What can citizens do when their elected officials stop acting within the best interests of the voters One suggestion would be to recall them, which is essentially firing them - but we don't have that opportunity in Manitoba - yet. But a situation in the Town of Killarney should help spark the debate.

When Brian Moore was elected Mayor of Killarney, there was one major commitment he made to the citizens who elected him: a proposed $10 million multi-use facility would be subject to voter approval. Unfortunately for the citizens of Killarney, Moore resigned after his fellow councillors refused to allow taxpayers a say.

Proponents of the new facility claim there is wide spread community support, yet the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has received dozens of phone calls and e-mails from angry residents all asking the same question: "what can we do to stop this " More to the point, if the councillors feel so confident in their decision to plow ahead and spend millions of taxpayer's dollars on a facility with little evidence it will be a boon to the small community, then why not let the people have a say Further, when Killarney's council met last week to have a final vote on the facility, citizens who showed up at the council chambers were denied the right to speak against the proposal. Administrators claimed they 'could not change the agenda.'

Is this Canada or Cuba What kind of a democracy do we live in when taxpaying citizens who are handing over 50 percent of their income to governments are not even given an opportunity to speak, let alone vote on how their money is being spent

To be sure, current facilities in Killarney require significant renovating, and Moore suggests that is where public dollars might be focused. Not to mention an antiquated water treatment facility from the 1960's that is need of upgrading.

At a time when population and school enrollment is on the decline in the 3300 person RM - and property taxes are on the rise - there is little to no justification to borrow millions of dollars on a project that is going to significantly burden taxpayers.

If the Killarney experience teaches us anything it is the need for citizens to have the ability to recall their politicians. Angry constituents and voters have no recourse, as there are no provisions to recall any elected officials in Manitoba, or federally in Canada. The only province in Canada to currently offer their citizens the ability to recall their provincially elected officials is British Columbia - albeit largely in name only.

Opponents of recall claim it can be abused for spiteful partisan purposes. However, those opponents obviously haven't seen just how difficult it is to recall a politician.

Under British Columbia's, Recall and Initiative Act, a recall campaign can only be initiated 18 months after an election. Voters then have 60 days to collect the signatures of 40 per cent of constituent voters. After each signature is verified, the MLA is recalled and a by-election called.

Since 1995, 20 recall petitions have been initiated in BC, of which only two have submitted enough signatures for verification, and zero MLAs have been recalled. However, Parksville-Qualicum MLA Paul Reitsma resigned in 1998 prior to the final verification of signatures.

Recall laws are also in place at the state level in 18 of 50 states in the US. Since 1921, only two governors have ever been recalled, with Gray Davis in California being the latest in 2003. He was of course replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Davis was the first California governor ever to be recalled in 117 attempts.

Good elected officials have nothing to fear from recall. A dose of accountability in the form of recall would address the rare situations where poor politicians scrape by well after they have lost the confidence of their constituents, which is what is happening in Killarney.

Plus, it couldn't hurt reminding politicians who they work for now and again.