In Chapter 1 it was pointed out that Greater Winnipeg is faced with difficult problems of local government, which arise from the fact that the metropolitan area is divided up among more than a dozen municipal corporations. Because this single community is thus split up among so many separate, independent, political jurisdictions, it has proven difficult or impossible to arrange for the construction of major facilities which serve the area and to arrange for the administration, by a single authority, of those services which are best administered on such a basis. It has been the Commission's responsibility to recommend such a re-organization of local government as would enable these problems to be overcome.
In its deliberations the Commission has held steadfastly to the view that a system of local government must be judged by a broad variety of criteria. Local government should provide public service efficiently, but efficiency is not the sole objective. The services provided must be those which people want; mere efficiency in the provision of a public service is of little merit if the public does not want the service. The capacity to assess what the public wants is at least as important as the capacity to serve those wants effectively.
While the structure of local government should of course be designed to serve the public and not the interests of councillors and school trustees, the structure should nevertheless be such as to attract worthy and able people into public life. Needless to say, the quality of public administration will depend upon the quality of the people who hold public office. A proper system of local government should ensure that its officials are appropriately rewarded, in terms of community respect and some reasonable monetary compensation for time devoted to public service.
The structure of local government should be such as to enable present problems to be handled, but, in addition it should possess, inherently, the capacity to deal with such problems as may arise in the future. No one can, of course, anticipate the future with certainty. But it is possible to make forecasts based upon all relevant data and evidence, and in preparing for the future, it is only the part of common sense to act on the basis of such forecasts. In suggesting a reorganization of the structure of local government, the Commission has recommended an arrangement which, in their view, is likely to serve well, both in the present, and in the future which intelligent forecasting anticipates.
In its deliberations, the Commission sought to envisage what gains or losses would be achieved, in the administration of such local government service, if the service were administered by a single authority for the entire Greater Winnipeg area. Some services are, of course, already administered on this basis; as described in Chapter 14, there have already been established in Greater Winnipeg a number of inter-municipal boards, each of which administers a particular public service for the metropolitan area. The Commission considered what advantages would derive from extension of the responsibilities of existing boards, and from the establishment of additional boards to administer services now administered independently by each municipality. The commission further considered what gains and losses would accrue from the establishment of a single authority which would have jurisdiction over all those services which were being administered on a metropolitan basis. Finally, the Commission considered the desirability of a complete amalgamation of the City of Winnipeg and the suburban municipalities, as a means of bringing about coordinated administration of public services for the area as a whole.
I the following several pages are listed the main arguments pro and con the organization on a metropolitan basis of each of the public services provided by local authorities in Greater Winnipeg today. For each service the prospective benefits of a metropolitan organization are briefly indicated; because they are of the same general character in regard to each service, the arguments opposed are collectively set forth.
The functions performed by local authorities divide naturally into four general categories: the operation of public school systems, the construction of local public works, the provision of protective services, the administration of maintenance or "housekeeping" services.
Public school education is the most important service provided by local authorities, in terms both of the community and the expenditure involved. The establishment of a metropolitan school district would ensure that all pupils throughout the Greater Winnipeg area obtained the same educational opportunity. It would ensure that the cost of education was borne equally by the metropolitan community; at present the burden is unequally distributed, depending on the number of children in each school district and the value of the taxable property located within it. Classroom space might be utilized more efficiently; there would be no construction of new classrooms in one school district when rooms were vacant in an adjoining district.
Pupils in the very smallest school districts would be the main beneficiaries. At present such districts, those with fewer than a hundred or so classrooms in total, are unable to offer an appropriate range of options in the senior grades. Teachers are not able to concentrate on their specialties, in a manner which would be advantageous both to themselves and their students. If these districts were incorporated into a metropolitan school district, it would become feasible to organize special classes for their brighter students and also for their slow learners. Effective and helpful supervision might be provided on an economical basis to teachers.
The pupils and taxpayers of the larger school districts now operating in the metropolitan area would derive benefit too.
...
The decisions as to where major new public facilities shall be located, and the standards to which they shall be constructed, are of concern to the entire metropolitan community. The direction and character of future expansion will be determined, in a very large part, by the locations and sizes chosen by our public authorities for arterial thoroughfares, bridges, sewage disposal plants, major sewers and water mains. A central authority should be responsible for deciding the location and size of those facilities which will serve broad segments of the metropolitan area.
This authority should have the advice of technically qualified planning personnel; aided (but not controlled) by the advice of its experts, the authority should decide where and how public facilities should be built so as to serve best the current and prospective needs of the entire community.
Once the political authorities had made their decision as to the general direction and character which they believed new development ought to have, it would become the responsibility of the technical planning personnel to ensure that the facilities actually built were in conformity with those general decisions. Conformity to the overall plan could be achieved in several ways. The central authority might itself build all public works, thereby automatically ensuring that they were built as it wished, or local authorities might be permitted to build public works within their own boundaries, provided these were in conformity with the general directives of the central authority. The central authority might itself construct those facilities which were of an inter-municipal character, and leave to local authorities the responsibility for the construction of those facilities and public works which were required only locally. i.e. The metropolitan authority would be responsible for the location of arterial thoroughfares, bridges, aqueducts, reservoirs, pumping stations, major stores and sanitary sewers and water mains; the local authorities would be responsible for the location of residential streets, water mains for the distribution of water within the municipality, and sewers for the collection of sewage within the municipality.
If the major public works required by Greater Winnipeg were all built by a central authority, there would be greater assurance that the needs of the entire community would be well met. The new facilities would be located so as to serve the entire metropolitan area rather than merely the one municipality which owned them. As newer communities were developed outside the present built-up area, more rational and economic arrangements would be instituted to serve them. e.g. Instead of a new community being obliged to enter into an arbitrary, unreliable arrangement for water service from an adjoining municipality as at present, it would be able to arrange for its water supply by dealing directly with the central authority.
If a single authority were responsible for the construction of public works within the metropolitan area, the cost would be more equitably distributed over the area as a whole. With each municipality building its own, the possibility exists of serious deficiencies and inequities. One municipality might be financially unable to carry out a project which, while technically its responsibility, was required by the entire metropolitan community. A project built and paid for entirely by one municipality might be used on an equal basis by the entire metropolitan population. Some projects might never be built, or unduly delayed, (the Disraeli bridge) because of the difficulty of arranging an equitable distribution of the cost over the metropolitan area.
Such problems would vanish if a central authority were responsible for arranging the financing of public works. Furthermore there is some prospect that public works could be financed more cheaply if a central authority were in charge. It would likely be able to obtain capital on more favorable terms than would small municipalities; the interest costs involved would be lower for the very same projects if they were financed by a metropolitan body as opposed to a number of independent municipal corporations.
A metropolitan Fire Department would enable more effective utilization to be made of fire fighting equipment and personnel. Fires would be attended to, regardless of where they occurred, with the utmost speed and with the appropriate equipment. Citizens and property everywhere would be protected not merely by the limited fire fighting force of their particular municipality, but by the full manpower and equipment employed in fire protection throughout Greater Winnipeg. Specialized equipment would be available everywhere instead of merely in the municipality guarded by the force which owned that equipment. Economies might be achieved; fewer fire halls, fewer men and less equipment might be required with a single department able to deploy its strength in the optimum locations, without regard to municipal boundaries.
A metropolitan police force might be organized to take over all police functions in the Greater Winnipeg area, or to take over a limited number only, leaving the remainder to be performed by municipal police forces. Detective work and traffic control would be the tasks which, above all should be performed by a metropolitan force, since these are best handled on a coordinated basis for the area as a whole. Crimes committed in small suburban municipalities would be dealt with at once by the highly trained and well equipped detectives of a large metropolitan organization. At present detective work is hampered because facts and evidence which come to light in different municipalities are not automatically correlated by a central agency. Existing police forces cooperate, but in some phases of police work cooperation is an inadequate substitute for complete, automatic coordination. In times of emergency, such as during the pursuit of a criminal, the necessary instantaneous intercommunication between police personnel cannot be achieved because of the fact that several forces each operate their own, independent radio communication system.
Economies might be achieved. A metropolitan police department might be able to police suburban areas with fewer men than are now required, due to the fact that police personnel were in all one organization, instead of being split up among a dozen small forces. Police costs might be more equitably distributed; at present some municipalities, because of their location, or because of facilities which they contain, are obliged to perform policing services which rightfully are the responsibility of the metropolitan area as a whole.
While theoretically garbage collection could be rationalized if municipal boundaries were ignored, in practice the advantage is likely to be insignificant. A truck can in each trip collect garbage from only a few blocks. The fact that it does not pick up garbage from adjoining blocks in an adjacent municipality means very little; instead it picks up garbage from adjoining blocks within the same municipality. It is doubtful whether more efficiency or economy would result if this service were centrally administered.
A metropolitan authority would be able to make more effective arrangements for the disposal of garbage than those now in effect. Efficient and economical disposal of garbage requires that the incinerators or burying grounds used to be limited in number, and strategically located, without reference to municipal boundaries. To operate properly, each unit, either an incinerator or burial ground, should deal with the garbage produced by a substantial number of people — a larger number than exists today in any one of the suburban municipalities. Incinerators below a certain size are not economical; sanitary disposal of garbage by the land-fill method would require that a bulldozer be stationed permanently at the grounds, to cover garbage promptly on its being deposited. A bulldozer could be maintained economically for such a purpose only if large quantities were delivered daily, i.e. if the grounds served a large population. An inter-municipal authority could make more effective arrangements, therefore, than any single municipality acting on its own.
Metropolitan organization would likely produce little if any improvement in this service. Most suburban municipalities already possess equipment of size best suited to their needs. Since the equipment must all be brought into action simultaneously throughout the metropolitan area, there is little room for economy by arranging that several municipalities use the same equipment.
Metropolitan organization might actually result in inferior service. Local personnel who repeatedly clear the same streets are more likely to be familiar with local trouble spots, and to be aware of the various local authorities.
However, the capital costs for increased additional equipment, as the area grows, might best be handled by a central authority.
Here again the appropriate size of equipment is fairly small, and within the capacity of a moderate sized municipality. Metropolitan organization is unlikely to produce any significant benefits.
Repairs of pavements, water mains, and the like are generally small scale operations, carried out by small parties of men. Here too metropolitan organization is unlikely to produce significant advantage; it may, quite possibly, do the reverse.
A metropolitan Park and Recreation authority could perform important functions. It could arrange for the orderly growth of the park system to meet the needs of the growing community. It could ensure that major parks were so located as to serve best the metropolitan community as a whole. It would ensure that specialized facilities such as swimming pools were appropriately distributed throughout the Greater Winnipeg area. With a single authority in charge, the cost of maintaining park and other recreational facilities would be more equitably distributed than it is at present.
A metropolitan library system would enable the library resources of the Greater Winnipeg area to be more fully utilized by making them all available to the entire metropolitan community. At present residents of each municipality normally have available to them only the resources of their own municipal library system, if indeed such exists at all. A metropolitan system would furthermore enable economies to be achieved in the ordering and cataloguing of books — tasks which at present consume a large proportion of the time of trained librarians in the smaller suburban libraries.
A single assessment department for the metropolitan area would ensure uniformity of assessment throughout. This would ensure that all property in the metropolitan area would be taxed in equitable relationship, toward the cost of projects and facilities which served the whole of Greater Winnipeg. With assessment carried out, as at present, by a different body for each municipality, there would continue to be divergence in their procedures, resulting in differences in assessment levels. If very large metropolitan projects were to be financed by taxation of property, it would be absolutely necessary to ensure that all property in Greater Winnipeg was assessed and taxed on the same basis. If each municipality continued to carry out its own assessment, it would be necessary to make allowance for differences in assessment levels, in order to ensure equitable distribution of the metropolitan tax load. It would be necessary to set up a metropolitan authority to "equalize" the assessments of the different municipalities. The operations of such a body would duplicate work already being done by a provincial body. The establishment of a metropolitan assessment department would obviate the need for cumbersome and ineffective arrangements of this sort.
The foregoing pages have listed, in summary fashion, the arguments in favor of organizing each of the various local government services upon a metropolitan basis. Common themes appear in all. The case for the "metropolitanization" of any service is based on the general grounds that:
While these are powerful arguments in favor of large-scale metropolitan administration of public services, there are powerful counter arguments in favor of small-scale administration of the same services by independent municipal corporations. Proponents of the latter urge that, in fact, small-scale administration is likely to be more economical, and satisfy more closely the desire of the public. The officials, elected and appointed, of a small municipality are likely to be more closely familiar with the detailed needs of their people. In a large municipality where interests and needs are diverse, the administration of a public service may represent a compromise which pleases no one. In a small municipality, administration can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the local community; there is no need to accept less satisfactory procedures in order to compromise with other communities.
Administration in a small municipality is likely to be more flexible, more responsive to the demands and complaints of citizens. People can communicate directly with a person in authority who can deal with their problem himself. In a large municipality, citizens who wish to register desires or grievances can generally only approach subordinates, or must become lost in a maze of red tape. The officials of a large organization are bound by rigid rules, and these may inhibit them from dealing appropriately with unusual cases. Deviation from the rules is especially dangerous in a large municipality because it may open the door to a host of new demands, many of them undeserving.
In a large municipality it is all too easy for the number of hired staff to become excessive. Superfluity is less easy to detect, and, even if detected, the pressure for its elimination is not so great. A departmental head may be reluctant to discharge personnel whose services are not required; it's not his money which pays their salaries, and his status furthermore is supported in part by the size of his staff. In a small organization on the other hand, superfluous staff shows up glaringly. The people who hire staff are also the people who must secure from the taxpayers the money to pay them; if they allow staffs to become excessive, they face trouble from the electors. The question of status of department heads does not arise. An excess of staff is particularly likely to develop where the volume of work to be done varies from season to season or from year to year. Personnel actually required when operations are at a peak level are retained when the volume of work drops off and they are no longer really needed.
A large unit of government tends inevitably to provide more services than are really required by the community. A particular service may indeed be helpful to a small community. But in a large, democratically controlled organization it is frequently impossible to provide a service only to some minority group. If the service is to be provided, a routine must be established, and this routine must apply generally to the whole community. Democratic pressure is likely furthermore to bring about extension of a service to all, which is really needed only by some; on the grounds of equity, those who do not need the service will demand equity of treatment with those who do. The larger a community is, the larger the number will be different, specialized services,each of which is really required by only a few, but which tends to be extended to all.
The fact that a single department administers a service does not necessarily guarantee complete coordination of effort. Personality clashes and personal rivalries are common in large organizations and these may seriously diminish its efficiency of performance. The large, centrally controlled organization may appear more efficient, primarily because it is more successful in the concealment of inefficiency. The discipline imposed on members of a large organization generally succeeds in concealing weaknesses and limitations. The weakness and deficiencies of a large number of independent, competing, small organizations cannot be concealed, because it is not possible to restrain the criticism of people who know what is going on. It may be that, in some fields, the main advantage which the large organization has over the small, is its superior capacity to conceal inefficiency.
If, having regard to both the pro's and con's, it appears best that each of a number of public services should be administered on an area wide basis for the metropolitan community as a whole, a fresh set of questions emerges. Should each service be administered by its own independent authority, composed of representatives of the municipalities involved? Or should a single metropolitan authority be established to have jurisdiction over all services being administered on an area-wide basis, this authority being composed of representatives of the municipalities concerned? Or should existing municipalities be dissolved, and a new City be established to include the entire metropolitan area?
Adoption of the first course would preserve in greatest measure the autonomy and independence of the existing municipal corporations. The inter-municipal boards which exist today would be maintained; possibly some could have their powers extended; perhaps several additional such boards could be established, each to handle a specific service not now administered on a metropolitan basis. This course would involve the least disruption of our present arrangements for local government. Each municipality would retain its complete independence, and its right to run its affairs as it chose. In a matter where area-wide coordination was required, it would cooperatively participate with other municipalities in the administration of the particular service involved.
What are the disadvantages of such a course, i.e., of our present situation?
Although there is co-ordination in the administration of some services, there is no co-ordination of all the services together. This simply means that each board or commission administers its own service disregarding other services or possibly their prior need.
Greater Winnipeg has had a multiplicity of boards and commissions for many years, and still finds itself in the position today where the appointment of an investigating body became necessary, to find solutions to existing inter-municipal problems. This, of itself, must be accepted as sufficient proof that the various independent administrative bodies were incapable, by their very nature, to resolve all the difficulties. Indeed, the municipalities, other than the City of Winnipeg, in their final brief to the Commission recommended that a central co-ordinating authority be established for a number of services, some of which are now being handled each by a different board or commission, and this request came from municipalities who are members of some of these same boards! (See page 44 of final submission on behalf of a majority of the Municipal corporations.)
A single authority is needed which can speak and act on behalf of Greater Winnipeg as a whole. New problems constantly emerge which concern the entire metropolitan community; no organization is in being which is responsible for dealing with them. A heroic attempt at leadership is required of someone on each occasion to bring into being, usually belatedly, an ad hoc organization to tackle each such problem which develops.
Merely to have a number of metropolitan administrative boards does not serve the purpose. Administrative boards are not genuinely responsible bodies, selected by the public and having as their responsibility the well-being of the metropolitan community. Their function begins and ends with the administration of a particular service or facility. they cannot be blamed for failing to take action outside their assigned spheres of responsibility; they may not have the knowledge or the necessary authority. But often complicated situations develop which have many ramifications and cannot be adequately handled by a number of separate authorities, each of which is responsible for only one aspect of the problem. What is required is a single body which will be responsible for the whole problem, and will have the authority to take or to compel all action necessary to deal properly with the problem.
If it seems best to bring into being an authority responsible for the general well-being o the metropolitan community as a whole, a choice must be made. The authority could take the form of a metropolitan council, composed of representatives of the various municipal councils, and empowered to administer all those services which were of concern to the area as a whole, or it could take the form of a single City Council for the entire area, all of the municipalities having become amalgamated into one city.
Each of the two alternatives has its distinct merits; each has its drawbacks. The metropolitan form of government would retain the advantages of administration of many services on a small scale, since small municipal organizations would continue to function. Metropolitan administration would, however, be in effect for all those services which were best handled on a metropolitan basis.
With a number of independent municipal organizations functioning in the Greater Winnipeg area, citizens would enjoy some of the benefits of competition in the field of public administration. The services provided in one municipality could be compared with those provided in another. A number of channels would exist whereby mean and ideas could come to the fore in the field of local government. Multiplicity of administrations may bring some problems, admittedly, of duplication, of inadequate coordination, of operations on an inadequate scale; but these drawbacks are not an excessive price to pay for the maintenance of vigorous, independent administrations, each of which is able to order its affairs in its own particular way, meeting best the needs of its own community, providing alternatives and a variety of choices to suit the diversified needs and desires of the metropolitan community.
It may be further argued that the small or moderate sized community is able to attract into local public office able and worthy people who would not consider entering into the public life of a large city. The avenues to public office in a small municipality are easy and informal; the holders of public office are not subject to the same fierce glare of publicity: An aspirant to local office need not be a "politician", obliged to engage in strenuous political campaigns, or obliged to join some political organization in order to obtain its material support. Small municipal organizations offer the only acceptable avenues to public office for a good many worthy people. Also, with administration conducted by small organizations we have many more people in public office, which is in itself not undesirable; it is a good thing in a democratic society to have a large number of citizens actively participating in the administration of public affairs, bearing the responsibility of public office.
The citizen of a small municipality tends to feel a greater sense of responsibility, demonstrated in willingness to contribute time and effort toward the needs of the community. The community benefits from the services of the individual, freely given, and the individual derives gratification from his sense of communal participation. The large municipality cannot evoke the same response; its citizens do not feel an equal sense of responsibility; its operations are too large and formalized to be able to make an equal use of the contributions of individual citizens.
Thte only other alternative would be to unite the whole areas into one city, as was very ably and strenuously argued by counsel for the City of Winnipeg.
Admittedly, there are compelling reasons for this suggestion. After all, with a present population of about 420,000 people, Greater Winnipeg can still only be compared to an average modern city in size, so that even as one city Winnipeg will hardly be placed in the category of cities which are "too big".
The members of a city council, elected to represent either wards or the city at large, it might be argued, would give better representation and handle city-wide problems more effectively than would a metropolitan council, with each municipal representative on such a council interested in his own bailiwick.
It could also be argued that a metropolitan authority would result in some overlapping and duplication, which would not happen in one city administration.
Another argument in favor of one city rather than a metropolitan authority would be that a metropolitan council would eventually handle so many of the services , that there would be very little left for the local councils to do, and these would eventually disappear by sheer lack of interest on the part of the community in local affairs -- then why the delay in achieving the inevitable result?
There is no attempt made here to exhaust the pro's and con's for each alternative, or to assess the many discussions for or against each course which engaged the Commission. All that is intended by the above is to give the reader a brief summary of the various alternatives which presented themselves as worthy of consideration, and to refute any suggestion that the various solutions suggested in the public hearings were not considered. In short then, the alternatives considered were as follows:
Whichever of the alternative courses of action is adopted -- the present municipal and school district boundaries may have to be re-arranged. The present municipal boundaries came into being through circumstances which have ceased to exist. As described in Chapter 4, the present municipalities developed out of the original parishes which straddled the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. During the decade prior to World War I the difficulty of communication across a river caused the municipalities to split into two along the river barrier. Shortly after the end of World War I further divisions occurred when urban and rural residents found it impossible to live together harmoniously under one local administration.
All those elements which determined the location of the present boundaries have vanished, or will vanish in the near future. The parish divisions have no significance today; additional bridges now span the Red and Assiniboine Rivers i the Greater Winnipeg area, and more are to be built; the rural communities which organized as separate municipalities because they could not live under one local government with urban communities, have now become heavily or partially populated by urban residents who commute to Winnipeg. The general availability of automotive transportation has made possible effective administration over a wide area, removing a limitation which previously restricted the optimal size of administrative units.
It is true that the present boundaries have been in effect since the early 1920's, a full generation ago. It might therefore be claimed that although they may be physically outdated, nevertheless the fact that they have been in existence for so long has given rise to strong sentimental attachments. The fact is, however, that in practically all the suburban municipalities long time residents today constitute only a minority. Most of the municipalities have acquired the greater part of their existing population in the past decade, the majority of the newcomers were previous residents of Winnipeg or another suburb. They settled where they did, not because of deep rooted attachments, but because they found the house and surroundings which suited them best. A revision of the present boundaries of municipalities might make possible more rational and effective administration; it should not be considered unthinkable on the grounds that it would violate the deep-rooted attachments of a great many people.
If a metropolitan government were established, or if even the status quo were retained, it might also prove advisable to amalgamate some of the smaller municipalities into larger administrative units. Although the small municipality has its advantages, it can, like many good things, be overdone. A municipality may be altogether too small to provide efficiently the services required by a modern urban community. Furthermore, the task of metropolitan administration would be complicated and aggravated if a large number of small municipalities would each have representation upon a metropolitan authority. The orderly expansion of the metropolitan area would be rendered more difficult to achieve if an excessive number of small independent jurisdictions all had to be reckoned with.
The boundaries of our school districts are also, as indicated in Chapter 5, related to events of a distant past which have not significance today. Many of the school districts operating in the metropolitan area today are too small to perform effectively. As has already been indicated, they cannot employ, or make good use of, specialist teachers. They cannot provide a reasonable range of options and facilities.
Another boundary issue must be considered. While the administration of the metropolitan community must be confined within rational, clearly-defined boundaries, there must be some form of liaison with, or control over, authorities of the surrounding area. Developments may occur just outside the metropolitan boundaries which may be prejudicial to the interests of the metropolitan community. Provision must be made whereby the community's authorities have the power to prevent such developments from taking place.
There is no hard and fast rule by which to define an area or a city as being of the optimum size in order to achieve the maximum in efficiency, economy and service. The Commission endeavored to obtain an acceptable yardstick, but was finally driven to the conclusion that it would have to establish its own opinion as to the desirable size of the area or any unit thereof.
The Commission is of the opinion that each "metropolitan problem" must be judged on its own merits, and that a solution which may be acceptable in one instance, may not necessarily be acceptable in another.
In the case at hand, the Commission arrived at its conclusions based on the own intimate knowledge of the problems, and on the evidence and statistical information which was available, and used its own judgment in arriving at what it hopes will be a practical and useful area for effective co-ordination of services, as well as ample "breathing-space" for the present population, and planned expansion for many years to come.
From the alternatives, each with its advantages and disadvantages, its proponents and opponents, a choice must be made. The Commission has weighed the merits and demerits of all the possibilities. It has recommended the course of action, which in its view, will best serve the community of Greater Winnipeg now and in the years to come. The alternatives have not been ignored; the Commission considered them carefully, but felt that their disadvantages outweighed their advantages. It is not pretended that implementation of the recommendations of the Commission will put an end to all problems of local government in Greater Winnipeg. These, like the poor and taxes, will always be with us. The Commission feels, however, on the basis of its studies and deliberations, that the course of action it proposes will turn out to be more broadly satisfactory than would any of the alternatives available. It is by this workaday criterion that its proposals must be judged.