Post by monicaa on Aug 7, 2013 15:44:20 GMT -5
There are actually two (2) petitions. The first was signed with just over 600 names - this one pushed the issue to the Ontario Municipal Board. At the OMB hearing a second petition was presented signed by 783 County citizens from all 10 wards. The final line of the petition states:
" Add my name to the list of people who believe Prince Edward County Wards/Townships are fine as they are."
Democratically speaking, and by the rules of the Municipal Elections Act, the Referendum question supporters "lost." I find spending money on this exercise is hard to accept as a taxpayer. Why ask the question if one doesn't intend to follow the outcome. Sort of like democracy attempts in some third world countries. No, we don't like who got in with allowing folks to vote - so we'll just put someone else instead. I don't envy you for your task.
I think an important historical background piece to this exercise is that with "amalgamation", the County went from two tier to a single tier government and from over 50 Councillors working on community interests to 15. They attempted to organize representation so that it respected both population dense areas and the predominantly rural/water geography where citizens also live and operate businesses - might that also be where most of the businesses are? The Council of the day also democratically chose to keep the historical roots of our communities - our townships and villages - as part of our local government in determining the representation of the citizens. In going along with amalgamation, my ward ( South Marysburgh) went from three (3) Councillors and a Reeve watching out for my community and taxpayer interests to one (1). There has been a cost with that that is hard to measure, but we have become a different community.
I think this exercise needs to have some linkage to what citizens are saying in the "community development/economic development" exercising happening at the same time in the County. At the session I attended there was considerable passion for maintaining our rural charm, our rural heritage, our rural culture, our rural customs, and services to the rural areas where 75% of the population live. The growth stats by location ( thank you for those!) would indicate that "rural" is where most folks helping us grow our population are heading. So ensuring high quality representation for rural areas could mean "more" Councillors, not less. It could also mean creating a " job description" for the Councillor role.
Quality of representation varies with the Councillor. As it stands, they have a very free hand. There's no consequence for not showing up at meetings nor for not reading the pre-meeting materials.The further we have moved away from the amalgamation time, the less clarity there seems to be about the role and expectations of councillors. I think there needs to be a minimum standard. Six(6) out of 15 Councillors absent at a recent meeting is totally unacceptable to me as a taxpayer.
Good luck with your task!
Monica Alyea
" Add my name to the list of people who believe Prince Edward County Wards/Townships are fine as they are."
Democratically speaking, and by the rules of the Municipal Elections Act, the Referendum question supporters "lost." I find spending money on this exercise is hard to accept as a taxpayer. Why ask the question if one doesn't intend to follow the outcome. Sort of like democracy attempts in some third world countries. No, we don't like who got in with allowing folks to vote - so we'll just put someone else instead. I don't envy you for your task.
I think an important historical background piece to this exercise is that with "amalgamation", the County went from two tier to a single tier government and from over 50 Councillors working on community interests to 15. They attempted to organize representation so that it respected both population dense areas and the predominantly rural/water geography where citizens also live and operate businesses - might that also be where most of the businesses are? The Council of the day also democratically chose to keep the historical roots of our communities - our townships and villages - as part of our local government in determining the representation of the citizens. In going along with amalgamation, my ward ( South Marysburgh) went from three (3) Councillors and a Reeve watching out for my community and taxpayer interests to one (1). There has been a cost with that that is hard to measure, but we have become a different community.
I think this exercise needs to have some linkage to what citizens are saying in the "community development/economic development" exercising happening at the same time in the County. At the session I attended there was considerable passion for maintaining our rural charm, our rural heritage, our rural culture, our rural customs, and services to the rural areas where 75% of the population live. The growth stats by location ( thank you for those!) would indicate that "rural" is where most folks helping us grow our population are heading. So ensuring high quality representation for rural areas could mean "more" Councillors, not less. It could also mean creating a " job description" for the Councillor role.
Quality of representation varies with the Councillor. As it stands, they have a very free hand. There's no consequence for not showing up at meetings nor for not reading the pre-meeting materials.The further we have moved away from the amalgamation time, the less clarity there seems to be about the role and expectations of councillors. I think there needs to be a minimum standard. Six(6) out of 15 Councillors absent at a recent meeting is totally unacceptable to me as a taxpayer.
Good luck with your task!
Monica Alyea
