Few issues will excite taxpayers in a municipality more than the proposed expenditure of several million dollars, and Weyburn is no exception.

Those involved in civic politics often complain about the apathy of voters in relation to more mundane matters, like budget deliberations, byelections or even nominations for office.

They have a legitimate complaint, particularly when a budget meeting involving the spending of taxpayers' dollars only attracts two or three people out of a city of 10,000.

Democracy is a cherished institution in Canada, but it only works when people take part in it. When a call for nomination comes and only enough people step forward to fill the vacancies so no election takes place, then the electorate have nothing to complain about when that same council makes certain decisions.

It was gratifying to see the high interest in the city's byelection last fall, as demonstrated by the number of candidates who put their names forward for the two vacant councillor positions.

Many elected officials insist that as chosen representatives, any decisions regarding the spending of taxpayers' dollars is in their realm of responsibility to deal with - after all, that's the job they ran for.

Thus when a suggestion is made for a plebiscite on a particular issue, many times these officials discourage the request, because it seemingly infringes on their responsibility as elected officials to look after the financial affairs of the city.

There is a current suggestion that a plebiscite be held on the Colosseum project; the first phase has gone to tender, and there is general agreement among most councillors and facility users that this is a necessary part of the renovation project that has to be done.

The question, however, remains if the city should be spending an estimated $6.8 million for all four phases of the proposed renovations. The proposal at this point includes the intention to fund-raise to help pay for this project, but even if fund-raising was able to bring in some of the money, it couldn't possibly cover the entire cost - and that's where the taxpayers come in, to pick up the slack.

One of the arguments used against plebiscites is that the elected officials feel they alone have all the facts with which to make an informed decision; this is a situation that is easily resolved, by getting all the information out that is available, and ensuring the public understands exactly what is being proposed and why.

Nobody is suggesting holding plebiscites on every issue; but rather, is it not reasonable that when a big project worth a very large portion of taxpayers' dollars that voters be allowed to indicate if they support it or not?

It is true if we don't like council's decisions that we can toss them out at the next election; however, this is rather imperfect as it would be after the fact for most decisions. Also, what if most of their decisions were good ones, with one or two bad ones? It would make far more sense to allow voters to have their say on this one issue - it is, after all, their money. - G.N.