Ghosts of debates past

Council will review how the County is governed

Council last week authorized staff to review governance of Prince Edward County. The decision followed a long and fraught debate about the intent, purpose and values of such a review. But ultimately, a majority of Council, 8-5, agreed with Hillier councillor Chris Braney that the time is right to examine how County governance is serving residents, how it compares with other communities, and explore opportunities to make local government work better.

Braney said he had heard from many constituents across the County during the recent municipal election who want Council to take a serious look at how Shire Hall is governed. He said a review would provide a proactive response to this community’s ambition and serve as a healthy exercise toward governance renewal.

“A governance review can encompass all the pieces of a governance framework,” explained Braney. “It seeks to analyze and interpret current performance against best practices to identify possible improvements. It is not about looking for failings, but more about finding ways to maximize Council performance.” John Thompson is a veteran of governance debates in Prince Edward County. In 2015, his plan to drop two councillors was adopted as a compromise to those seeking more significant reform.

Thompson suggests the current Council is wasting its time.

“The current 13 councillors plus a mayor makes a large enough group so that a range of views and expertise can contribute to decision-making,” said Thompson. He added that the previous Council had “functioned quite successfully with this composition. I recommend that Council not proceed down a long and expensive rabbit hole which is unlikely to result in any change or improvement.”

Gary Mooney was also intensely involved in the size of Council debates of a decade ago. Back then, he promoted a smaller Council along with a restructured ward formation. But now, he says, he has seen the error of his ways. Last week Mooney outlined 15 reasons why he feels reducing the size of Council would now diminish County governance.

“What we have in Prince Edward County is unique among single-tier municipalities,” said Mooney. “We are a community of communities. Nine historic and close-knit communities, a larger-than-average sized Council offering more diversity of views, and a small number of residents per councillor, encouraging engagement with local government. Why abandon our uniqueness simply to become more like other municipalities in Ontario?” asked Mooney.

Councillor Phil St-Jean worried his fellow colleagues and the public were missing the point of the motion.

“Sadly, everyone is getting hung up on the size of Council thing. That is not the intent. I fully support a governance review. I think we need to plan forward, not think about the battles of the past, or digging our heels in or stick our heads in the sand and say nothing is going to change.”

Councillor Janice Maynard isn’t convinced a governance review will be productive. She conjured the spectre of a smaller Council that works full time, the dissolution of County wards and less representation for taxpayers.

“I didn’t hear, nor have I heard of the clear evidence Councillor Braney is speaking of,” said Maynard. “I guess we are speaking to different people. As someone who sat through my first two terms, this [issue] can be pretty divisive and counterproductive.”

Councillor Roy Pennell considers a review of governance unnecessary.

“To get into this now, to me, is asinine,” said Pennell. “Now isn’t the time to look at changing things. Then two or three years down the road, we have to change it again. I don’t want to waste staff time or our time. We pretty well destroyed a four-year period [last time].”

South Marysburgh council member John Hirsch agreed.

“This is not the time to be dealing with size of Council, ward boundaries and the like. Unfortunately, that is what this motion in the text presented does.”

Mayor Steve Ferguson disagreed. He reminded Council it was only approving a report so that a discussion could begin on the issues of governance.

“It’s almost like we are debating the outcome of a report and about to motion on the floor,” observed Mayor Ferguson. “We are not. The intent of this is to understand what steps would be necessary if Council decides to move forward on the basis of the report.”

Maynard wasn’t convinced.

“It’s pretty clear what the intent of this is,” countered Maynard. “It’s not to just look at governance.”

Yet Maynard struggled to substantiate her assertion there was hidden intent in Braney’s motion.

“If we want to just look at governance structure and if we want to look at our population growth and what they may look like to prepare ourselves, that’s fine,” said Maynard. “But that is not what is being put in front of us. It is abundantly clear.”

So Councillor Braney made it plain.

“This is a governance review. It is to enable us to get the information that we would need and require to look at future planning. I don’t even want to think about models and concepts of size of Council, whether that is even to happen at all,” said Braney. “We need the information to have a really good fulsome discussion around the table. At this stage, it is far too early to even have those conversations.”

The motion passed with Councillors Pennell, Nieman, Harrison, Hirsch and Maynard dissenting.

The report is expected before the end of June and will outline the guiding principles, scope, timing and cost of a possible third-party review of the County Council governance structure. The report will also build on the research and public feedback gained in the 2013 size of Council review and Citizens’ Assembly and the 2015 size of Council review. Braney reiterated that a robust public consultation and engagement process was necessary for success.