County News
Sparks fly
Heated exchanges underline the simmering tension of year four
Last week, this newspaper observed that councils tend to become fractious and short-tempered in the fourth year of a term—that it is neither a new nor an unusual phenomenon. As if to underscore the point, County council delivered a particularly irritable performance last week.
It began at a council meeting on Tuesday, with a heated tirade from Picton councillor Phil St- Jean stemming from recent comments and stories, in these pages, on the County’s Affordable Housing Corporation board woes, upon which he serves as chair. Other outlets have covered his outburst and accusations as well as the rebuttal from the Times publisher and Wellington councillor Corey Engelsdorfer, so we will not commit more ink to that episode for now.
The hard feelings carried over to a council committee meeting on Thursday, where one of the items up for debate was council pay—always dry tinder ready to combust. Coming just months before an election, it was bound to ignite a conflagration. And it did.
A Shire Hall-commissioned study found that councillor compensation was roughly comparable to that of 13 other municipalities the consultant surveyed. As such, it recommended maintaining the existing pay structure.
That didn’t sit well with some council members.
The primary concern centred on the array of comparable jurisdictions used in the survey. Of the 13 municipalities, two had populations greater than 100,000—several times the size, scale and responsibilities of Prince Edward.
Just three of the survey group were singletier municipalities. (Prince Edward County is a single-tier governed municipality, which means it encompasses an array of services and responsibilities often managed elsewhere by two levels of municipal government—typically bifurcated as regional and local governments.)
As such, several councillors argued the survey was fatally narrow and that the analysis was flawed as a result.
But it wasn’t the quality of the consultant’s report that lit the match on Thursday.
Councillor Kate MacNaughton chaired the committee meeting. When it was her turn to address the report, she complained that the consultants had overlooked the concept of equity of access—that councillor compensation creates a barrier for some in the community from serving on council.
“Knowing who is shut out is important to know,” said Coun. MacNaughton. “I took a pay cut to do this job. I made my household poorer. People pound the table to say they would do it for free—well, I can’t afford to do it for free.”
Ameliasburgh councillor Roy Pennell pushed back, suggesting that council compensation isn’t his reason for serving on council.
“I want to serve my community,” said Pennell, noting that his personal pension takes a hit each year due to his council remuneration. “I am not here for the money. What happened to the idea that you do this job for your community?”
Councillor MacNaughton took sharp offence at the Ameliasburgh councillor’s comments.
“You just said I sit here because I am greedy,” responded MacNaughton with frustration building in her voice. “That is not the case.”
(For the record, Councillor Pennell had not, at least in this meeting, described his colleagues, collectively or individually, as ‘greedy’.)
Councillor MacNaughton said she was forced to give up a part-time job to do the “all-encompassing job of council member.”
“I’m still not reliably able to make a commitment to an employer as a wage slave. I am not trying to steal from my community and take more money. I’m just trying to live my life.
“So when you say it is just me being greedy, [my response is that] we need people who don’t have other sources of income. It is not greed.”
Councillor Pennell apologized, saying his comments were not directed at the Picton councillor personally, but rather a generalized concern about how folks are motivated to serve on council.
Councillor MacNaughton wasn’t satisfied, insisting that the Ameliasburgh councillor extend his apology to other members of Council. By this time, North Marsyburgh councillor David Harrison had heard enough of the back-and-forth.
“The chair should not be advocating against a difference of opinion [between council members],” started Councillor Harrison.
Chair MacNaughton cut him off.
“This is not a difference of opinion,” said MacNaughton, speaking over the councillor. “He was making a claim that was insulting.”
The debate was fully engulfed.
“If you are so easily insulted, perhaps you should find another job,” suggested the North Marysburgh councillor.
Councillor Brad Nieman scanned the room, looking for someone—anyone—to restore calm.
CAO Adam Goheen recommended a 10- minute recess.
When Council returned, the heat had dissipated. The committee turned back to the consultant’s report, which many felt needed to be revised or discarded altogether.
“More work needs to be done,” said Mayor Steve Ferguson.
With that, the committee agreed to send the report back to staff for more information. The flames were all but out.
Bill Roberts said he had been disappointed to have missed the fireworks on Tuesday evening, and was thankful to his colleagues for a reprise.
On the issue of reducing Council Size, be very careful what you wish for.
Why? Do the arithmetic, regarding outcomes of Council votes.
In today’s council (setting aside the “Strong Mayor” powers which can override many Council decisions) it takes 7 Councillors to cause a Motion to fail, if all Councillors and the Mayor are present.
This means that Motions that benefit external players such as developers, consultants, and special interests within the County, can be passed with 7 Councillors and the Mayor voting to Approve the Motion.
The fewer the total number of Councillors, the easier it is for a small group of Councillors that present Motions that benefit external players such as developers, consultants, and special interests within the County, to get their Motions passed.
Example: Suppose you reduce the number of Councillors from 13 to 10.
This means that instead of taking 7 Councillors and the Mayor voting to Approve any Motion as in today’s world, it takes only 5 Councillors and the Mayor voting to Approve the Motion.
In a situation, where, say, a County entity like PECAHC wants to get the County to sign up for multiple millions of debt over 45 (FORTY-FIVE) years, to deliver 3 (THREE) “affordable” rental units, having already blown over $700,000 since 2018 and delivering 0 units, then the 5 Councillors who currently sit on the PECAHC “Board” would be able to just pass the Motion, and direct the CAO to “make it so”, over the warnings issued by the County Director of Finance.
Think it through.
Do the math. (Actually, arithmetic)
At least in today’s world, there is a larger number of Councillors needed to push things through. If this had not been true, the County’s finances would have surely been much worse than the already poor state they are in.
So.
Unfortunately, Mr. Brosseau is correct after all.
The “Strong Mayor” situation has changed everything. Everywhere. And we can thank Premier Ford for this mess. A small municipality such as ours should not require the size of council we presently have. But…we also have what is very clearly an “Old Boys Club” going on here. Also nothing new in small town Ontario from what I’ve been hearing around here. We aren’t gonna win this one, unless we get rid of this Council and be extremely careful who we elect to replace them. Ask for resumes this time around – get their professional qualifications. It isn’t enough to have your heart in the right place, and that should also be a requirement, by the way. Ask a LOT of questions. Pay attention. And, HAH! Good luck with that one!
I have posted previously that my belief is that each of the Councillors should be paid a Living Wage based on a 40-hour work week. As of May 2026, the living wage for Prince Edward County is $22.20 per hour, which would be an Annual Income of $46,176 based on 52 weeks.
As of the most recent annual legislated council remuneration disclosure released in March 2026, the total base salary for Prince Edward County’s 13 councillors and one mayor was $444,682.
Raising the base salary of all 13 councillors to a 40-hour weekly living wage would result in a net expense increase of $214,897.00 annually for the County of Prince Edward.
This proposed council compensation increase represents approximately 0.25% (a quarter of one percent) of the total Salaries and Benefits budget for the County of Prince Edward as a whole.
I cannot for the life of me understand why there is so much arguing and gnashing of teeth over a measure that would open up the candidates field in the upcoming election much more widely, so that people who are not independently wealthy and/or have other jobs could consider running for the role.
The facts are that this would be a 0.25% (ZERO POINT TWO FIVE PERCENT) increase in the County’s annual expenditures.
FOR CONTEXT: A 0.25% spending shift is equivalent to:
The Cost of Roughly 1.5 Kilometres of Road Resurfacing: Based on standard Eastern Ontario infrastructure calculators, paving a single standard lane kilometre consumes roughly $140,000 of the municipal transportation envelope.
A Minor Percentage of Overall Revenue Operations: It represents roughly 0.40% of the $54 million the County raises directly through municipal property taxes to fund its yearly operations
But yet, there is almost no concern about the 90+ County Staff members that are paid more than $100,000 per year, per the most recent Sunshine List.
Staff Earnings vs. the Individual Living Wage ($46,176)The Overall Workforce:
The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward employs roughly 222 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers (spanning administrative staff, water utility teams, library workers, and emergency services).
Percentage Earning More Than $46,176: Roughly 85% to 90% of all full-time county staff earn more than this baseline living wage.
Entry-level permanent union positions (under CUPE Local 2275) quickly scale past the $46,000 threshold through standard hours.
The High-Earner Bracket: In fact, 41.4% of the entire county staff (92 employees) earn more than $100,000.00 annually. This means nearly half the municipal workforce makes more than double the proposed living wage salary.
If you’re going to be outraged about something, I submit this is a worthy objective.
THANK YOU, HOPEFUL!
I have worked on the Environmental Advisory Committee with Kate MacNaughton since February 2020. She takes her work as a councillor very seriously and for Kate it is a full time job. I have been with her at weekend events she has organized and championed. As Rick notes, as a single tier municipality the municipality shoulders a far broader arrange of responsibilities. I have had years to watch Kate in action. She spends the time researching issues, going through agendas and asking questions. Unfortunately too many on Council treat it like a part time job and it shows. And we all pay the price.
Hello.
If you are the “J.Lesslie” I think you are, please consider running again. Shire Hall needs one of those two in Ward 1 replaced, and I know which I would try to keep if it was my Ward to vote in.
She’s somewhat OK but is resistant to reducing Council Size. That’s a huge issue in order to receive broad Community support.
Oh Boy.
I agree with you on that! However, can vote against her as it is not my Ward. St-Jean, however, is a serious concern to me [but probably I’m the only one who cares] – accepting campaign donation from Cleave in 2022, and never, ever declaring Conflict of Interest? He also thought it was alright to press Council to have the Code of Conduct changed so residents [who pay Council!] who are giving their Deputations not be allowed to criticize Council or Staff? Nope. In my own opinion, that’s another one who can damned well leave the Horseshoe.
North Marysburgh Councillor to Picton Councillor MacNaughton:
“If you are so easily insulted, perhaps you should find another job”.
That’s a little rich coming from Councillor Harrison who, eighteen months after I attempted to present my Deputation to Council on January 10, 2024 I find out he has had a hissy fit, held a firm grudge and stated, in writing, to me when I asked him a question on a vote he’d made, that he was no longer my Ward representative in Council and would have no further contact with me. The irony of it all! I’d just begun my Deputation, and had only managed to recite back to him his own words written in an interview during his 2022 election campaign, what he had promised the residents of North Marysburgh and had abjectly, and condescendingly, failed to deliver. Pot, meet Kettle. No longer my representative? And how, pray tell, would I know the difference?
Picton Councilor MacNaughton has run out her ride. Time for change in Picton. Need two (2) new reps! Both have opinions that they love to go on forever for personal attention but little value to the community. Must add that they both sit on the boondoggle Housing Corporation that hasn’t created one (1) affordable housing unit.
MacNaughton displayed that she is incapable of effectively Chairing a meeting without bringing in her personal interests, particularly financial. Good on Councilor Harrison suggesting if she is that thin skinned perhaps another profession might be better suited.
Two Councillors from Picton. Why both? Locks in the vote and sidelines the wishes of the residents of Picton, doesn’t it?
Susan. Please read my comment on Councillor Harrison above. “Thin skinned” doesn’t even begin to cover it with that particular member of council, and his “call out” was unprofessional and unwarranted.
As for MacNaughton, everything I’ve seen and heard about this Councillor has shown that she cares about the Residents in her Ward. Is she doing a good job representing her ward? I’ve no idea, and it’s not my decision to make. More to the point, is the “Old Boys Club” letting her do her job effectively?
Should she, or any Councillor, be on the Affordable Housing Corporation – in my opinion [and it is only my opinion, by the way] – absolutely not. This should be an arms-length Corporation so our ELECTED OFFICIALS can do their job without any Conflict of Interest. As it is, I’d like to know how three additional members of council were allowed to be on this board in the first place. And get them off it!
As for some Councillors treating this as a “part time job”? Well, Susan. It is. Full Stop. Some put in the hours with the Residents. Others try to wade through the morass of documentation presented at meetings by Staff and Developers, etc., and the Residents lose their contact with their representatives. Others make a valiant attempt at both and… Well. It’s a crap shoot.
This is a Full Time Position, and should be paid for appropriately, and the hours put in, appropriately. It’s Council’s neck on the line, and yet the imbalance in wages between those we expect to make the final decisions, and take the fall for it, and those who make the recommendations with no risk? it borders on the obscene – and with 40% of our taxes going to paying very qualified Staff?
Oh. And Staff don’t lie? There’s been at least one instance in a Council meeting in the last four years where that has occurred with a senior staff member. In the public sector that person would have been shown the door. Not in government apparently.
Don’t like how a Councillor is representing you, you know what to do in October. But do your homework.
So tell me, unless you could afford to live on the wages our elected officials are supposed to earning, would you be willing to go to – let’s say for the hell of it – two meetings a week? Read, understand AND make informed decisions on behalf of the lives of the residents you were elected to represent, anywhere up to 150-450+ pages of detailed, technical information every damned meeting, have little home life, get berated by residents in council meetings, in public [and THAT is definitely below the belt!], etc. for failing to live up to their expectations, etc.etc.etc.? For what amounts to minimum wage? Think about it, take two aspirin, and call…hmmm. Busy signal…
Hey! Don’t forget the recent mess with the Marina. Why is that Senior member of Staff still employed at Shire Hall?!!!
Hi Susan.
Minimum wage salary as a “personal interest”?
Wow! What a concept!