Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 140 ward system amendment e e e e THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE BY-LAW NO. 2005-140 (as amended by the Order of the Ontario Municipal Board issued December 20, 2005 as Order No. 3326) BEING A BY-LAW TO DISSOLVE THE WARD SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE AND INSTITUTE AN AT-LARGE SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION AS AMENDED WHEREAS Section 25.2 of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990 c.MA5 provided the government of the Province of Ontario with a process to facilitate municipal restructuring over large geographic areas involving local municipalities in counties; AND WHEREAS an order made under the authority of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990 c.M. 45 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and dated January 30, 1998 gave effect to a restructuring proposal affecting the 27 municipalities located within the County of Bruce; AND WHEREAS pursuant to the said Minister's Restructuring Order, Wards - Section 10, the Township of Kincardine-Bruce-Tiverton was divided into three (3) wards; AND WHEREAS Bill Pr15, An Act to Change the Name of The Corporation of the Township of Kincardine-Bruce- Tiverton to The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine received Royal Assent on December 23,1999; AND WHEREAS pursuant to the said Minister's Restructuring Order, Local Councils - Section 19, the" head of council shall be elected at large, the deputy head of council shall be elected at large and shall act in the place of the head of council in the event of illness, absence from the municipality or vacancy in the office of the head of council; three members of council shall be elected from Ward one; and two members of council shall be elected from each of Wards two and three; AND WHEREAS Section 222(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, 5.0. 2001, c.25, as amended provides that a municipality may divide or redivide the municipality into wards or dissolve the existing wards; AND WHEREAS Section 222(2) of the said Municipal Act 2001, 5.0. 2001, c.25, as amended, states that prior to passing a by-law under Section 222(1) of the Act, the municipality shall give notice of its intention to pass the by-law and hold at least one public meeting to consider the matter; AND WHEREAS the Council for The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine held public meetings to consider the matter on August 24, 2005 and September 2, 2005; . ../2 Page 2 At Large Electoral Representation System By-law By-law No. 2005 - 140 as amended by the Order of the Ontario Municipal Board issued December 20, 2005 as Order No. 3326 e NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Definitions: In this by-law, i) "at-large system" means an electoral system in which all eligible voters within the municipal boundaries vote on the same list of candidates. ii) "ward system" means an electoral system in which a municipality is broken down into smaller areas (wards) and voters living in each ward vote on their own list of candidates wishing to represent that ward. 2. The ward system for the Municipality of Kincardine is amended by replacing the ward system as set out in this by-Iaw.* e 3. The composition of Council shall be: (a) A mayor elected at-large; (b) Four (4) councillors elected at-large, the one with the most votes being Deputy Mayor; (c) Four (4) councillors elected from the three wards as they existed prior to the passage of this by-law with two (2) being elected from the former Town of Kincardine (Ward 1) and one each from the former Townships of Kincardine (Ward 2) and Bruce (Ward 3).* 4. The Deputy Mayor shall have the same duties after the 2006 municipal election as before the passing of this by-law: e 5. This by-law shall come into force and effect for the 2006 regular municipal election. 6. This by-law may be cited as the "At-Large Electoral System" By-law". READ a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 2nd day of September, 2005. This By-law AMENDED by the Order of the Ontario Municipal Board issued December 20, 2005 as Order No. 3326. ~--¡e. ~ Maÿór ~~ e . Amendments ordered by Ontario Municipal Board. e e e - THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE BY-LAW NO. 2005 -140 BEING A BY-LAW TO DISSOLVE THE WARD SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE AND INSTITUTE AN AT-LARGE SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION WHEREAS Section 25.2 of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990 c.MA5 provided the govemment of the Province of Ontario with a process to facilitate municipal restructuring over large geographic areas involving local municipalities in counties; AND WHEREAS an order made under the authority of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990 c.M. 45 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and dated January 30, 1998 gave effect to a restructuring proposal affecting the 27 municipalities located within the County of Bruce; AND WHEREAS pursuant to the said Minister's Restructuring Order, Wards - Section 10, the Township of Kincardine-Bruce-Tiverton was divided into three (3) wards; AND WHEREAS Bi1l"Pr15, An Act to Change the Name of The Corporation of the Township of Kincardine-Bruce-Tiverton to The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine received Royal Assent on December 23, 1999; AND WHEREAS pursuant to the said Minister's Restructuring Order, Local Councils - Section 19, the head of council shall be elected at large, the deputy head of council shall be elected at large and shall act in the place of the head of council in the event of illness, absence from the municipality or vacancy in the office of the head of council; three members of council shall be elected from Ward one; and two members of council shall be elected from each of Wards two and three; AND WHEREAS Section 222(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, 5.0. 2001, c.25, as amended provides that a municipality may divide or redivide the municipality into wards or dissolve the existing wards; AND WHEREAS Section 222(2) of the said Municipal Act 2001, 5.0. 2001, c.25, as amended, states that prior to passing a by-law under Section 222(1) of the Act, the municipality shall give notice of its intention to pass the by-law and hold at least one public meeting to consider the matter; AND WHEREAS the Council for The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine held public meetings to consider the matter on August 24, 2005 and September 2, 2005; . . ./2 Page 2 At Large Electoral Representation System By-law By-law No. 2005 - 140 - NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Definitions: In this by-law, i) "at-large system" means an electoral system in which all eligible voters within the municipal boundaries vote on the same list of candidates. ii) "ward system" means an electoral system in which a municipality is broken down into smaller areas (wards) and voters living in each ward vote on their own list of candidates wishing to represent that ward. 2. The existing ward system in the Municipality of Kincardine is y dissolved. e 3. The ward system shall be replaced b of Kincardine. ---&¡{ 0/77 - arge system for the Muríl'cipality I'IÓ . 33,;) ç,. ...6;: 4. The Ion of Council elected at-large system for the Municipality of cardine shall be comprised of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and seven (7) Councillors, all positions elected at large. 5. This by-law shall come into force and effect for the 2006 regular municipal election. 6. This by-law may be cited as the "At-Large Electoral System" By-law". READ a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 2nd day of September, 2005. e ~¡( k.. Mayér (// -- , > ..... · · · , ISSUE DATE: Dec. 20,2005 DECISION/ORDER NO: 3326 PL050946 Ontario Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de 'Ontario Tiverton and District Ratepayers Association Inc., Dean Ribey, Karen L. Smith, and others have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 222(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25, as amended, against By-law No. 2005-140 to dissolve Wards in the Municipality of Kincardine OMB File No. M050124 APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel*/Aaent Municipality of Kincardine George C. Magwood* Grant Hopcroft Karen Smith Tiverton and District Ratepayers Assoc. Inc. Edmund Roberts Marilyne Wilson Lawrence (Larry) Kraemer John Copeland Inverhuron District Ratepayers Association Eugene Bourgeois Karen Ribey Peter Vaughan DECISION DELIVERED BY J. FLINT AND D. GATES AND ORDER OF THE BOARD This hearing concerned the system of voting in the Municipality of Kincardine (the Municipality), a community of approximately 12,000 people on the east shore of Lake Huron. The Council of the Municipality is composed of a Mayor, a Deputy Mayor and seven councillors. In September 2005 the Council approved a by-law to dissolve the ------.---- ---- -2- PL050946 f Ward system (whereby the Municipality was diVided into three geograph c areas CéIIed wards, and voters living in each ward vote on their own list of candid tes wishing to . represent that ward on the Municiplill Council), in favour of an at-large stem of voting (in which all eligible voters within the municipal boundaries vote on t same list of candidates). Fifteen people appealed, ten as individuals and five w represented other individuals or associations. The 578-square kilometre Municipality, that is at least 18 kilometr wide and 29 kilornetres from north to south, is located on the east side of Lake Huron bout half way between the towns of Owen Sound and Godarich, and is one of eight mu icipalities that together form Bruce County. TIú!I largely rural municipality contain at least fIVe settlement areas, including three hamlets, a shoreline community of seasonal and permanent residents, and the fOì'l'!ler Town of Kincardine, that contains approximately half the population. There is also a large provincial park in the municipa ty. The major employer is Bruce Power, commonlY known as the Bruce nuclear plant. In 1999, when the Municipality was created as a resu4t of provinci restructuring, a ward system was imposed. BouOdaries were drawn along historicallin s. The tonner Town of Kincardine located in the southwest comer became Ward I It occupies approximately two percent of the atea of the Municipality. The rural and horeline area that runs for fifteen kilometres east and north of the former Town, and Was previously known as the Township of Kinc8l'dine, beca~ Ward 2. It covers forty-~ve percent of "__ _:-_ . _ í the Municipality. The former TOWI1$hipof Bruce, a rural and shoreline ar1!a in the north part of the Municipality, that makes up the remaining fifty-three percent, ~ecarne Ward 3. Three councillors were elected from Ward 1 , and two were elected from each of Wards 2 and 3. A mayor and a d&þtJty mayor were elected at-large. I I At the beginning of the hearing seven of the appellants, Floyd Steep, June White, Dome Fitzsimmons, Dean RibeY, Sandy Ribey, Bob Slesser and Jame' Diehl, chose participant status. Parties to the appeal were identified as the Municipal' of Kincardine and the remaining eight appellanis:Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Kraemer and Karen Ribey who appeared as individuals; Mr. John Copeland, Ms Marilyne Wilson nd Mr. Peter Vaughan who were authorized4o{1Ipeak on behalf of other concem electors; Ms Karen Smith, who wasrepresentEicf by an agent; and Mr. Edmund R erts and Mr. . . , .. . . . -3- PL050946 Eugene Bourgeois who appeared on behalf of the Tiverton and District Ratepayers Association Inc., and the Inverhuron District Ratepayers Association respectively. Ms Rosaline Graham, Clerk of the Municipality, testified on behalf of the Municipality. Mayor Glen Sutton testified in support of the by-law, as did Councillors Maureen Couture, Barry Schmidt and Barry Anderson. Former Mayorsl~eeves Mr. Norman Annettes and Ms Donna Wilson also spoke in support. Appellant parties did not call witnesses, but gave testimony and summations and cross-examined witnesses. Irene McKinnon, John Shepherd, John Gillespie, Christine Moulton, Ron Mattmer, Donna Irvine, Lloyd McGillvray and Marjorie Young, all of whom prefer the ward system, also addressed the Board. Ms Graham detailed a sequence of events beginning with the receipt of a memo from the Province reminding the Municipality of the December 31, 2005 deadline to make changes in the electoral system for the 2006 municipal elections, through to the passing and appeal of By-law 2005-140. She testified that there was adherence to all procedures and compliance with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Act. Section 222 of the Municipal Act that govems wards states: 222. (1) Despite any Act, a municipality may divide or redivide the municipality into wards or dissolve the existing wards. Public meetings (2) Before passing a by-law under subsection (1), the municipality shall, (a) give notice of its intention to pass the by-law and hold at least one public meeting to consider the matter; and (b) have regard to criteria for establishing ward boundaries prescribed by the Minister. Notice (3) Within 15 days after a by-law is passed under subsection (1), the municipality shall give notice of the passing of the by-law to the public specifying the last date for filing a notice of appeal under subsection (4). 'it -4- PL050946 Appeal (4) Within 45. days after a by-law is passed under subsecti Minister or any other person or agency may appeal to th Municipal Board. . (1), the Ontario Ms Graham also told the Þoard that the municipal procedural y-Iaw requires public meetings to have fifteen eta,. notice and sets out the manner in w ich notice is to be served. She said that the munICipality held two public meetings befo Council: one had fourteen days notice and the other had fifteen days notice. Notice were properly served and notice of intention wasfncluded in both. All Council decisio were made in public. In her opinion, all applicable requirements of the Municipal Act re met. The appellants, without exception, expressed annoyance and fru tration with the hasty manner in which the Counc::B made its decision to dissolve the wa s and institute an at-large system of voting. There was criticism of the effectiveness of he notices, the inconvenient timing of the pubrlC hearings - one of which was held at 4 00 p.m. on the . Friday before Labour Day weekend - and the cramped venue ihat couJd not accommodate the number of attendees. There were allegations ¡of deceit and subterfuge, and feelings expresaecl of being cheated and disenfra chised by the process. Appellants felt that more than the minimum time required by the rovinceshould have been provided for the electoAtte to consider a change in the systertl of voting and influence the outcome. Even though they did not accept the reasons givej1for dissolving the wards or for embracing an at-large system, they took particular ei<ception to the haste in which Council made thadecisions and the manner in which tflose decisions were made. They reluctantly accepted thatihe minimum provisions of th~ Municipal Act I had been met, but maintained that they did not get a fair hearing be se councillors had already made up their mindS to move to an at-large system. Mr. V ughan testiflEld that his appeal of the by-law is based entirely on his firm opinion that uncil abused . the process and betrayed the truatof the electorate. eetings were According to inant topic of By the evidence of all pa,.s and participants, the two Council well attended and well covered by the print, radio and television media two witnesses, the prospect of m<Wing to an at-large system was the d · . · · -5- PL050946 conversation in the municipality prior to both meetings. People obviously knew and understood the issue. Speakers who addressed Council were not held to time limits and the meeting hours were extended. By all accounts, the official decisions were made in public. The Board, having considered the oral submissions and written evidence, finds that the requirements of the procedural by-law and Section 222 of the Municipal Act in relation to the matter of the consideration and passing of By-law 2005-140 were met. And while the time frame may have been condensed to the minimum, the Council had reason to do so due to a time line set by the Province. The Board finds that it is reasonable to conclude that, by the timing of its memo, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Exhibit 6) considers six months to be adequate time for a municipality to make changes to its electoral system; and that it was compliance, rather than deliberate obscuration that motivated the Council. Having found that all legal requirements were met, the Board must address the matter of whether or not By-law 2005-140 constitutes effective representation. The case for the municipality was put forth by the Mayor, three Councillors and a former Mayor/Reeve. They were supported at the hearing by Ms Donna Wilson, a former MayorlReeve who addressed the Board as a member of the public. Mr. Sutton told the Board that, in his experience and opinion, effective representation in the Municipality can be best achieved by all councillors being elected at-large. This has worked well in the neighbouring Municipality of Brockton that has a similar population and character. The current ward system makes it difficult for ward councillors to seek the best interests of the entire municipality because they are often locked into rigid ward positions. In his mind, the current system is so fractious that it warrants another system being tried. Mr. Sutton testified that the "FYI" memo from the Province triggered Council's actions. Subsequent decisions were made without a staff report or presentation because, on the advice of the Clerk, Council considered changes to the voting system to be a political matter. . -6- PL050946 He explained that weeks before the by-law was considered an approved by Council, he made sure that eachcounèillor was provided with a compari on of the pros . and cons of both the ward and at-large systems as reviewed and aluated by a . political scientist. Notices published in the lleW$papers likewise informed the electorate, although not to the same levelofdètail. Also; the timing of the pUblic he 'ngs benefited susonal residents. He poinie<ttothe'fact that mayors and deputy ma rs have come from ail the wards. This leads tífm to reject any. claims that the to n vote would dominate elections and disenfranchise rural voters. He testified that he has been able to understand and represent and be accountable to voters across the unicipality and· feels that councillors can do the saJ'ne. Speaking to the issue of a referendtJm, he said that at the ti of the 2003 election he considered a referendum on the voting system to be a good' ea. However, in light of revised provincial regulations on referendums, that require a fi percent voter turnout and a majority within that fifty percent in order to be binding, mbined with traditionally low turnouts at the polls on election day and a twenly-fiv percent voter . participation in a previous referendwn,he changed his mind. Ms Couture, who is servirigherfirst term as one of the three Wa 1 councillors, told the Board that once CouncU decided not to maintain the status qu . it needed to decide on another system. She said that half of the telephone calls s e receives are from people who live outside Warc:t ~ .SheattElnded all meetings, listen to deputants. heeded communications, and heafd many opinions before making up tjer mind which· system to chose. She defended !tie (I1ode of delivery of her commentsl at tha Council meeting when the vote on the new by-law was being taken: she read her comments into the minutes so that, later, people would rerm~mber, or could find out, e actly what she said. She painted a picture of aCØJJncil at loggerheads under an impos d ward system and said that she wants to move forward with unity of purpose rather tha acrimony. Mr. Schmidt, who has bf.¡enelectedto office for 15 years, has Ii ed in all three wards. His opinions on the best electoral systtm for the Municipality ha e evolved over . the past six years. He reported that there was friction on Council i the first post· amalgamation term but he thought it was normal with so much work: to o.But as time went on the conflicts continued. He believes that conflict is being prolon ed by the ward system. A better method is needed and the at-large system is the best altemative. He " ~ -7- PL050946 added that under the ward system, fifty-fIVe percent of the population lives in Ward 1 . where voters elect three councillors; whereas forty-five percent of the population lives in Wards 2 and 3 where voters elect four councillors. He feels that concem for the entire municipality is a mandate for councillors not an option, and that every vote should have equal value. He noted that an at-large system enables people who retire and move to a different part of the municipality to support familiar candidates. Mr. Anderson is a beekeeperlfarmer who lived in Ward 3 for seven years, though he now lives in and represents Ward 1. He is on record in 2001 as supporting an at- large system for he believes that he can understand the various issues and communities throughout the Municipality. Since then he has spoken to many people about an at-large system, including people in Wards 2 and 3, and has found much support. He has also listened carefully to the opinions of those who favour the ward system, but is not persuaded by their views. He believes that some of them still want to de-amalgamate. He stated that he wants to build a better community not tear it down. . In regard to suggestion that a referendum be held, he explained that councillors that now want a referendum persuaded him during a request for referendum on another issue that they opposed, that "referendums don't work". He also rejected accusations from Ward 3 people that they "get nothing". Mr. Annettes and Ms Donna Wilson testified from personal experience that politicians can effectively represent and be accountable to the entire electorate; and that councillors elected under a ward system tend to polarize issues on Council rather than build consensus. Ms Wilson does not like the fact that councillors elected from other wards will not talk to her about her ward issues and are not informed or interested in them, but still vote on them. She said she does not want conflicts among factions to blemish the Municipality's reputation or hurt the tourist trade. The Mayor and councillors testified that, by their own experiences and the example of municipalities with at-large systems, they believe they can represent all the . people who live in the Municipality. They can grasp complex issues, including those involving the presence and impacts of the Bruce Power Generating complex. They can understand the problems facing farmers, shopkeepers, seasonal residents and those who enjoy living in the various hamlets and communities, and can act in the best interests of all when dealing with the challenges of infrastructure, jobs, the environment .' r .. -8- PL050946 and tourism. Moreover, they are willing to have their accountability test by the entire electorate. . The appellants, all of whom reside in or near Ward 3, feel th t the at-large system does not guarantee representation from their largely rural commu ity that, unlike Brockton, contains a nuclear pOwer plant. They note that half the ulation of the municipality lives in the former Town of Kincardine where there is a hi her turnout of voters and the population is growtfîg.On the other hand, they live in a rallagricultural area where the largest hamlet hasifewer than 800 people and that they n't particularty want it to be any bigger. There .QfB also seasonal residents in all thre wards of the municipality. Future mail-in ballots for municipal elections will further imbalance the vote against rural voters. Several parties indicated. they did not feel as though they re part of the Municipality. They live nearer to towns in other municipalities and sho and socialize . there rather than drive the distanCe to the Kincardine urban centre. hers spoke of conflicts with the Municipality over issues such as a new municipal w ter line and a deep nuclear waste depository ~t affects them most because it is I cated in their ward. There are still hard feelings over their forced amalgamation with t eformer Town and Township of Kincardine that they fought all the way to superior co rt. There is a strong feeling that they pay tàXØ and receive no benefits. In the words of Mr. Copeland, "I got tired of holding"mrnose and paying". . 1,0/ Some appellants QbservedVlatthere are at least five communiti ,s of .interest in the municipality and confirmed that there are clearty"two camps" on Cou~cil. . . Mr. Bourgeois has lived tflÖst of his 'life since 1974 In Inve ron, a beach community of 350 people that stra.Ødles the Ward 2/Ward 3 boundary. is the eartiest known settlement area along the eastern shores of Lake Huron. He stat that, in 1999, Invemuron was arbitrarily reducedir1 size by fifty percent There are no 180 residents: three, including him, are farmers.'Bnd others work at the power plan are seasonal . residents or retired. Each year II) -!Uly J/le population swells to 1200 peo Ie - 400 more if the provincial park visitors are inQ/uded. Mr. Bourgeois, who said he is the closest resident to the nuclear lant, aired the views of many parties and particlpllll'ltswhen he said that people in Ward have feft - . . . -9- PL050946 downtrodden since amalgamation. One primary reason is that their concems and opinions "don't count". He gave as a prime example, the controversial and expensive watertine the Municipality wishes to construct with no exemption from the full cost recovery policy for the residents of the Hamlet of Tiverton who have their own water system and don't need or want another. When polled, ninety-eight percent of the residents said no, yet it was still approved, Similarty, a poll taken regarding the deep nuclear waste depository in his neighbourhood failed to inform him and others within eight kilometers of the site, including Tiverton, what the impacts on them and their properties would be. Mr. Bourgeois said that the ward system has difficulties and perhaps an at-large system will help, but he does not know for sure because there is no definitive evidence to support it. As an academic and businessman, research is important to him. He would prefer that people identify their communities of interest, air their differences and work together to achieve consensus on an agreeable and proven system of voting that would satisfy and benefit everyone. Working together, researching altematives and consulting widely were common themes. In this regard many witnesses echoed Ms Karen Ribey's opinion that a referendum ought to be held as was suggested by candidates during the 2003 municipal election campaign. She maintained that ward councillors should look out for the entire municipality, and added that one of her concems is the potential closure of a regional municipal office that Ward 3 taxpayers find more convenient than traveling to the municipal centre that is near the Kincardine urban area. Mr. Roberts has lived in Tiverton in Ward 3 for twelve years. He spoke of it as a safe, friendly community of retired people, hydro workers and farmers who care for each other and live in respectful equality. He said that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Ward 1 councillors do not like the 800 residents of Tiverton standing up for themselves and their interests. The waterline issue, where they were disregarded and shoved aside, has proved to him that the Council cannot be trusted. Moreover, he and other Tiverton residents resent being asked for their input and then being ignored. Mr. Roberts expressed confidence in the current Ward 3 councillors. He knows them personally and . . -10 - PL050946 has a good working relationship with them that would be impossible ith councillors who do not live in his community. . The importance of knowiNg that their councillor comes fro within their community, is "one of them" and/l j$ an intimate knowtedge and unders nding of their special situation, and is readilyáþproachable, was emphasized man~ times by Mr, Roberts and all the appellants as Well as most deputants. They fear th~ they will lose representation under an at-large s)'$tem, not gain it as others assert; anþ that they wUl be dominated by the larger voting ~ of town people. ! i Ms Wilson has lived in Ti\lerton for five years. She and the ighbours she represents support the ward system and rue the fact that, in their opinion, the majority of Council did not provide any reasonable or considerate way for them to ai their views or listen to them when they did. She noted that there was a one-vote majo' in favour of an at-large system and said that, in her opinion, five members of Counci should not be empowered to make a decision on SUch a big issue. . Ms Smith has lived in the Municipality as both a seasonal nd permanent resident. She told the Board that eleven percent of the residents are se~sonal and are usually difficult to reach in the off-season. In her experience, commun ies of interest often conflict and, when problems arise, people go to their councillor rst. The only reason she has heard for the change in voting systems is that council i "not working". She understands the at-large issue but is not happy with the change b use she feels it was made without adequate information. She presented the results ~f her research into voting models in various Ontario municipalities and told the Soard th~t she prefers a refiguring of the boundaries of the wards rather than their dissoluti4n. Boundaries should be revisited on a regular basis, perhaps as much as every three ~rms, because I circumstances change. Ms Smith opined that protesting should be positive. She wants e ballot to be simple, not more complex as she says it would be in an at-large sy em with more . names on the ballot. Seasonal· residents in particular would find it more jfficult to make informed decisions. She also coi\ftrrTled that. the impression held by many Ward 3 residents is that that people in Wald 1 only want the Ward 3 tax revenue. ; .¡ . . . -11 - PL050946 Mr. Kraemer, who was Mayor of the Municipality from 2000 to 2003, said that he had intended to call the four dissenting councilors as witnesses but decided against it He maintained that change is a right of the people, not politicians, and that the Town constituents have been treated pooriy. He said that the at-large issue was raised during the 2003 election campaign and people were led to expect that a referendum would be held. Voters throughout the Municipality endorsed the ward system by the politicians they chose, even though he personally supported the ward system and was not re- elected. In his experience, there has been a rural/urban split only on two issues: the wateriine and ward system. Under his leadership there were between thirty and fifty recorded votes and they were decided by a random split, not a consistent rural/urban split as some people purport, He also maintained that the County system is, in effect, a ward system and it works well. Therefore a ward system can work in the Municipality. The participants, without exception, endorsed all the opinions of the parties who oppose the by-law, and several expressed a willingness to contribute to a new process of examining the ward system and searching out possible options to improve it, None of the participants favoured an at-large system. Their reasons included the additional cost for candidates in mounting an at-large campaign, the extra time it would take for a councillor to serve constituents throughout the entire municipality, and the fear that councillors "wouldn't know their way around Ward 3". Both Mr. Steen and Ms White said that the Ontario Municipal Board has now heard reasons for and against the by-law that should have been aired before Council. And Mr. Dean Ribey, who is the son of one of the current Ward 3 councillors, said that a like-minded council is not necessarily a better one. The members of the public who addressed the Board, with the exception of Ms Donna Wilson, all supported the ward system. They spoke of the friendliness of Tiverton compared to other places, and the fact that it takes more time to contact seasonal residents at their primary addresses than it does those who live in the Municipality and receive the local papers. They echoed the charges that there was a lack of adequate community consultation prior to the by-law being passed and said that people tend to . , -12 - PL050946 think with their emotions. Moreover, in their minds, Council igno accepted problem-solving process that would, define the problem, see select and evaluate options and only then make a decision, a commonly opportunities, . The Board finds that aA the witnesses were motivated by g cd intentions: councillors and those who support their point of view are looking for a YO g system that promotes fuller accountability from every politICian as the municipality oves forward. The appellants to not want to lose,their voice or the character of their c munity when changes involved in moving forward are made. Deputants spoke out of incere interest in their community. . Several witnesses believed that a referendum should have been held to determine the public's preferred vöting system. They testified that so e members of Council failed to live up to eIe¢tion promises, or near..promises, t hold such a referendum. The Board heard cònffictin9 testimony regarding such a tu about. On one hand, it was interpreted positively as a prerogative necessary for all ele ed officials to enable them to be flexible and able to adapt to changing circums nC9S or new information. On the other hand it was interpreted negatively as a deli erate intent to mislead and a manifestation of an irrtentional double cross, . In this instance, the testimony of the members of Council was that based on past experiences, votertumoutand new informatiOn, they found reason to w rrant changing a position they may have takenÞnwioosly. This is not to say that their, easons for the reversal were accepted by votèl'S, nor to validate charges of them beinb fearful that a referendum would result in abindil'lg decision not to their liking. In any event, the Board· notes that referendums are an 0 tional tool for municipalities, not a requirement. It is beyond the Board's jurisdicti to impose a referendum on a municipality or be thejudge of whether or not one shoul be held. But, in this instance, the fact that rElferendums'had been discussed by councillors in connection with the deep nucleatwsste depository and rejected, weigh heavilY on the decision not to have one, as did the election system change deadline at the council was working towards. . After listening to the oral ttt$timonyofall witnesses, and review' g the exhibits and submissions, the Board finds that the parties and participants fail to introduce ; ,. .. -13 - PL050946 evidence to demonstrate unequivocally that the ward system is completely dysfunctional . and totally lacking in the best interests of the Municipality; or that the at-large system is free of bitterness and provides the most effective representation possible. The Board finds that, given the conundrum of polarization and conflicts that have continued unabated and remain largely unsolved over the past seven years, the council exercised its prerogative and made the choice it thought best. The Board is satisfied by the testimony of the mayor and former mayors that it is possible to represent 12,000 individuals effectively. It is reasonable to expect them to do so as the Municipality grows because modem technology and good roads make communication considerably easier than in the past. . However, the Board agrees with the evidence of Mr. Copeland, corroborated by Mr. Kraemer and Mr. Bourgeois, that the nuclear industry exerts a powerful influence on govemments at all levels and, that it can be considered a unique community of interest in the Municipality. The nuclear plant, though located in Ward 3, directly or indirectly provides two-thirds of the employment in the Municipality. The Board finds that no persuasive evidence or testimony was provided to contradict that of the appellants who asserted that the interests of voters impacted by the nuclear industry could prevail in an at-large system; and that without a guaranteed Ward 3 representative on Council there might be no spokesperson for other interests or dissent against the nuclear industry. However, from time to time, ward councillors are pressured by constituents to speak out strongly against matters that by all accounts and evidence are intended for the best long-term interests of the whole Municipality. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for constituents to accept that their ward councillor is representing their interests too well at the expense of other citizens; or that in doing so he or she is contributing to conflict that puts the entire ward system into question. In this instance, however, the dissenting councillors were not called or summoned to testify. Their positions and opinions could not be argued or cross-examined and any value thereupon was lost. . Mr. Schmidt's testimony regarding a representátion by population imbalance in the wards was unchallenged and uncontradicted. Many witnesses indicated that, in principle, they support changes to rectify this situation. , f -, .. -14 - PL05Q946 Section 222, subsection (IS) states that, upon appeal of a -law affecting electoral districts, the Ontario Municipal Board 'shall hear the appeal a d may, despite any Act, make an order affirming, amending or repealing the by-law". . The Board has heard twO conflicting points of view and finds be have a merit. The at-large system in a normal situation shoiJld work well. for a Munici ality of 12,000 voters with a relatively homogenous population base. . On the other h nd, the Board heard of at least twO distinct communities of interest, the rural co munity and in particular the nuclear power indÚ$trythat support in different ways th retention of a ward system. The Board finds that it is pøssible to expand the current at-Iarg representation on council and balance the representation by population and still retain t e ward system to guarantee area representation, Moreover, this can be achieved wit out Increasing the number of councilors, or changing the number of wards or adjusting their . boundaries, or adding confusionJothe ballot. The Board, therefore, allOWlf'the appeals in part. By-law 2005-14Q is amended to retain the existing wards in accorctance with Attachment 1. The mayor to be elected at large. Two councillors are t(fbé.elected by'the voters in Ward 1, on councillor is to be elected by the voters in Waul 2. and one councillor is to be elected y the voters in Ward 3. Four members of councfare to beetected at-large; the one at receives the highest number of votes is to assume the duties of Deputy Mayor, I The Board, in making itsd$terminatlon. is cognizant of the fact ~at from time to time municipalities can and do reviêw theirwaro boundaries, or lack of t~em, as well as the numbers of elected representatives and the systems of voting, S~me do this as , frequently as every ten years as Ms Sinithrecommends. Ongoing popu'tation shifts and increases support the need fOr timelyreview$. It is not the intent of th Board to stifle such an initiative in the Municipality of Kincardine should it be appropria at some time . in the future. If and when that tirrte comes, the Board advises the Muni ipality to allow sufficient time for study, public consultation and debate prior to d termining and changes. Judging by the interest in this hearing there would be widespr d, welcomed . , . . . -15- PL050946 and positive participation in such a process by the people throughout the Municipality. The Board so Orders. "J. Flinr J. FLINT MEMBER "D. Gates· D.GATES MEMBER " . . , ~ . . . -16 - PL050946 Attachment 1 Kincardine By-law 2005-140 is hereby amended by deleting Sections 2,3 and 4 and replacing them with the following: (2) The ward system for the Municipality of Kincardine is amended by replacing the ward system as set out in this by-law. (3) The composition of Council shall be: (a) A mayor elected at-large; (b) Four (4) councillors elected at-large, the one with the most votes being Deputy Mayor; (c) Four (4) councillors elected from the three wards as they existed prior to the passage of this by-law with two (2) being elected from the former Town of Kincardine (Ward 1) and one each from the former Townships of Kincardine (Ward 2) and Bruce (Ward 3). (4) The Deputy Mayor shall have the same duties after the 2006 municipal election as before the passing of this by-law. fSCANNED - I D ç:- /,) AIJ.. --' ----.-- --,. --'~ ~A({ , J2..f-JauJ. tlL>D~-IJ./()· :.;c:"nner-~ (,.;?l.I . . ,J "N/!'¿ ,/ RECEIVED ŒC 2 3 ~