Hard of hearing

Does the County really need another debate about the size of council? Will reducing the number of folks who sit around the horseshoe at Shire Hall make one bit of difference in your life? Or as Ralph Margetson asks this week, does anyone truly believe that a smaller council will mean lower costs or taxes? And on the issue of equity of representation has anyone who has observed council managed to find a council member whose passion for their community and ward didn’t extend to the County as a whole?

These are the questions that some councillors stumble over as council size becomes an issue once more. They are the questions they use to justify procrastination and dithering. But they are the wrong questions.

It no longer matters whether these questions have been answered to councillors’ satisfaction. Because two years ago the people of Prince Edward County were asked: Are you in favour of commencing a public consultation process to review the size of council? And the people of Prince Edward County answered: yes

It wasn’t close. Eighty-eight per cent of those folks who voted answered the ballot question. Nearly 81 per cent of these voters said they want to consider improving the way the County is governed and represented.

Council cannot continue to ignore the clearly expressed view of the people and call itself a democratic institution.

Council battled over this issue for nearly two years, grinding itself into a bitter stalemate. They turned to the residents of Prince Edward County for advice on how to proceed. The people answered. They answered clearly.

Now some want to reject this result. They seek to deny the people’s voice.

It is a legacy challenge for this council.

Some councillors continue to cling to the stale conceit that they have been elected to be substitute decision makers rather than representatives; they believe that once they have been elected they are accountable to no one but their own conscience.

You can hear it in their voice when they tell you “we were elected to make decisions” and “if voters don’t like the decisions I make they can vote for someone else next time.” It is an old fashioned and twisted view of democracy, borne of apathy on the part of voters. But that apathy is gone now.

People are engaged. Many are keenly interested in what happens at Shire Hall, the services it provides and how their tax dollars are being used.

Councillors believe they are good, decent and honourable people. Some believe they ought be left alone for four years without voters or prying reporters peering over their shoulders. I believe they are good, decent and honourable people—but that isn’t good enough.

They have duty and responsibility to be responsive to the folks who elect them. They have to listen. That doesn’t mean they must pivot and sway with every opinion they hear, but the views of the people must be reflected in their deliberations—particularly on the big issues like this one. They must be considered.

And in nearly a decade of observing Shire Hall there has never been a clearer signal of voters’ desire. The people of Prince Edward County have said they want a review of council—and those who seek to obstruct this aspiration are confused about the very concept of democracy.

Time is running out. A review process must be conducted, completed and a bylaw passed by next April to be assured that any change is in place for the next election.

Some councillors seem determined to run out the clock. Rather than argue against the freely expressed view of voters, they seek to stall and delay until times runs out. They have already let two years slip away. This is cowardice—plain and simple.

It is time council demonstrated respect for the residents of this community—for the folks who elected them.

They want this issue discussed. At the end of the day they may conclude that the existing arrangement suits the County fine. Or they may decide something else entirely. But they must be allowed to have their say.

You asked them—now you must listen.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca