10

Citizen’s Assembly reports to council this week

Shire Hall should be a lively spot on Thursday morning. At 9:30 council will gather as a special committee to consider the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly. It is expected that some of the 23 members of the group who considered the issues and challenges related to the size of council and the imbalance of representation between wards in the County will be in attendance.

Specifically the Citizens’ Assembly has recommended that the number of councillors be reduced from 15 to 10. They did not make a recommendation about how those 10 councillors ought to be distributed around the County, but suggested they would be willing to reconvene, if requested by council, to consider the issue and make a recommendation.

The Citizens’ Assembly was clear about what should not happen. They recommend that council not move to an “at-large” voting system in which each elector choose each council seat as they do with the mayor. The members reason the ‘at-large’ system favours deep-pocketed candidates—those with the resources to campaign from Long Point to Carrying Place and everywhere in between.

The Citizens’ Assembly is also urging council not to use the existing wards as electoral districts despite the fact that their recommended number of councillors lines up with the number of wards in the County. One of the predominant values agreed to by the Citizens’ Assembly is representation by population— that is that electors are represented equally. There is a very wide disparity in ward population in the County. For example there were more than 5,100 voters in Ameliasburgh in 2010, while in Bloomfield there were only 510.

Though not an official recommendation, there appeared to be a broad-based consensus among Citizens’ Assembly (CA) members that council deal with the issue in this term—that it not give in to the temptation, by accident or design, to punt it to the next council.

The CA was also clear that it wishes to see council overall become an uneven number. Currently council, with 16 members including the mayor, often faces a split vote. In order to break the stalemate council procedure says that a tie vote must lose. But for may it is an awkward and unsatisfactory arrangement.

The time clock for changes to the size and structure of council is fast running out. Council must make a decision and pass a bylaw with no appeals—an unlikely prospect—before November 15 in order for changes to take effect for the next election in October 2014. The window of opportunity to meet this deadline is closing quickly. And if it is missed, the immediate pressure on council may relax. But the CA, echoing the sentiments of many residents, is strongly urging council to press on—to see the process through to the end, even if that change doesn’t come into effect until 2018.

Councillors from two wards, North Marysburgh and Ameliasburgh, are hosting public meetings on Thursday evening to hear feedback from their constituents.

A N.E.W. ALTERNATIVE
Into the fray, Hillier resident Gary Mooney has offered his own prescription to fix the smouldering issue. Unlike the CA, Mooney begins his examination of the problem from a voter equity position, rather than the number of councillors. Mooney has studied this issue for several years and has examined many possible ward configurations. His plan calls for the creation of three electoral wards (north, east, west—or N.E.W. plan) overlaying existing wards.

North would comprise Ameliasburgh and Sophiasburgh. East would encompass Picton, North Marysburgh, South Marsburgh and Athol. West would be made up of Hallowell, Bloomfield, Wellington and Hillier. Each of the three wards would consist of about 9,000 voters.

Using the N.E.W. plan configurations would avoid redrawing sensitive boundaries and would preserve the historic connection, according to Mooney.

Gary Mooney suggests two, three, four or five councillors per ward would give council the opportunity to fix the equity issue without grappling with the thorny issue of size of council.

Mooney’s plan, however, doesn’t line up with the CA’s recommendation of 10 councillors—for 10 representatives can’t be divided equally by three. The closest the N.E.W. plan comes is either nine or 12 councillors. But nine councillors plus one mayor leaves council back with a even numbered council—something the CA rejected.

Even if some councillors prefer Mooney’s plan they risk rejecting and negating the Citizens’ Assembly process—a process they agreed to. Given that 81 per cent of voters said they wanted a review of the size of council, when asked in the last election, and that 81 per cent of Citizens’ Assembly members concluded that council should be composed of 10 councillors and 1 mayor, brushing aside the CA’s recommendations at this point may be a risky and indeed foolhardy thing to do.