger to the public. Consolidating pathological beliefs into public policy can lead to public harm in the form of structural violence. This must be prevented via professional standards of practice implemented by a college of politicians. Colleges, like the College of Nurses of Ontario, can investigate professional misconduct, hold disciplinary hearings, and suspend or revoke a licence to practice (CNO, 2019). The public ought to have the same protection against politicians as they have against other professions.

Advocating for the regulation of politicians is a union interest. Through regulation of politicians, unions can use evidence-based practice (via cost-benefit analyses) to assert changes to employee wages and benefits. Money is considered a social determinant of health because it can affect the burden of disease in a process called homeostasis. Understanding how much benefit is received by giving X number of dollars to X number of people of a group of people and at what point does it produce fewer benefits per dollar, could be a rationale for giving more to the collective agreement from people whose capital provides suboptimal returns. In other words, it may be too costly not to reinvest the money into the collective agreement, and likewise, if it is not reinvested, it may demonstrate neglect of the public interest, which in a regulated profession means having one’s work checked and potentially corrected. When one’s work is checked vs the best available evidence, one is by definition answerable to the public.

Dr. Tam’s recent advocacy of healthcare system reform, and in particular “modernizing our models of governance and collaboration structures” (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2021) is an example of the modernization that is needed in our elected leadership. So I ask, review my attached letters and ask for a vote from the executive committee on whether to endorse a position statement on the regulation of politicians, to be published prior to the 2022 Ontario election.

Thank you.