|
|
Post by garymooney on Jul 26, 2013 8:17:01 GMT -5
The mandate of the Citizens' Assembly is to respond to the following question: “How many municipal councillors should represent the citizens of Prince Edward County”. As I understand it, the CA also has the option to make suggestions as to how to modify the County's ward structure to accommodate any reduction in Council size. The N.E.W. Plan, introduced here, is neutral on Council size. It does not compete with the CA’s mandate and, further, does not interfere with Council’s right to make the final decision on Council size. The N.E.W. Plan provides a means to implement a change in the number of Councillors, while preserving intact the County’s Historic Ward structure and improving Councillor representation for all County citizens. It offers benefits even if there is to be no change in Council size. To CA members: If you decide to make suggestions regarding the County's ward structure, I hope that you will consider the N.E.W. Plan as a means of implementing your advice to Council on Council size. There are three documents describing the N.E.W. Plan, meant to be read in order: 1. An abstract that includes a map: actel.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/the-n-e-w-plan-version-5-abstract.pdf . 2. A one-page condensed description: actel.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/the-n-e-w-plan-version-5-condensed.pdf . 3. A three-page expanded description that includes a population table and a map: actel.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/the-n-e-w-plan-version-5-expanded.pdf . I will be pleased to respond to questions or comments, either on this discussion forum or privately at gary.mooney@actel.ca . Gary Mooney 613-919-8765 |
|
|
|
Post by equitability1 on Jul 26, 2013 9:08:58 GMT -5
I am very impressed with the fine work done so far by Jonathan Rose in setting up this CA and forum, and also with the very thoughtful contribution by Gary Mooney of fresh ideas for a structure whereby a new council size may be implemented. Hopefully Prince Edward County will be able to fix a long-festering problem soon. Best wishes to the CA for productive deliberations.
|
|
|
|
Post by garymooney on Jul 27, 2013 15:28:34 GMT -5
I attended the first day’s morning session, the only spectator not connected with County government.
As part of the introduction process, and to demonstrate the geographical diversity of the group, Jonathan asked the members to position themselves around the room as if it were a map of the County. It was interesting to note that the group congregated into 3 locations (not 2 or 4 or 10), located in the north, east and west (not north, middle, and south). I found this interesting, given that the N.E.W. Plan specifies 3 Electoral Wards – north, east and west.
I thought that the presentations by former CAO Dick Shannon, former Clerk Victoria Leskie, and Jonathan as were excellent, very informative. I’m sure that these presentations about the past, present and future of the County would be of interest to many members of the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anne on Jul 30, 2013 15:07:21 GMT -5
I very much like the suggestions by garymooney. A very well thought out starting place that may greatly reduce the time of deliberations of the group.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mcmers on Aug 2, 2013 9:31:09 GMT -5
Very interesting and well thought out. Highly useful for CA discussions. The main hurdle is not the quality or substance of THE plan (sadly) but the human dynamics of the Council members. Will they ever be able to reach consensus on this issue? Ward structure as I understand it is beyond the scope of CA's mandate however, the CA may make recommendations to Council members.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayhobson on Aug 8, 2013 9:45:53 GMT -5
Two years ago, I attended the 1st cut of the Budget process. Invested 3 full days trying to learn "who was who". Also, hoped to determine the fiscal responsibility of the individual Councillor as relates to the Historic Ward Boundaries (i.e. constituents who elected them).
As far as I could determine the only "pure" Ward headcount dollar outlay is the Recreation Committees. The RecCom is funded based on geographic headcount. Participants are not monitored to any significant degree.
We have many and varied colloquialisms that subvert Ward boundaries. I reside in South Bay, not in South Marysburgh. My cottage is on the shore of Lake Ontario, not in South Marysburgh.
Colour me confused as to what "Community" concerns are related to Ward boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Mooney on Aug 8, 2013 16:56:38 GMT -5
[Can't seem to log in as a member.] Ray, it's true that there are many rural residents who identify first with their settlement area -- Milford, South Bay, Rednersville, Carrying Place, Cressy, Huyck's Point, Allisonville, etc. For others, not in a settlement area, it's their Historic Ward -- e.g. I'm a resident of Hillier (the Ward, not the hamlet).
There are definitely community concerns that vary by Historic Ward. The big concern in South Marysburgh is wind turbines. Residents of Consecon are concerned about the fact that their hamlet is split between two Wards. Many Ameliasburghers don't feel that the County pays enough attention to their needs. Some Picton residents think that Wellington is getting all the new services these days. Picton and Wellington residents are very upset about total charges for water and sewer. In North Marysburgh, there are concerns about slowness in clearing snow. I could go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayhobson on Aug 8, 2013 17:55:24 GMT -5
@gary: Do not argue that there are different geographic issues, in fact, that is the biggest leftover from mandated amalgamation. However, the same concerns exist independent of boundaries. All solutions require a majority Council commitment, since overall Budget Constraints trump special interests. PS: swear that you told me you live on Lake Consecon  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Mooney on Aug 8, 2013 18:10:02 GMT -5
The current Ward boundaries are of historical significance --important to redidents and interesting to tourists. In my view, they must be preserved.
And yes, I live on Consecon Lake, but I identify first of all with Hillier Ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Mooney on Aug 9, 2013 19:43:58 GMT -5
I read Ken Koyama’s letter in the Picton Gazette. He, I and others suggested some time ago that County government could benefit by tapping into the knowledge and experience of County residents having various types of professional and business experience.
Virginia Leskie, recently retired as County Clerk, championed this idea within County government, and it is being put in place. One approach will be to invite people to join a resource pool from which names would be selected at random to advise on a given project. A second approach will be to invite people with particular expertise to register and be called upon as appropriate.
Ken thinks that the Citizens’ Assembly is the result of the above initiative. In fact, it arose from a completely separate process – Council’s external request for proposals on how to obtain public input on the size of Council. Jonathan Rose of Queen’s University proposed the Citizen’s Assembly, and it was selected over one other proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Mooney on Aug 14, 2013 7:14:18 GMT -5
I'll be making a deputation on the N.E.W. Plan to PEC Committee of the Whole at Shire Hall on Thursday, August 15, 9:30 am. The meeting is open to the public, so if you're interested, feel free to attend.
The Plan, and my deputation, are not in competition with the Citizens' Assembly -- they are complementary to it. The Plan provides a way to implement whatever Council size the CA recommends. Even if the recommendation is to maintain the current number of Councillors, the Plan offers significant improvements in Councillor representation and preserves the 10 Historic Wards if a future Council decides to downsize.
|
|
|
|
Post by garymooney on Aug 20, 2013 6:58:41 GMT -5
I made my deputation to Council on August 15 (actually, to Committee of the Whole, which includes all of Council).
I explained that the N.E.W. Plan is neutral re size of Council, and therefore doesn't compete/interfere with the work of the CA; in fact, it is complementary.
Nevertheless, a few Councillors offered the opinion that Council shouldn't be giving consideration to my proposal before hearing back from the CA. I don't have any problem with this. I just wanted to get the proposal in front of Councillors as early as possible to give them time to think about it individually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Salet on Aug 23, 2013 22:17:02 GMT -5
Gary, congratulations on creating a well thought out plan. You state your plan is council-size neutral, which unfortunately makes this plan at this time a distraction from the focus of determining optimum council size.
|
|
|
|
Post by garymooney on Aug 24, 2013 8:32:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the kind words, Loretta. I don't view the introduction of the N.E.W. Plan as a distraction.
If the CA is inclined to recommend a reduction in Council size, they may want to be satisfied that such could be implemented in a satisfactory way. The N.E.W. Plan shows that a reduction can be accomplished without changing the Historic Ward boundaries.
If the CA prefers the current Council size, but is concerned about rep. by pop., the N.E.W. Plan shows how this problem can be solved on a permanent basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by garymooney on Sept 14, 2013 12:20:53 GMT -5
There will be a special Committee of the Whole meeting (open to the public) on Thursday, Sep. 19, 9:30 am at Shire Hall for Council to receive the report of the Citizens' Assembly. I don't think that there will be a vote by Council at this meeting on the number of Councillors.
There will be no special Council meeting to hear from the general public on the number of Councillors. But several Councillors are holding town hall meetings on Thursday evening, one for Ameliasburgh + Hillier at Ameliasburgh town hall, sponsored by Councillors O'Brien, Lunn, Nowitski and O'Brien, and one for North Marysburgh at its town hall, sponsored by Councillor Quaiff.
Then on Tuesday, September 24, Council may decide on the appropriate number of Councillors for the County, going forward. It's not clear that they will consider how any particular number could be implemented -- in particular, whether it would be necessary to replace the 10 Historic Wards with new, artificial Wards.
However, Council has received my deputation on the N.E.W. Plan, which preserves the 10 Historic Wards as long as 6, 9, 12 or 15 Councillors is the number chosen. I'm hoping that very few Councillors will be willing to vote for erasing the current Historic Ward boundaries, especially eliminating their own Ward.
I'm told that there will be a later opportunity for public input on how the decided number of Councillors (if reduced from the current 15), could be implemented.
Almost 500 people have read the N.E.W. Plan on this website, for which I'm grateful. I sense that there is substantial support for this Plan but, in the final analysis, it's up to the current Councillors, who have the vote.
|
|
