Just words

Council balking on commitment to review it size

The issue of the size of council clings to life this week—though just barely. A top priority just a couple months ago, it has, for many councillors, slipped well down the rungs in terms of importance. Indeed, many now calculate they can punt the issue without reprecussions from voters. Or the Ontario Municipal Board.

Council may, in fact, have already killed a review. A committee of council only kept the issue alive last Thursday by a 9 to 7 vote. It decided it would tentatively proceed with a plan to roll out proposals already in hand, gather new ideas, deliberate over the mix of ideas and hold public meetings across the County in the fall.

Faced with a mound of work and the rancour that was likely to follow, several councillors—while voting in favour of a review last week—were wavering in their commitment.

“I’ve changed my mind,” said Hallowell councillor Gord Fox. “Rep by pop is just words. It doesn’t mean much. We are wasting a lot of time. There are more important things to do. We have a good council. We get things done.”

Those aligned against a review of the size of council were expected to lobby Fox and others over the weekend, urging them to change their vote at council—urging them to stiffen their resolve and put the issue to sleep quickly and mercifully rather than allow it to drag out and waste many more months arriving at a forgone conclusion.

CAUGHT IN THE LONG GRASS
Last week, a committee of council heard presentations from Gary Mooney and John Thompson. Each has a plan to shrink council size while maintaining existing ward boundaries. Monica Alyea urged the committee once again, to leave it alone.

On the table for debate was a motion to bring three plans out to the public for feedback—John Thompson’s Plan 13, Gary Mooney’s N.E.W. plan and Mayor Quaiff’s plan, which mimics the school board representation with two wards, North and South. Other ideas and plans would be welcomed and encouraged. The array of ideas would then be debated on July 16—with a preferred recommendation emerging from that session. That recommendation would be presented in town hall meetings in September, after which a decision would be made.

That was the plan.

No decisions come easy on this file, however. Some felt it was a good plan, others felt it was too restrictive.

“Aren’t we looking for other options?” asked Councillor Janice Maynard.

Picton councillor Treat Hull cautioned that refusing to conduct a review was sending a bad message, likely one that would see the County’s electoral map redrawn by an OMB adjudicator.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that representation by population is the overriding principle in determining electoral districts,” said Hull. “That is the basis upon which the OMB operates. I am firmly convinced that in the absence of action by us, the OMB will act. I’d rather be a perpetrator than a victim.”

Sophiasburgh councillor Bill Roberts echoed Hull’s caution.

“This will end up at the OMB with a decision no one will like,” said Roberts. “Remember why this issue is here.”

But North Marysburgh councillor David Harrison seems prepared to defy any authority on this issue. He says the debate “stinks the same way as amalgamation did.”

“Sometimes you have to run the show,” said Harrison. “I don’t think this is going to happen. I didn’t campaign on this issue.”

Jamie Forrester, councillor for Athol, is willing to embrace council’s failure to solve this issue.

“Maybe it has to be the OMB,” said Forrester. “Maybe we can’t solve this. I haven’t seen anything I can sell to my constituents.”

Then Forrester attempted to cut the debate short . He, like other councillors, had been assessing the opinions around the table. He figured he had close to a majority with little or no intention of supporting downsizing. He asked for an up or down vote.

“Shouldn’t we vote on doing a review at all?” challenged Forrester.

Some councillors, seeing the numbers against them, were resigned to defeat—agreeing it was pointless and disingenuous, to embark on a months-long exercise if minds were are already made up.

Others argued it was premature to call off a review

Ameliasburgh councillor Dianne O’Brien said the public is tired of this issue after 12 years.

“They elected us to make decisions,” said O’Brien. “Let’s leave it alone and move on.”

But Wellington councillor Jim Dunlop countered that the public was sick of the issue because council habitually ignores its feedback.

“You say you’re in favour of a smaller council when you are a candidate. Now that you have your seat, you’re changing your mind,” said Dunlop.

Councillor Gord Fox is one of those who has changed his mind. The principle of representation by population has little resonance for him.

“Who in this County feels they are not being represented?” asked Fox.

Mayor Robert Quaiff noted that unless he voted in favour of a review, he wouldn’t get his questions answered. It was enough bring Fox back on side with a review.

The vote to kill the review failed by two votes. It was tested again last night, after press time.
UPDATE: Council agrees to review its size again. Click here for the story.

The saga so far

It seems likely, in the absence of a council review, the issue will be settled by an Ontario Municipal Board adjudicator. The matter has been alive since amalgamation was imposed upon the County.

Councillor Kevin Gale noted that part of the deal of the original arrangement in 1998 was that council size would be reviewed within five years. After some halting starts, a committee was struck in 2008 to investigate and research potential electoral models.

There was trouble from the start. Council refused to permit the committee to make a recommendation. Full council deliberated 14 options over a couple days, including the existing arrangement. Twice they reached a stalemate. At last, then-mayor Leo Finnegan announced that this body could not come to a decision. The issue was put to the people in the form of a question on the ballot in the 2010 municipal election.

A group residents, led by Lyle McBurney and Jim McPherson, attempted to force the council to make a decision—it couldn’t just throw up its hands. They appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. They lost that appeal because, as OMB adjudicator Jyoti Zuidema noted, “the Board should show deference to Council’s actions in this matter, on the basis that their proposed next step, namely to proceed to a referendum, is reasonable, responsive and consultative.”

Council dodged a messy confrontation.

So the matter was put to the people of the County.

They answered with a clear yes. A large majority in all 10 wards in the County voted for a review of the size of council. No ward had fewer than 73 per cent of respondents voting in support of a review. Overall, 81 per cent of those who answered the question voted in favour.

Yet, the new council dithered.

It was not until the months were running out in the term that the last council decided it would do what the voters had asked them to do. They contracted Jonathan Rose, a public policy expert from Queen’s University, to arrange a Citizens’ Assembly. He assembled 24 County residents, chosen randomly, to deliberate on the issue for three days and to then make a recommendation. It was a novel approach—open, transparent and unbridled by politics.

The Citizens’ Assembly concluded that council should be reduced to 10 councillors plus mayor. It was not in their mandate to recommend how that would transform electoral boundaries.

Council wrote Rose a cheque, thanked the Citizens’ Assembly and then rejected its recommendation.

It was issue heard often at the doorstep in the municipal campaign last fall. Voters wanted to know why council hadn’t fixed the problem by now. After all it was council that had asked them for their opinion, then that opinion was ignored.

When council gathered earlier this year to set its priorities for this term, the size of council was at the top of the list. But that was then.