Fear itself

Council won’t look at itself

One of this term of council’s first decisions last spring was to embark on a review of governance. Newly elected members had heard during campaigning in 2022 a generalized unhappiness with the way local government worked, how it responded to residents’ needs and, indeed, who was being served by the tens of millions of dollars sent to Picton each year. With Council’s approval, the wheels for a review were set in motion. But last week, the entire effort skidded off the rails.

Shire Hall staff had spent the past year considering the issues, the scope of a potential review and how it might be undertaken. They proposed terms of reference for such a review and presented them for Council approval last week. However, any enthusiasm for self-examination a year ago had largely dissipated in the intervening months.

Governance reviews in Prince Edward County have a complicated and thorny history. Amalgamation was thrust upon the County in the late 1990s. The electoral arrangement was forged out of fear that the province would impose an arrangement upon this community. This animated the horse-trading required to cobble the County’s townships and villages together. The result was an odd assortment of electoral districts—most wards with one councillor, some with two and one with three representatives—along with a wide disparity in representation by population. It left many hard feelings and disappointment. But it was done.

Twenty-six years later, the County is still working under the same peculiar arrangement. The cost of government has risen five times. The ranks of Shire Hall have swelled many times since amalgamation.

An earlier review had resulted in a question on the ballot in the 2010 election. More than 80 per cent of respondents voted for a review. But Council was having none of it. It chose, instead, to ignore the will of residents. It hung its choice on the technicality that fewer than half of eligible voters had answered the question. (Of course, low voter turnout had not disqualified the same members from claiming their council seats).

But 2023 offered a fresh start. A new council. New optimism and a new desire to serve the community better.

Hillier councillor Chris Braney had shepherded the initiative to the meeting last week. He said he had heard a simmering desire to review governance while campaigning in 2022. He said a governance review would seek to analyze and interpret current governance against best practices and to identify improvements.

“It is not about looking for failings but rather to maximize council performance,” said Braney. “Doing so proactively is a healthy exercise and can provide many benefits.”

Sophiasburgh councillor Bill Roberts strongly supported the initiative. He said a robust review every decade is commendable.

“Especially in a dynamic community like ours,” said Roberts. “We have nothing to fear from a knowledgeable, objective, transparent and widely consulted third-party review.”

But there was a great deal of fear among most of his colleagues. However that didn’t come until later.

Corey Engelsdorfer, councillor for Wellington, supported a review. He used his personal experience to demonstrate that only a small section of the community has the time and resources to sit on council—to commit the time and energy to do the job well.

“The current council compensation means that many residents can’t run,” explained Engelsdorfer. “The fact is that if I wasn’t my own boss and running my own business, I couldn’t be here. I have a family to feed; I have to earn a living.”

Mayor Steve Ferguson, Kate MacNaughton and Phil St-Jean supported the initiative, with St-Jean summarizing his position as “doing our job appropriately and preparing for the future.”

But other council members were fearful of what such a review might reveal. Many had already concluded that a review would recommend fewer council members. A handful of old warriors from size-of-council-battles-past spoke at the meeting to warn that a governance review was just code for reopening the size-of-council debate. They had come to say that residents didn’t want to talk about this anymore.

Hallowell councillor Phil Prinzen said he hadn’t heard any concerns about Council in the last election campaign.

“I don’t know what this review would show, but if it showed a reduction in the size of council, which I call the sheep in the room, that puts more pressure on those around the table,” said Prinzen.

Janice Maynard said the original size-of-council debate had prevented Council from doing important work during her first two terms at Shire Hall. The councillor from Ameliasburgh dismissed a fresh review of governance, describing it as “searching for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

John Hirsch acknowledged that matters were worth reviewing ,but could be looked at internally.

To witch, Bill Roberts responded, “Look at this discussion. If we try and do this internally we can already see the terms of reference would be embattled. And what would come out of this process? A recommendation to engage a third party who would be impartial, transparent, and objective. Can we skip that part?”

But it was too late. Any desire for change had been displaced by fear. Whatever ambition there was last year to find better ways of doing County business had mostly withered by last week. Some, like councillors Sam Grosso and David Harrison had nothing to say at all. They just voted no.

Recorded vote: In favour were Councillors Braney, Roberts, St-Jean, Engelsdorfer, MacNaughton and Mayor Ferguson. Voting against were Councillors Prinzen, Harrison, Grosso, Branderhorst, Hirsch, Maynard, Pennell and Nieman.

The review was dead before it began. Fear had prevailed.

Ask residents?

Council wasn’t ready—despite nearly a year to think about it—to embark on a review of governance. However, Councillor Braney had a backup plan. At the very least, would Council enable a question to be put on the ballot in the next municipal election? Would Council consider putting the issue to residents to decide?

The answer was a trembling no.

Some councillors attempted to derail Braney’s ballot question on procedural grounds, fearing what it might reveal. They knew the outcome of a similar question in 2010 had demonstrated overwhelming support (81 per cent) for a review. They could not afford a repeat.

But when technical devices failed to thwart Braney’s motion, Councillor Maynard leaned into fear and mistrust.

“Posing a question will be more difficult than a governance review,” assured Maynard. “We know this from last time. How do you pose a question without prejudice?”

A majority of her colleagues nodded heads. And so Council emitted its last gasp of self-examination.

The vote: In favour were Councillors Braney, Roberts, St-Jean, Branderhorst and Engelsdorfer. Voting against a ballot question were Councillors Pennell, Nieman, Prinzen, Harrison, Grosso, Hirsch, McNaughton, Maynard and Mayor Ferguson.