“I’ve made a decision: I will not be running for re-election as a municipal councillor.

It wasn’t an easy call. Like most decisions in public life, it sat with me for a while — in this case, months. But I keep coming back to a simple idea:

It’s somebody else’s turn.

That may sound overly neat in a political culture that often rewards staying put. But I’ve never believed public service should be a lifestyle.

I’ve always thought it should look more like a series of tours of duty.

You step forward when you can contribute. You do the work. And then, when the time is right, you step aside.

That idea runs a bit counter to how many often treat elected office. There’s an unspoken assumption — especially at the municipal level — that if you’re doing the job well, you should just keep going. Maybe run again. Maybe aim higher (certainly many wanted me to run for Mayor). Maybe stay as long as voters let you.

But longevity and contribution aren’t the same thing.

When I first ran, it felt like the right time to step up. There was a gap, a moment, and a set of issues that mattered to me. Over the past several years, I’ve had the opportunity to work on many of them — from parks and environmental protection to long-term planning around our Main Street corridor and a new civic centre.

Some of that work is finished. More still of it is well underway. Most of it is accomplished from Council’s perspective.

And that’s exactly the point.

Public service should be measured by whether you helped move things forward — not by how long you stay in the chair.

There’s also a practical reality that doesn’t get talked about enough. For most municipal elected officials, it isn’t the only job. It’s layered on top of careers, businesses, families, and everything else.

In my case, that’s meant living in a constant balancing act — often 70-30 between business and council, with the occasional late-night meeting followed by an early morning call.

That’s sustainable for a time. It’s even energizing.

But it also reinforces the core idea: public office is a chapter, not the whole book.

And that’s not a bad thing — in fact, it’s a strength.

“Tour of duty” thinking has a few advantages that I think we underappreciate.

First, it creates space for renewal. New people bring different experiences, different professional backgrounds, and different ways of seeing the same problems. That doesn’t diminish the value of experience; it complements it.

Second, it helps guard against the subtle shift that can happen when holding office becomes indefinite. The longer you stay, the easier it is — for anyone — to start thinking in terms of preservation rather than contribution.

That’s human nature, not a criticism.

But designing around human nature is part of good governance.

Third, it makes public service more accessible.

If we treat elected office as something you do for a defined period — rather than a permanent career shift — more people can realistically consider it. Professionals, entrepreneurs, community leaders, younger candidates — people who might not otherwise step forward — suddenly can.

That’s how you broaden the bench.

To be clear, this isn’t an argument against long-serving elected officials. Many provide tremendous value. Institutional memory matters. Relationships matter. Experience matters.

But so does turnover.

Healthy institutions need both.

For me, this decision also comes down to timing. I’m at a stage in life where refocusing on my business career makes sense — not as a retreat from public service, but as part of a broader approach to it.

Because public service doesn’t begin and end with elected office.

There are boards to serve on, causes to advance, organizations to build, and policies to shape from outside the council chamber. In many ways, those roles benefit from having spent time inside it.

Stepping aside doesn’t mean stepping away.

It just means changing how you contribute.

There’s also something important about choosing your moment. Leaving should be a deliberate decision. It’s healthier for institutions when transitions are deliberate, when you can say, with some confidence, that you did what you set out to do, or at least got it moving in the right direction.

That’s how I feel about this chapter.

Politics often celebrates endurance: who lasted the longest, who stayed the course.

But maybe we should spend a bit more time celebrating stewardship: Holding a role for a time. Doing the work seriously. And then passing it on.

That’s the essence of a tour of duty.

And if we embraced that idea a little more broadly, I think our politics — especially at the local level — would be better for it.

Because at the end of the day, these roles don’t belong to any one person.

They belong to the community.

And sometimes, the best way to serve it…is to know when it’s time to step aside.