0
Ward systems and council size
24 February 2006
[indent]I have discussed the ward system with other councillors and several staff members, over the past two years, and even as recently as last month.
While I believe we must eventually move to a ward system, there are several problems to instituting a ward system in Collingwood right now.
First, the ward boundaries are old and are not well laid out to represent the current population distribution. Current development planning has not been taken into account in the layout of the wards, and there is new growth in areas that could seriously imbalance the representation if implemented as is.
Wards should represent areas of roughly equal population distribution. It looks possible in 5+ years - after the hump of residential growth has been passed and development slows - but not right now, because we'd have to re-draw the boundaries with every new plan of subdivision and for every election.
Some staff are opposed (at the moment) because they feel that it could lead to an imbalance where several "good" or stong candidates all contest one ward while a "weak" or new candidate might be acclaimed in another. This has happened in several municipalities around us where the ward system is used. The senior staff feel it better at present for the electorate to have a wider choice, being able to select candidates at large rather than be limited to only the selection within their ward. What it has meant so far is a broad mix of skills and representation from the community.
I can see situations where special interest candidates or specific-issue candidates get elected in a ward where a group might be able to pull together enough support in that area, while at-large they would have no such advantage. That candidate might promote ward-specific issues over those that benefit the community as a whole. This would not be to the best interests of the community.
Also, voter turnout is unevenly spread in the current wards. Right now, a candidate needs to get more than 3,000 votes from the entire community to gain a seat. In the ward system, a candidate could get 100 votes and win, if the turnout was extremely light. In areas where there are a lot of absentee owners, part-time residents or snowbirds, this could be the case.
Consider, for example, that some current wards have high concentrations of part-time residents compared to others. Or larger concentrations of condo owners. I don't feel it is appropriate right now for a small town council to have one representative whose single focus would be the issues of those residents, possibly at the expense of other issues and other residents. So for not I believe the at-large system is best.
I have faith that what the mayor calls a "blended community" model still works best for this municipality.
Another thought:
We could also consider a mixed system - say four or five wards with three or two (respectively) councillors elected at large.
+++++
There's also a move by some council members to reduce the number of members at the table by two. That would radically change the nature of the race, first by tipping the balance to those with deeper pockets (as a rule, those who can afford more advertising generally get more votes, although it's not always the case - I am the exception to that rule). (* see note below)
It would also mean that any ward boundaries would have to be redrawn to accommodate the smaller number.
A smaller number at the table would mean a larger population base per member. Right now it's about 3,000 residents per member. With five, it would be more than 4,000 per member - further distancing the elected representatives from the people they are supposed to serve.
I vigorously oppose this reduction because it means we would have fewer councillors to be on boards, committees, attend community events and obligations... less representation overall in the very community groups we depend on and should listen to. Right now, almost everyone at the table serves on three or four committees or boards, sometimes more. (with one notable exception: one councillor serves on only one board).
I myself serve on the Library Board, Affordable Housing Committee, Airport Commission, Sustainability Committee and Sister City Committee. I also attend some meetings of the Humane Society and the Community Connection to act as liaison. Plus there are numerous social obligations, ad-hoc meetings, one-time meetings, planning and site-development meetings, conferences, seminars and presentations that I can sometimes attend, depending on circumstances and timing. This is the sort of workload councillors take on - reducing the number would mean increasing the load on any individual considerably.
Council would have to reduce its representation on many committees and boards if it reduced its size - to the detriment of those organizations and the relationship council has with them.
The experiment of reducing council's commitment to boards and committees was tried in the previous council and proved disastrous. Not only did the community feel they had less or no contact with their elected officials, but council had no idea what direction the committees were taking and what their goals were. There was a lot of resentment and anger over the lack of council participation. It left the committees and council at loggerheads over many issues, and was particularly evident at budget time when no one at council could speak for or champion a committee that lacked representation.
As it stands now, there are still numerous groups in this community - important organizations and committees - that lack council representation but would like a member to attend their meetings, if nothing more than to bring back information and their concerns to the table. More participation by council equals more democracy in the community.
I suggest the community - through its groups, boards, service clubs and organizations - is still under-represented at the table and councillors should consider taking on more. I'm not sure that would be well received at the table, however.
And it would be far too easy for council to become a playground of special interest groups with good funding if the number is smaller.
But it could also become a lot more autocratic. At several meetings a year, the quorum would be only five members... which means a majority decision could be passed by only three. (There will also be a mayor and deputy mayor for a total of seven, but if two are away on holidays or for other reasons simultaneously - a common occurence in winter right now - it would mean only five are at the table, so three can make binding decisions.)
Block voting could come into play in a serious way. Three people could dominate the business of the town, the allocation of funding, development decisions, our future and our strategic direction.
A smaller council could easily become a dictatorship-of-three if canny council members worked the agendas to bring up their own interests at times they know others will be absent. Combined with a ward system it could be disatrous. At least with our current seven-plus-two system it's harder for a small group to gain such control.
I don't believe democracy would be best served by such a move - either the ward system at present or a reduction in size.
I believe that for the best, most representative form of democracy, we need the number of councillors we have now. In fact, if we grow as predicted, we may even need two more in the future.
NB: In 2004, our former CAO, Jay Currier, created a staff report about council sizes in Ontario that showed Collingwood is squarely in the middle for about 20 communities our size. He looked at council size and use of ward or at-large voting methods. In his chart, the numbers were roughly distributed into thirds: larger, same size and smaller councils. His report showed no apparent advantage to moving to the lower third by reducing the numbers.
We also had a report that showed Collingwood's pay for its members of council was in the middle of the pack. Since then, neighbouring communities have given themselves raises that puts Collingwood at the lower end of the scale, at least locally.
The small financial advantage gained by reducing the number of councillors by two - about $40,000 a year maximum - would not represent any real savings to taxpayers. The money would probably be allocated to other uses, possibly even as a salary increase to the remaining group (justified given the increased responsibilities).[/indent]
While I believe we must eventually move to a ward system, there are several problems to instituting a ward system in Collingwood right now.
First, the ward boundaries are old and are not well laid out to represent the current population distribution. Current development planning has not been taken into account in the layout of the wards, and there is new growth in areas that could seriously imbalance the representation if implemented as is.
Wards should represent areas of roughly equal population distribution. It looks possible in 5+ years - after the hump of residential growth has been passed and development slows - but not right now, because we'd have to re-draw the boundaries with every new plan of subdivision and for every election.
Some staff are opposed (at the moment) because they feel that it could lead to an imbalance where several "good" or stong candidates all contest one ward while a "weak" or new candidate might be acclaimed in another. This has happened in several municipalities around us where the ward system is used. The senior staff feel it better at present for the electorate to have a wider choice, being able to select candidates at large rather than be limited to only the selection within their ward. What it has meant so far is a broad mix of skills and representation from the community.
I can see situations where special interest candidates or specific-issue candidates get elected in a ward where a group might be able to pull together enough support in that area, while at-large they would have no such advantage. That candidate might promote ward-specific issues over those that benefit the community as a whole. This would not be to the best interests of the community.
Also, voter turnout is unevenly spread in the current wards. Right now, a candidate needs to get more than 3,000 votes from the entire community to gain a seat. In the ward system, a candidate could get 100 votes and win, if the turnout was extremely light. In areas where there are a lot of absentee owners, part-time residents or snowbirds, this could be the case.
Consider, for example, that some current wards have high concentrations of part-time residents compared to others. Or larger concentrations of condo owners. I don't feel it is appropriate right now for a small town council to have one representative whose single focus would be the issues of those residents, possibly at the expense of other issues and other residents. So for not I believe the at-large system is best.
I have faith that what the mayor calls a "blended community" model still works best for this municipality.
Another thought:
We could also consider a mixed system - say four or five wards with three or two (respectively) councillors elected at large.
+++++
There's also a move by some council members to reduce the number of members at the table by two. That would radically change the nature of the race, first by tipping the balance to those with deeper pockets (as a rule, those who can afford more advertising generally get more votes, although it's not always the case - I am the exception to that rule). (* see note below)
It would also mean that any ward boundaries would have to be redrawn to accommodate the smaller number.
A smaller number at the table would mean a larger population base per member. Right now it's about 3,000 residents per member. With five, it would be more than 4,000 per member - further distancing the elected representatives from the people they are supposed to serve.
I vigorously oppose this reduction because it means we would have fewer councillors to be on boards, committees, attend community events and obligations... less representation overall in the very community groups we depend on and should listen to. Right now, almost everyone at the table serves on three or four committees or boards, sometimes more. (with one notable exception: one councillor serves on only one board).
I myself serve on the Library Board, Affordable Housing Committee, Airport Commission, Sustainability Committee and Sister City Committee. I also attend some meetings of the Humane Society and the Community Connection to act as liaison. Plus there are numerous social obligations, ad-hoc meetings, one-time meetings, planning and site-development meetings, conferences, seminars and presentations that I can sometimes attend, depending on circumstances and timing. This is the sort of workload councillors take on - reducing the number would mean increasing the load on any individual considerably.
Council would have to reduce its representation on many committees and boards if it reduced its size - to the detriment of those organizations and the relationship council has with them.
The experiment of reducing council's commitment to boards and committees was tried in the previous council and proved disastrous. Not only did the community feel they had less or no contact with their elected officials, but council had no idea what direction the committees were taking and what their goals were. There was a lot of resentment and anger over the lack of council participation. It left the committees and council at loggerheads over many issues, and was particularly evident at budget time when no one at council could speak for or champion a committee that lacked representation.
As it stands now, there are still numerous groups in this community - important organizations and committees - that lack council representation but would like a member to attend their meetings, if nothing more than to bring back information and their concerns to the table. More participation by council equals more democracy in the community.
I suggest the community - through its groups, boards, service clubs and organizations - is still under-represented at the table and councillors should consider taking on more. I'm not sure that would be well received at the table, however.
And it would be far too easy for council to become a playground of special interest groups with good funding if the number is smaller.
But it could also become a lot more autocratic. At several meetings a year, the quorum would be only five members... which means a majority decision could be passed by only three. (There will also be a mayor and deputy mayor for a total of seven, but if two are away on holidays or for other reasons simultaneously - a common occurence in winter right now - it would mean only five are at the table, so three can make binding decisions.)
Block voting could come into play in a serious way. Three people could dominate the business of the town, the allocation of funding, development decisions, our future and our strategic direction.
A smaller council could easily become a dictatorship-of-three if canny council members worked the agendas to bring up their own interests at times they know others will be absent. Combined with a ward system it could be disatrous. At least with our current seven-plus-two system it's harder for a small group to gain such control.
I don't believe democracy would be best served by such a move - either the ward system at present or a reduction in size.
I believe that for the best, most representative form of democracy, we need the number of councillors we have now. In fact, if we grow as predicted, we may even need two more in the future.
NB: In 2004, our former CAO, Jay Currier, created a staff report about council sizes in Ontario that showed Collingwood is squarely in the middle for about 20 communities our size. He looked at council size and use of ward or at-large voting methods. In his chart, the numbers were roughly distributed into thirds: larger, same size and smaller councils. His report showed no apparent advantage to moving to the lower third by reducing the numbers.
We also had a report that showed Collingwood's pay for its members of council was in the middle of the pack. Since then, neighbouring communities have given themselves raises that puts Collingwood at the lower end of the scale, at least locally.
The small financial advantage gained by reducing the number of councillors by two - about $40,000 a year maximum - would not represent any real savings to taxpayers. The money would probably be allocated to other uses, possibly even as a salary increase to the remaining group (justified given the increased responsibilities).[/indent]
