A very good question to ask any candidate!
My answer is a result of what I passionately believe needs to be done to sustain what we have in Kearney.
Four years ago I helped identify the key issues of the town's ratepayers. I now recognize that these are the same issues being raised in every area of Kearney today. Please note that not one of these issues have been addressed. In many cases they have gotten significantly worse. I personally have offered to help and have been rejected or ignored on every occasion. I had a choice. Run for election and directly take responsibility for making the change happen or allow things to stay as they are. I have not and will not give up!
Here is the list……
Municipal Governance
o The need for change in the Ward system- This issue was first raised in earlier elections. After overwhelming public support for change, Council refused even to discuss the issue. Barry Dingwall and I were forced to go to the Ontario Municipal Board for resolution. We were vindicated and the Wards have now been abolished. If you are interested read excerpts from the APPELANTS CLOSING REMARKS KEARNEY WARD CASE at the end of this blog.
The current decision by Council to remove the mail-in ballot will severely reduce seasonal resident’s ability to vote. (Starting to see a pattern of behavior?)
Unfortunately this decision could not be appealed. However it did remove any doubt from my mind that I needed to run. I will fight to get your remote access to vote restored if I am elected!
o Council meeting schedule, time and agenda- The current Council has eliminated the evening meetings. This in effect removes access to Council for all working people and seasonal residents. Even if you attend you have lost the right to ask a question during the meeting. If elected I will strongly argue for these measures to be immediately repealed.
There is one set of changes that have made a very positive impact! The agenda is now available earlier and has better information.
o The high level of taxation and excessive tax increases- The taxation system is controlled by the Province. The Council is responsible for the majority of the increases in expenditures. Check out the numbers yourself. What changes have occurred over the last 4 years in office staff? What changes have there been in Professional and Consultant fees? You won’t like the answers.
o Manage the town’s expenditures more effectively- I personally have offered at no cost to review the town processes and cost. (I have a business background in this area.) My offers have always been rejected. Meanwhile the town expenditures escalate at an alarming rate. If elected I will offer to do a review of the towns operations.
Environment
o Uncontrolled development has and still is the major issue. Anything goes in Kearney. There is no enforcement of the Official Town Plan. There isn’t widespread understanding of what the Official Town Plan requires; I made a delegation in 2007 to Council. (copy following) I also went to the Environmental Committee. Both agreed to take action. Nothing has changed. We still have no bylaws. The clear cutting and shore degradation continues unabated. I volunteered to work on a bylaw sub Committee. Again my offer of help was rejected. If elected I will offer to chair the Committee to address this issue.
o Implement the Watershed Study recommendations- I am not aware of anything ever happening.
o Create an ongoing septic and lake inspection program to ensure we protect our water quality - Nothing has been done.
o Concerns about reopening of the Graphite mine were raised-
The town refused to take an active role in organizing a public meeting. I made a delegation to Council on this subject. I was told to do it myself which I did. Don Baxter the Mine President was excellent to work with. However, the Town, to my knowledge, has not followed up with his offer to fund ongoing independent testing and to have an annual/biannual meeting to review the mines status and any issues. I have been out to visit the mine last year. (at his invitation) I believe he will do his part if the town shows just a little bit of leadership. If elected I will offer to perform this role for Council.
Roads and other town services
o There have been long range and annual plans for road work. How many annual road plans have ever been completed? What is the problem? I hope to include this area in the Town operations review.
o The town assuming the Fisher Lake road and Hazard Hill Roads comes up in every election – Action did happen here. The people on these roads spent large sums of money for studies that confirmed what they knew before they started. It is too expensive to upgrade these roads to a level required by the town to assume them. The issue is no closer to resolution. If elected I will offer to Council to lead a review to determine what can be done based upon the town NOT assuming the roads.
Quality of Life
o The following were requests to review the need for by laws to:
Restrict the use of fireworks
Restrict use of firearms around residential buildings
Restrict Sunday hunting
Restrict the number intensity, and direction of exterior lighting on Lakefront properties
To my knowledge none of these have ever been reviewed or discussed.
o Enforcing current town by laws was raised as an issue in 2006. We are no closer today then we were then to enforcing bylaws.
The bottom line. I not only want to see changes in the above areas…. I am willing to work to help determine what these changes should be.
All parts of the community will have an opportunity to provide input. There issues are concerns to all of us. We can do this together!
My Delegation to Council August 31 2007: Managing Development Successfully
It is the ‘Wild West’ when it comes to lakefront development in Kearney. It appears anything goes. The evidence I have personally seen of new cottage development, changes to existing cottages and the public use of Crown land on Sand, Emsdale, Grass and Loon Lakes certainly appear not to follow the Town’s Official Plan. I am not the first to raise this issue to Council. Dave Matson the President of Proudfoot Lake Association raised the same issue at last month’s council meeting. I offer as did Dave Matson to arrange for a tour by Council of Grass and Loon Lake. Check it out yourself! Council has travelled the roads of Kearney. Take the time and travel the lakes.
We have the regulation and vision in the Official Plan. Implementation is now the problem
Why does it matter?
Our Association supports sustainable development around our lakes. Unfortunately development isn’t always done appropriately. Every year we hear of more Lakes with toxic algae blooms, destruction of the waterfront and other environmental problems. These problems are moving further north. It is up to us not to allow this to happen here.
The signs aren’t good.
I have spoken with Stephen Scholten Fisheries Biologist from the Ministry of Natural Resources. They have just concluded retesting of Grass and Loon lakes to measure temperature and dissolved oxygen. The trend of what he shared wasn’t good. MNR research has found that as oxygen gets progressively lower, below 7 parts per million (ppm), the ability of lake trout to meet their metabolic needs and to successfully reproduce becomes impaired. They recommend that no further shoreline development be permitted when the average oxygen concentration is at or near 7 ppm. The oxygen is reduced indirectly through increased phosphorus inputs from shoreline development. For both Grass and Loon lakes, the long term average is close to 7 ppm. (Refer appendix 1- Stephen Scholten Report) Practically this means if it goes below 7 ppm on an ongoing basis it will be the end of trout in our lakes.
In addition many cottagers are visibly seeing the negative changes. I have attached an email from one of our long term residents graphically describing the slime here grandchild now have to swim in.
I know development isn’t the only cause. However, I ask you. How many new cottages built like the one on Loon Lake will it take to destroy the ecology in the Lake? Do you really want to find out? We know we are close. I just hope the current disgusting example hasn’t already done it.
The good news is the Town’s new ‘Official Plan’ recognizes this fact and has put strict requirements on development to eliminate as much as possible any additional negative impact on the lakes. Legislation at both the Federal and Provincial levels is in place to help prevent further degradation. You have the power. It is now time to use it!
What can Council do?
Recommendation 1
Provide CLEAR and complete information regarding the land use requirements appended to the current Building Permit. The current Building Permit doesn’t mention the lakeshore development restrictions. (Refer to Kearney Development Permit document). It is a Provincial standard form designed only for building construction/change. The Grass and Loon Lake Residents Group will volunteer to help the town review their current documentation and to recommend changes.
Individuals can’t follow the regulations if they don’t know or don’t understand them.
Recommendation 2
A land use plan should be requested prior to any change to waterfront property as and additional part of the building permit requirements. This process has been successfully implemented in the Lake of Bays. Replicate it.
Please refer to Lake of Bays PDF files:
- brochure
- handbook
- application
Prevent the problems from happening in the first place. If they plan the right way fewer mistakes will be made
Recommendation 3
A land use inspection similar to a building inspection should be conducted to identify deficiency and enforce remedial action if necessary. The cost for this activity can be charged as a land use development fee.
Use enforcement when needed. Prove that if you plan to break the rules in Kearny you will have to restore the waterfront and pay fines.
Recommendation 4
Require that contractors be licensed by the Town (a nominal license fee) in order to do business in the Town. The consequences of failing to comply with the Official Plan/Zoning By-laws should result in a substantial fine and then after two infractions (ignorance is no excuse) loss of license to do business in the Town. In the case of waterfront development or development on environmentally sensitive land the Town should require a performance bond for any work being done.
Request that the local development Contractors sign an ‘Environmental Code of Conduct’ commitment. This document when drafted should refer to the environmental objectives in the Official Plan and reference the by-laws covering the contractors work. I recommend that the local Contractors be asked to assist in drafting of this document. We will publish the list of contactors that agree to sign it. Any contractors who are found not in compliance will be removed. Our Association will agree to publish this list. We will also request that other Associations publish it as well.
If a contractor doesn’t follow the rules the size of the penalty must hurt their bottom line. Let the buying public know who are responsible contractors. The marketplace will take care of the rest.
Next Steps
- Pass motion(s) agreeing in principal to the above recommendations.
- Request the CAO to investigate the Lake of Bays solutions and develop an implementation plan for Council approval by September 31.
- Form a small public implementation team to assist the COA where appropriate. This Committee should comprise of at least one Lake Association member and one local contractor.
- Take a tour of Grass and Loon Lakes. Schedule others as soon as practical.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Why does removing the mail in ballot matter?
If voting patterns revert to what they were prior to the current mail-in-vote, our voter turnout will reduce from approximately 60% to 16%. Eliminating the mail-in ballot will have virtually taken the vote away from 44% of the people who vote.... mostly seasonal residents. Ask yourself who made this decision and why they make it. I can answer the first question for you. The following voted to eliminate the mail in ballot.
- J. Jeffrey Johnston
-Charlie Zummach
-Bob Tilley
-Ms. Shirley Reeds
-Mary Lesperance
Who voted to retain your ability to vote via the mail?
-Paul Tomlinson
-Louise Wadsworth
Ask each candidate what their position is on this key issue.
If elected I will do everything in my power to reverse this terrible decision and to do what I can to increase voter participation.
I urge you to get involved and vote. If you need help getting to the poles or how to use a proxy please call me at 636 9850.
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." ELIE WIESEL
- J. Jeffrey Johnston
-Charlie Zummach
-Bob Tilley
-Ms. Shirley Reeds
-Mary Lesperance
Who voted to retain your ability to vote via the mail?
-Paul Tomlinson
-Louise Wadsworth
Ask each candidate what their position is on this key issue.
If elected I will do everything in my power to reverse this terrible decision and to do what I can to increase voter participation.
I urge you to get involved and vote. If you need help getting to the poles or how to use a proxy please call me at 636 9850.
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." ELIE WIESEL
Why review the towns operations?
Excerpts from Councillor Wadsworth’s presentation to Council during this last budget exercise:
- “Staffing costs have increased from 2000 to 2008 from $189,000 to $693,000, (366%!) This increase doesn’t include a new public works employee, an administrator, and a manager.
- The Province publishes an efficiency measure (% of Total Municipal Operating costs that were spent on Governance and Corporate Management) Kearney spends 29.8%. All our neighbouring municipalities spend under 11%.
”Kearney has the dubious honour of:
• Having the highest tax levy increase (133%) from 2000-2008 of all of the local surrounding municipalities Note: This is 142% if you take 2009 into account.
• Having the highest tax levy increase (25%) from 2004-2008 of all of the local surrounding municipalities
• Having the highest average Municipal Taxes per Household.... $1880 of all of the local surrounding municipalities
No action has been taken by council. Even if you believe the town is very efficient, it is a responsible management practice to investigate the reasons for the above and take action if warranted. One thing I know for sure. Continued tax increases as we have seen will drive many people from their homes and cottages. The new Council must do what it can to stop this from happening!
- “Staffing costs have increased from 2000 to 2008 from $189,000 to $693,000, (366%!) This increase doesn’t include a new public works employee, an administrator, and a manager.
- The Province publishes an efficiency measure (% of Total Municipal Operating costs that were spent on Governance and Corporate Management) Kearney spends 29.8%. All our neighbouring municipalities spend under 11%.
”Kearney has the dubious honour of:
• Having the highest tax levy increase (133%) from 2000-2008 of all of the local surrounding municipalities Note: This is 142% if you take 2009 into account.
• Having the highest tax levy increase (25%) from 2004-2008 of all of the local surrounding municipalities
• Having the highest average Municipal Taxes per Household.... $1880 of all of the local surrounding municipalities
No action has been taken by council. Even if you believe the town is very efficient, it is a responsible management practice to investigate the reasons for the above and take action if warranted. One thing I know for sure. Continued tax increases as we have seen will drive many people from their homes and cottages. The new Council must do what it can to stop this from happening!
Where do I stand?
Development and the Environment
Create ENFORCEABLE bylaws
It is time to stop the violators. Bylaws WITH enforcement provisions must be put in place. Let set the rules and educate developers and property owners.
Protect our environment
Let’s be proactive and reuse education and water testing programs that exist in other municipalities. Let's not wait until we have algae filled lakes and health issues.
RoadsMany of our roads are a disgrace. Let’s stop talking about improving the roads. It is time to actually do it!
Taxes and increasing
Town costsLaunch a review of the town’s operations
We have all watched dramatic increases in administrative costs and staff. What we don’t know are the root causes and practical ways of addressing the issue. Together with the staff, let’s review the town’s processes and identify improvements that other municipalities have achieved. Making the work more effective reduces costs and makes the job easier for the staff!
Manage short and long term costs with revenue
We have paid for expert advice. Let’s implement the recommendations made by the Town’s financial consultant.
Create ENFORCEABLE bylaws
It is time to stop the violators. Bylaws WITH enforcement provisions must be put in place. Let set the rules and educate developers and property owners.
Protect our environment
Let’s be proactive and reuse education and water testing programs that exist in other municipalities. Let's not wait until we have algae filled lakes and health issues.
RoadsMany of our roads are a disgrace. Let’s stop talking about improving the roads. It is time to actually do it!
Taxes and increasing
Town costsLaunch a review of the town’s operations
We have all watched dramatic increases in administrative costs and staff. What we don’t know are the root causes and practical ways of addressing the issue. Together with the staff, let’s review the town’s processes and identify improvements that other municipalities have achieved. Making the work more effective reduces costs and makes the job easier for the staff!
Manage short and long term costs with revenue
We have paid for expert advice. Let’s implement the recommendations made by the Town’s financial consultant.
OMB Wards Case closing remarks summary
Presented by Steve Sainsbury
Case Number-MM080065
We believe we have put forward a compelling case.
During my opening comments I recommended 5 criteria to assist you in making your decision.
I will now review each criterion and provide a summary of key evidence and identify legislative and Ontario Municipal Board Case evidence that supports my contention.
CRITERIA 1
Have we demonstrated there is a pressing need for change to the electoral system in Kearney because the current electoral system is not democratic and doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for fair representation?
In our testimony we have provided indisputable evidence that the current electoral system is not representative. The bottom-line is it takes dramatically fewer votes to elect a Councillor in Ward 1 then it does in either Ward 2 or 3. By any reasonable measurement it is not acceptable in a democratic system for a voter in Ward one to have their vote worth approximately 3 times that of a voter in Ward 2 and 5 times that for a voter in Ward 3.
Dr. Williams in his testimony referred to the The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter et.al [1991] 2 S.C.R.158 (TAB 11 in the appellant) Binder,
This Supreme Court Case has been used as the seminal case on effective representation.
What was said in this case:
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on whether variances can be tolerated in the size of voter populations among constituencies and the distribution of those constituencies among urban, rural and northern areas for provincial electoral districts. In that case, Madam Justice McLaughlin determined that Section 3 of the Charter of Rights, which establishes that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of federal or provincial members of parliament establishes the right to “effective representation”. Effective representation “comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one’s grievances and concerns to the attention of one’s government representative”.
The Court held that the first condition of effective representation is relative parity of voting power. The Court states at page 183:
“...A system which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizens’ vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to, and assistance from, his or her representative. The result will be uneven and unfair representation....
It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen’s vote as compared with another’s should not be countenanced.” (emphasis the appeallants)
In the Kearney case we clearly see the votes in Ward 2 and Ward 3 are dramatically diluted when compared to Ward 1. This meets the Carter case definition for unfair representation.
CRITERIA 2
Have we followed a Public consultative process that was fair and comprehensive? Did it provide an accurate and clear direction for future action by the Council? Did the option to eliminate the wards have significant and widespread public support?
In Dr Williams testimony he has supported both the process and results of the Ad Hoc Wards Committee. As an expert, he viewed the Committees deliberations as effective. You have heard testimony by Mr. Dingwall and have reviewed the extensive documentation that was created to ensure an effective review of the electoral process occurred and that clear recommendations be made to Council. The evidence shows that the Committee acted in a competent and professional manner.
Our research has indicated a Municipal Council by the act of the appointment of a Committee to conduct a review study are by extension of their ‘intra vires’ authority empowering the Committee to act on their behalf. Providing that the Committee exhibits due diligence and reasonableness in reaching its recommendations the Committee’s conclusions should have been given consideration based upon the deferential standard normally afforded Council. What happened in the Kearney case? Evidence has shown that no rationale was ever given for their arbitrary unfair, and unreasonable decision. This contention is supported in the following case:
At the September 11th Council Meeting the decision to reject the Ad Hoc Ward Committee Recommendations was made without debate in less than 3 minutes. No valid rationale was ever provided.
Within days of the Council meeting, the Mayor publically communicated ‘a preferred solution’ that would see a realignment of the Wards. However, evidence has shown no discussions ever occurred with Council or the Ad Hoc Wards Committee.
Many attempts were made to allow for a ‘made in Kearney’ solution by Mr. Skelton. None were even acknowledged.
The evidence leads to a single conclusion. Council had no intention of making a serious attempt at resolving the electoral inequities.
The public consultative process was well attended. As indicated by Dr. Williams, the public participation level was very high when compared to similar exercises in other municipalities he has experienced.
We received 35 written submissions of which:
- 29 were in favour of the no wards solution
- 4 were in favour of realigning the Wards
- 2 were in favour of the status quo
- 4 delegations to the committee
- 76 of the approximately 86 ratepayers officially signed in at the Public meeting
- 128 signed the petition of electors
Those that chose to participate overwhelmingly wanted change and preferred the ‘at large’ system.
CRITERIA 3
Have we demonstrated that the ‘at large’ representative system is an effective electoral process for a town like Kearney?
All of our neighbouring municipalities in the Almaguin district who had Ward systems have shifted to an ‘ at large’ system. There is no question that it works and will work here in Kearney. There is no case that Kearney is significantly different than any of its neighbours who operate effectively with an “At large” system.
An expert opinion is most appropriate in answering the relevance for an ‘at large’ system vs. a Ward system.
I will quote from Dr. William’s testimony
‘The threshold between “small” and “large” municipalities is not set out in the Municipal Act either but expert advice once given by an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Mr. George Manios) at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on a ward system for Oshawa (M840053, March 1985, pp. 26-27) suggested that a population of 50,000 was a reasonable point at which to consider changing from an at-large to a ward system. The Town of Kearney is not even in the vicinity of that threshold.’
‘It is instructive to note that all other municipalities in the Almagiun region have abandoned ward systems in favour of at-large elections. The comment from the CAO/Clerk of a neighbouring municipality is instructive: one of the objectives of a change in the electoral system was “to get the community to think as one.” As noted earlier, an electoral system that perpetuates long-defunct component municipalities when those boundaries reflect no demonstrable differences in the demographics or the service responsibilities of the municipality is of questionable value. An at-large system in a small municipality can make a positive contribution to community building.
‘Democratic election methods should ensure that electors have a choice; this is more likely to happen in an at-large system. Unfortunately, as the 2006 election showed, acclamations are much more frequent in ward elections and in such cases the performance of elected representatives cannot be judged by electors.’
In conclusion Dr Williams stated in his testimony:
“It is highly improbable that anyone would set out to design a viable ward system for the modern Town of Kearney that looks like the status quo.”
A critical piece of evidence is what the people of Kearney have said. What would be gained by changing to an at large system? The following are a just a few key points made:
• It will not only provide equal representation for all, it will also help to unify the community
• Kearney is a very small Town and governance must be kept both simple and fair
• No one neighbourhood or Lake community will have dominance over any other neighbourhood or interest group
• There is no difference between a resident
and a non resident. It puts us all in the same basket. We will protect the environment, fight for everyone, our seniors, our lakes our roads
• The Ward System in small mainly rural or highly seasonal communities both creates and perpetuates a dysfunctional divisiveness within the community.
• Our future strength will come from a united Kearney not one divided.
CRITERIA 4
Have we demonstrated that Kearney is a very homogeneous community? Does its municipal services and management currently operate with no practical requirements for the arbitrary Ward boundaries?
Let us review the facts: The demographic evidence shows Kearney is a very homogeneous community. It is:
o Overwhelming English speaking
o A community made up of mature individuals (median age 50)
o Very few visible minorities
o Primarily made up of lake communities with residents living on lakefront properties. (approx. 70%)
Kearney represents a population that is eminently suited to an “at large” system of electoral representation. We do not have diverse groups such significant numbers of first nations peoples, French speaking or any other minorities that could require special consideration in the electoral process. The only reference that has ever been made for diversity in Kearney is permanent residents vs. all the others. The implication that a permanent resident should have ‘special status’ is not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ‘Not being from around here’ is not a valid reason to eliminate a voters rights.
We have demonstrated that the issues in the last election were generic. There has been no evidence presented that indicate the Ward boundaries and groupings of citizens reflect different needs in the population. It can only be concluded that the politicians are defending this untenable system for their own self interests.
Mr. Varty has reviewed the town services
and has shown:
• No services are based upon usage. Every elector is allowed the same number of garbage bags, uses the same roads and is protected by the same emergency services.
• The Town’s Official documents such as the Official Town Plan and The Kearney Strategic Plan provide no distinction between the current Wards. Wards aren’t even mentioned. Clearly there isn’t a structural need for Wards
• The services of the town are identical for all citizens except for garbage pickup in the old town site.
• The services operate with no practical impact of the arbitrary ward boundaries. Changing to an ‘at large’ system will eliminate the complexity of the Wards and will create no new complexities to replace it.
• Town management and administration will continue unaffected.
• Taxes are assessed based upon a common provincial system that doesn’t discriminate based upon how many days a year a person resides in a dwelling or property. In fact these non permanent residents pay over 50% of all the taxes in Ward 3 alone.
What members of Council are really saying is:
‘We want your money” BUT we don’t want your input on how it is spent and we don’t want to be held accountable to you.’
This creates “Taxation without representation.”
CRITERIA 5
Have we demonstrated that Council has acted in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner? Is there any likelihood that this issue will ever be addressed while the current ward system is in place?
What evidence do you have to base your decision that this Council has acted in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner? In determining motivation of Council we have 3 sources of evidence:
- what was said
- what was written
- what actions were taken
First lets analyze what was said by the Council
It is striking how little was said by anyone except the Mayor on this critical issue. However we do have a few newspaper quotes:
• Councillor Shirley Reeds was quoted as saying...”If we accept it, it gives Ward 3 the power to elect the entire Council and run it from another city” end quote (Tab 10 page 33 in the appellant Book)
• “ For about eight months of the year, more or less, the social culture in Kearney is made up of permanent residents” said Councillor Zummach of the possibility of summer residents being on Council. They don’t understand or care about the social culture we have here for the other 8 months. (Tab 10 page 34 in the appellant Book)
Both comment s reflect a clear prejudice against “those people who aren’t from around here”. Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statements made by Kearney Councillors.
What were in documents published by Council on this issue?
• In the mayor’s discussion paper of Nov. 12, 2008 (Tab 33 in the Common Document Book) he reiterates his position that there have been no arguments that support abolishing the Electoral Ward system in Kearney. We have just spent the last two days reviewing evidence that proves he statement isn’t accurate and wasn’t accurate at the time. An Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statement.
• He also states and I quote; ‘eligibility to vote is based upon residency and/or property ownership. There are basically two groups of voters: those with households and vacant land owners. ...he continues...For fair representation the focus must be on households.”
This effectively eliminates the voting rights for the landowners. An Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statement.
He goes on to give further evidence of his prejudice against land owners and the groups that represent them. I quote: ‘ Any group that has access to the phone numbers or email addresses has an advantage which can distort the democratic process. Also to reach the absentee voters is a more costly process and will favour the better funded candidates.’ An Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statement.
In addition, it is the appellants contention that The Mayor of Kearney by his words is coaching Council to violate the voting rights as defined under the Ontario Municipal Elections Act of 1996. The appellants contend that the Mayor is advocating the local municipal government overrule the legislative authority of the province and ignore the provision under sections 17. (1)
Qualificatiions
A person is entitled to be an elector at an election held in a local municipality if, on voting day, he or she,
(a) resides in the local municipality or is the owner or tenant of land there, or the spouse of such owner or tenant;(emphasis made by the appellants)
(b) is a Canadian citizen;
What have been the actions of Council on this issue?
If there was any doubt about the arbitrariness, unfairness and unreasonableness of Council, their actions in replacing the vacant Councillor position in Ward 1 leaves no doubt. At the same meeting they made their final decision regarding Wards Council demonstrated by their actions how important having Councillor Knowledge of a Ward district really is. What they did:
• They reject both of the qualified candidates from Ward 1. One of whom was an ex Mayor.
• They rejected an ex councillor from Ward 3
• They rejected their legal advice on the selection process
• They chose to select a candidate from Ward 2 who had never been on a Council committee and wasn’t even interviewed by Council.
Mr. Dingwall has also testified to a subsequent decision by Council to change its time and schedule from an evening to a day session. This effectively eliminates working individuals and seasonal residents from being candidates for Councillor or Mayor.
Madam chair, you can see why this has become very contentious and why many citizens in Kearney find this whole line of reasoning offensive. Politics at its worst!
Clearly Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable actions
I would like to close with the following comments:
- Does the present system deliver fair representation and accountability? In a word, NO.
- In this ward system I do not have the ability to hold 4 of 6 councillors accountable. In fact considering the acclimations, no one is holding those 4 councillors accountable.
- The likelihood of continued acclamations are very high.
- Although not impossible, it is highly unlikely that the majority of ratepayers can ever elect sufficient councillors to change the current system if we are unsuccessful in our appeal. Even if Ward 3 elects the mayor and 2 councillors who all want to change the system, councillors from Ward 1 and 2 will still be the majority. Ask yourself why would they ever want to change the system that keeps them in power? This lack of accountability is inherent in the ward system in Kearney.
- An ‘at large’ system will bring the community together and will allow all the electors to have a say in the election of every Councillor.
- Elections at large should and must be the most appropriate choice FOR DEMOCRACY in Kearney.
Thank you for the listening to our case for change.
I hope this was of interest
Steve Sainsbury
Case Number-MM080065
We believe we have put forward a compelling case.
During my opening comments I recommended 5 criteria to assist you in making your decision.
I will now review each criterion and provide a summary of key evidence and identify legislative and Ontario Municipal Board Case evidence that supports my contention.
CRITERIA 1
Have we demonstrated there is a pressing need for change to the electoral system in Kearney because the current electoral system is not democratic and doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for fair representation?
In our testimony we have provided indisputable evidence that the current electoral system is not representative. The bottom-line is it takes dramatically fewer votes to elect a Councillor in Ward 1 then it does in either Ward 2 or 3. By any reasonable measurement it is not acceptable in a democratic system for a voter in Ward one to have their vote worth approximately 3 times that of a voter in Ward 2 and 5 times that for a voter in Ward 3.
Dr. Williams in his testimony referred to the The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter et.al [1991] 2 S.C.R.158 (TAB 11 in the appellant) Binder,
This Supreme Court Case has been used as the seminal case on effective representation.
What was said in this case:
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on whether variances can be tolerated in the size of voter populations among constituencies and the distribution of those constituencies among urban, rural and northern areas for provincial electoral districts. In that case, Madam Justice McLaughlin determined that Section 3 of the Charter of Rights, which establishes that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of federal or provincial members of parliament establishes the right to “effective representation”. Effective representation “comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one’s grievances and concerns to the attention of one’s government representative”.
The Court held that the first condition of effective representation is relative parity of voting power. The Court states at page 183:
“...A system which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizens’ vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to, and assistance from, his or her representative. The result will be uneven and unfair representation....
It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen’s vote as compared with another’s should not be countenanced.” (emphasis the appeallants)
In the Kearney case we clearly see the votes in Ward 2 and Ward 3 are dramatically diluted when compared to Ward 1. This meets the Carter case definition for unfair representation.
CRITERIA 2
Have we followed a Public consultative process that was fair and comprehensive? Did it provide an accurate and clear direction for future action by the Council? Did the option to eliminate the wards have significant and widespread public support?
In Dr Williams testimony he has supported both the process and results of the Ad Hoc Wards Committee. As an expert, he viewed the Committees deliberations as effective. You have heard testimony by Mr. Dingwall and have reviewed the extensive documentation that was created to ensure an effective review of the electoral process occurred and that clear recommendations be made to Council. The evidence shows that the Committee acted in a competent and professional manner.
Our research has indicated a Municipal Council by the act of the appointment of a Committee to conduct a review study are by extension of their ‘intra vires’ authority empowering the Committee to act on their behalf. Providing that the Committee exhibits due diligence and reasonableness in reaching its recommendations the Committee’s conclusions should have been given consideration based upon the deferential standard normally afforded Council. What happened in the Kearney case? Evidence has shown that no rationale was ever given for their arbitrary unfair, and unreasonable decision. This contention is supported in the following case:
At the September 11th Council Meeting the decision to reject the Ad Hoc Ward Committee Recommendations was made without debate in less than 3 minutes. No valid rationale was ever provided.
Within days of the Council meeting, the Mayor publically communicated ‘a preferred solution’ that would see a realignment of the Wards. However, evidence has shown no discussions ever occurred with Council or the Ad Hoc Wards Committee.
Many attempts were made to allow for a ‘made in Kearney’ solution by Mr. Skelton. None were even acknowledged.
The evidence leads to a single conclusion. Council had no intention of making a serious attempt at resolving the electoral inequities.
The public consultative process was well attended. As indicated by Dr. Williams, the public participation level was very high when compared to similar exercises in other municipalities he has experienced.
We received 35 written submissions of which:
- 29 were in favour of the no wards solution
- 4 were in favour of realigning the Wards
- 2 were in favour of the status quo
- 4 delegations to the committee
- 76 of the approximately 86 ratepayers officially signed in at the Public meeting
- 128 signed the petition of electors
Those that chose to participate overwhelmingly wanted change and preferred the ‘at large’ system.
CRITERIA 3
Have we demonstrated that the ‘at large’ representative system is an effective electoral process for a town like Kearney?
All of our neighbouring municipalities in the Almaguin district who had Ward systems have shifted to an ‘ at large’ system. There is no question that it works and will work here in Kearney. There is no case that Kearney is significantly different than any of its neighbours who operate effectively with an “At large” system.
An expert opinion is most appropriate in answering the relevance for an ‘at large’ system vs. a Ward system.
I will quote from Dr. William’s testimony
‘The threshold between “small” and “large” municipalities is not set out in the Municipal Act either but expert advice once given by an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Mr. George Manios) at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on a ward system for Oshawa (M840053, March 1985, pp. 26-27) suggested that a population of 50,000 was a reasonable point at which to consider changing from an at-large to a ward system. The Town of Kearney is not even in the vicinity of that threshold.’
‘It is instructive to note that all other municipalities in the Almagiun region have abandoned ward systems in favour of at-large elections. The comment from the CAO/Clerk of a neighbouring municipality is instructive: one of the objectives of a change in the electoral system was “to get the community to think as one.” As noted earlier, an electoral system that perpetuates long-defunct component municipalities when those boundaries reflect no demonstrable differences in the demographics or the service responsibilities of the municipality is of questionable value. An at-large system in a small municipality can make a positive contribution to community building.
‘Democratic election methods should ensure that electors have a choice; this is more likely to happen in an at-large system. Unfortunately, as the 2006 election showed, acclamations are much more frequent in ward elections and in such cases the performance of elected representatives cannot be judged by electors.’
In conclusion Dr Williams stated in his testimony:
“It is highly improbable that anyone would set out to design a viable ward system for the modern Town of Kearney that looks like the status quo.”
A critical piece of evidence is what the people of Kearney have said. What would be gained by changing to an at large system? The following are a just a few key points made:
• It will not only provide equal representation for all, it will also help to unify the community
• Kearney is a very small Town and governance must be kept both simple and fair
• No one neighbourhood or Lake community will have dominance over any other neighbourhood or interest group
• There is no difference between a resident
and a non resident. It puts us all in the same basket. We will protect the environment, fight for everyone, our seniors, our lakes our roads
• The Ward System in small mainly rural or highly seasonal communities both creates and perpetuates a dysfunctional divisiveness within the community.
• Our future strength will come from a united Kearney not one divided.
CRITERIA 4
Have we demonstrated that Kearney is a very homogeneous community? Does its municipal services and management currently operate with no practical requirements for the arbitrary Ward boundaries?
Let us review the facts: The demographic evidence shows Kearney is a very homogeneous community. It is:
o Overwhelming English speaking
o A community made up of mature individuals (median age 50)
o Very few visible minorities
o Primarily made up of lake communities with residents living on lakefront properties. (approx. 70%)
Kearney represents a population that is eminently suited to an “at large” system of electoral representation. We do not have diverse groups such significant numbers of first nations peoples, French speaking or any other minorities that could require special consideration in the electoral process. The only reference that has ever been made for diversity in Kearney is permanent residents vs. all the others. The implication that a permanent resident should have ‘special status’ is not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ‘Not being from around here’ is not a valid reason to eliminate a voters rights.
We have demonstrated that the issues in the last election were generic. There has been no evidence presented that indicate the Ward boundaries and groupings of citizens reflect different needs in the population. It can only be concluded that the politicians are defending this untenable system for their own self interests.
Mr. Varty has reviewed the town services
and has shown:
• No services are based upon usage. Every elector is allowed the same number of garbage bags, uses the same roads and is protected by the same emergency services.
• The Town’s Official documents such as the Official Town Plan and The Kearney Strategic Plan provide no distinction between the current Wards. Wards aren’t even mentioned. Clearly there isn’t a structural need for Wards
• The services of the town are identical for all citizens except for garbage pickup in the old town site.
• The services operate with no practical impact of the arbitrary ward boundaries. Changing to an ‘at large’ system will eliminate the complexity of the Wards and will create no new complexities to replace it.
• Town management and administration will continue unaffected.
• Taxes are assessed based upon a common provincial system that doesn’t discriminate based upon how many days a year a person resides in a dwelling or property. In fact these non permanent residents pay over 50% of all the taxes in Ward 3 alone.
What members of Council are really saying is:
‘We want your money” BUT we don’t want your input on how it is spent and we don’t want to be held accountable to you.’
This creates “Taxation without representation.”
CRITERIA 5
Have we demonstrated that Council has acted in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner? Is there any likelihood that this issue will ever be addressed while the current ward system is in place?
What evidence do you have to base your decision that this Council has acted in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner? In determining motivation of Council we have 3 sources of evidence:
- what was said
- what was written
- what actions were taken
First lets analyze what was said by the Council
It is striking how little was said by anyone except the Mayor on this critical issue. However we do have a few newspaper quotes:
• Councillor Shirley Reeds was quoted as saying...”If we accept it, it gives Ward 3 the power to elect the entire Council and run it from another city” end quote (Tab 10 page 33 in the appellant Book)
• “ For about eight months of the year, more or less, the social culture in Kearney is made up of permanent residents” said Councillor Zummach of the possibility of summer residents being on Council. They don’t understand or care about the social culture we have here for the other 8 months. (Tab 10 page 34 in the appellant Book)
Both comment s reflect a clear prejudice against “those people who aren’t from around here”. Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statements made by Kearney Councillors.
What were in documents published by Council on this issue?
• In the mayor’s discussion paper of Nov. 12, 2008 (Tab 33 in the Common Document Book) he reiterates his position that there have been no arguments that support abolishing the Electoral Ward system in Kearney. We have just spent the last two days reviewing evidence that proves he statement isn’t accurate and wasn’t accurate at the time. An Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statement.
• He also states and I quote; ‘eligibility to vote is based upon residency and/or property ownership. There are basically two groups of voters: those with households and vacant land owners. ...he continues...For fair representation the focus must be on households.”
This effectively eliminates the voting rights for the landowners. An Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statement.
He goes on to give further evidence of his prejudice against land owners and the groups that represent them. I quote: ‘ Any group that has access to the phone numbers or email addresses has an advantage which can distort the democratic process. Also to reach the absentee voters is a more costly process and will favour the better funded candidates.’ An Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable statement.
In addition, it is the appellants contention that The Mayor of Kearney by his words is coaching Council to violate the voting rights as defined under the Ontario Municipal Elections Act of 1996. The appellants contend that the Mayor is advocating the local municipal government overrule the legislative authority of the province and ignore the provision under sections 17. (1)
Qualificatiions
A person is entitled to be an elector at an election held in a local municipality if, on voting day, he or she,
(a) resides in the local municipality or is the owner or tenant of land there, or the spouse of such owner or tenant;(emphasis made by the appellants)
(b) is a Canadian citizen;
What have been the actions of Council on this issue?
If there was any doubt about the arbitrariness, unfairness and unreasonableness of Council, their actions in replacing the vacant Councillor position in Ward 1 leaves no doubt. At the same meeting they made their final decision regarding Wards Council demonstrated by their actions how important having Councillor Knowledge of a Ward district really is. What they did:
• They reject both of the qualified candidates from Ward 1. One of whom was an ex Mayor.
• They rejected an ex councillor from Ward 3
• They rejected their legal advice on the selection process
• They chose to select a candidate from Ward 2 who had never been on a Council committee and wasn’t even interviewed by Council.
Mr. Dingwall has also testified to a subsequent decision by Council to change its time and schedule from an evening to a day session. This effectively eliminates working individuals and seasonal residents from being candidates for Councillor or Mayor.
Madam chair, you can see why this has become very contentious and why many citizens in Kearney find this whole line of reasoning offensive. Politics at its worst!
Clearly Arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable actions
I would like to close with the following comments:
- Does the present system deliver fair representation and accountability? In a word, NO.
- In this ward system I do not have the ability to hold 4 of 6 councillors accountable. In fact considering the acclimations, no one is holding those 4 councillors accountable.
- The likelihood of continued acclamations are very high.
- Although not impossible, it is highly unlikely that the majority of ratepayers can ever elect sufficient councillors to change the current system if we are unsuccessful in our appeal. Even if Ward 3 elects the mayor and 2 councillors who all want to change the system, councillors from Ward 1 and 2 will still be the majority. Ask yourself why would they ever want to change the system that keeps them in power? This lack of accountability is inherent in the ward system in Kearney.
- An ‘at large’ system will bring the community together and will allow all the electors to have a say in the election of every Councillor.
- Elections at large should and must be the most appropriate choice FOR DEMOCRACY in Kearney.
Thank you for the listening to our case for change.
I hope this was of interest
Steve Sainsbury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)