Appearances

Mired in the size of council swamp, council debates going forward or back

The goal of the meeting was to winnow down the 19 proposals to reshape County council. Despite seven years of intense research, investigation and debate, any and all ideas were welcomed back on the table. The work of a previous committee that had spent months examining the issue wasn’t referenced. The conclusions of a Citizens’ Assembly formed for the express purpose of considering the issue was barely mentioned.

Anyone with an opinion was invited to weigh in. So when a committee of council met last Thursday evening, they had a rich bouquet from which to choose. There was a comprehensive brief arguing for a five-ward, two councillors per ward arrangement— the same proposal that council narrowly rejected in 2013. It wasn’t discussed. There were presentations by Gary Mooney and John Thompson. Mooney proposes three electoral wards—each encompassing several existing wards—without changing ward boundaries. This format would allow for either six, nine, 12 or 15 councillors plus a mayor. John Thompson figures Hallowell can absorb Bloomfield and Sophiasburgh will drop one of its two councillors— leaving a council of 13 councillors and one mayor. His “simple plan” doesn’t eliminate the wide disparity in representation between wards in the County, but reduces it to less than the status quo—enough, perhaps, to satisfy an external adjudicator.

Council had heard both Mooney’s and Thompson’s pitch before, but they had never heard anything quite like the proposal made by Angus Ross. According to Ross, the objective of the exercise is to achieve more balanced representation by population while maintaining the existing ward boundaries. Inspired by Roger Von Oech’s 1989 plea for creativity among corporate managers, Whack on the Side of the Head, Ross proposed a novel solution.

In his plan, the County’s 10 existing wards would each have just a single representative— despite the fact that Ameliasburgh has 10 times more electors than Bloomfield. To fix that, each councillor’s vote around the council table would be weighted according to the number of electors they represent. For example, Bloomfield councillor Barry Turpin’s vote would be worth 2.3 per cent, while Ameliasburgh’s Dianne O’Brien’s vote would be weighted at 24 per cent.

The notion intrigued several councillors. But soon questions began to arise. Was there a precedent? Is it legal? Mr. Ross didn’t know. But, in fact, Grey County, a two-tier local government encompassing Collingwood, apportions various weights to each of its lower tier municipalities on recorded votes at the upper level. None of the constituent municipalities, however, has nearly the population disparity that exists between wards in the County.

Councillor Bill Roberts wanted to know if Mr. Ross believed the Ameliasburgh councillor’s workload was 12 times greater than that of their Bloomfield colleague. Ross said he believed a larger ward would result in more work. Councillor Turpin wasn’t convinced, but he had a bigger issue with the proposal.

“According to your plan, Ameliasburgh, Hallowell and Picton would always have a majority of the vote,” noted Turpin. “Three wards would control every vote.”

Ross acknowledged it was a risk—but a remote one.

Despite obvious frailties, Ross’s proposal graduated to the short list.

Councillor Jamie Forrester opposes changing council size, but likes Ross’s plan.

“It’s innovative and unique,” said Forrester. “It is true rep by pop.”

A long discussion ensued about whether the status quo—doing nothing—should be included as an identified option on the short list—or whether it was the default option—the result if council chose none of the options. At last it was agreed the status quo would be on the short list. When polled, doing nothing was among the top three choices for 11 councillors.

“What are we doing?” asked Mayor Robert Quaiff, frustrated by the direction the debate was headed. “It is a lot of work to organize 10 public meetings and do all that is need to get to that point.”

Quaiff urged his fellow council members not to spend time, effort, resources and money if their minds had already been made to retain the status quo. Forrester agreed. “Next meeting we should either move forward or stop,” said Forrester.

But Councillor Treat Hull countered by pointing out that while he believed the status quo should be on the short list, he could not support it. Therefore, his vote should not be confused with preferring a do-nothing approach.

Councillor Gord Fox pulled back on his rhetoric about representation by population as simply a numbers game. Earlier in the discussion, Fox dismissed the principle of rep by pop as the whim of “someone from Toronto.” It is not something County residents care about, according to Fox. Yet he was against putting a stop to the process underway.

“We said we would do a review—we should do a review,” said Fox.

Councillor Roberts cautioned his colleagues that the issue before them was not whether or not to reduce the size of council, but rather whether they manage the process themselves or see a reorganization imposed upon them by a judge or quasi-judicial body.

“Any of us who believe the status quo go unchallenged is delusional,” said Roberts. “Change is going to happen.”

But smelling blood in the water, several councillors skipped past Roberts’ warning, choosing to ignore it or dismiss it.

“Let’s have a straw vote,” demanded Ameliasburgh councillor Dianne O’Brien. “What is the will of council?”

Councillor Kevin Gale noted that just nine months ago, when seeking a council seat, ten of his colleagues now around the council table had indicated they were in favour of downsizing when asked in the survey presented in the Times.

“The people who elect us aren’t stupid,” said Gale. “We made an obligation to the public.”

Enough councillors agreed they should proceed at least to the July 16 meeting.

Gary Mooney’s north-east-west (NEW) proposal received just enough support to earn a berth on the short list. That is until one councillor pointed out various sizes of council could be applied to the NEW plan: Which did council wish to consider? The 9- 12- or 15-councillor plan?

Councillor Roberts recommended deleting the 15-councillor version—particularly since the status quo of 15 councillors was already on the short list.

“It is incredible to me that we would include on the short list a plan to replace a 16-member council with a 16 member council,” said Roberts. “Do you know how this will look? We will look goofy.”

It was a risk most his colleagues were prepared to take.