‘Moose under table’ impedes change at county

Senior staff and past wardens’ views touted to break ‘logjam’ among county councillors
By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe June 25 2010
Should Simcoe County’s government be strong or weak?
A consultant is startled to find that there’s no consensus on the issue among county councillors who met yesterday to study a consultant’s findings on governance.
In fact, a substantial number seemed to disagree with the way the Berkeley Consulting Group has framed the discussion – leaving managing partner Tom Baker shaking his head.
The consultant’s survey of councillors revealed a split down the middle in terms of the need for change (view one) or no need for substantive change (view two) – and one third of councillors did not respond to the survey, leaving its findings open to question.
Change could include reducing the number of councillors to 16 from 32, direct election of county councillors, and a warden, elected across the county for four years.
“Don’t you want to be strong?” Baker asked.
“We’re startled,” he added, suggesting there must be “a moose under the table” – an issue that councillors aren’t willing to talk about. “We really don’t see a consensus to make it stronger.”
The review of Simcoe County’s governance is being driven by a committee chaired by Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Doug White. Other members are Essa’s David Guergis, Collingwood’s Sandra Cooper, Penetanguishene’s Anita Dubeau, Midland’s Ruth Hackney, Mike MacEachern from New Tecumseth, Warden Cal Patterson as well as Orillia Mayor Ron Stevens.
Of course, strong and weak are loaded terms that came into sharper focus in response to a question from David Foster of Wasaga Beach.
The terms are used comparatively in terms of an upper and lower-tier system, consultant Andrew Sancton explained. Weak means high local autonomy – eg the power rests with the local towns and townships. Strong means Simcoe County has more control.
Oro-Medonto’s Harry Hughes put it another way: centralized and decentralized.
White made clear where his preference lies. “Are we weak in the eyes of the province?” he asked. “Absolutely.” White and others cited the example of York Region Chair Bill Fisch, who they consider one of the most powerful politicians in Ontario.
“We are of the view we have a logjam between view one and view two,” White said. The tiebreaker, he suggested, could come from senior county staff and past wardens – the latter group includes Tony Guergis (Springwater), Terry Geddes (Collingwood), Dennis Roughley (BWG), George MacDonald (Midland) and Thomas Garry (Ramara)
Senior staff and past wardens were the only focus groups surveyed by the consultant. Tony Guergis spoke glowing of the session attended by 12 past wardens.
Chris Carrier of Collingwood said he favours little or no change.
These are the two scenarios envisaged by the consultant:
Weak involves a large council, a head of council (the warden) with a short term  who is elected by other councillors, pays the councillors little and makes low demands on their time.
Strong means a small council that meets more often, with both councillors and the head of council directly elected and serving solely on the upper tier of government for a four year term. However the majority of the 22 councillors surveyed preferred achieving a smaller council by having mayors only and removing the deputy mayors.
There would also be a deputy warden. Councillors would be paid more and get more administrative support.
Baker said a weak form of government is appropriate for rural areas with limited growth and few issues requiring area-wide oversight or planning. Strong government is for areas with population growth, major infrastructure and broad functions.
A county government, with separated cities, is a weak form of government, Baker said, while a regional government encompassing all municipalities within a geographic area is strong.
BWG’s Dennis Roughley pointed out there’s reluctance to move to regional government here because Barrie would dominate the agenda.
In their workshop document, the Berkeley Group cited Site 41 an example of “worst” decision-making – “a short-term decision on a long-term issue.”Councillors who responded to the survey expressed the feeling they didn’t have all the information and that it had been a communications and media relations failure.
It’s not clear how many changes county councillors can effect without a referendum. The consultant has been asked to provide information on process to the next county council meeting in August.