County councillors split on cutting their size, oppose direct election

New Tecumseth Free Press  October 2, 2012 

A September 13 report to Simcoe County’s Governance Committee, whose recommendations will be tabled at a special meeting of County council October 16th, concludes the mayors and deputy mayors of the 16 municipalities who make up the 32 member upper tier government system, can’t agree on changes to reducing the size and composition going forward.

However, they do mostly agree direct elections to County council are not a good idea, that the committee structure is broken, and that the Warden should be a four-year, full-time position, elected by County councillors.

Those are the conclusions drawn from “one-on-one interviews with members of County Council to obtain feedback regarding governance matters specifically addressing the position of Warden and the size and composition of County Council as highlighted in the Berkeley Report, based on questions discussed by the Governance Committee at its meeting of April 10, 2012,” according to the report prepared by Doug White, Chair, Governance Committee, Rick Lloyd, Vice-Chair, Governance Committee, and Brenda Clark, County Clerk.

Below are the three possible options that were presented and the results of each from the interviews:

• Status Quo: 32 members.

• 17 members (mayor of each member municipality, plus the head)

• 23 members as recommended in the Berkeley Report (mayor of each member municipality, plus 7 directly elected)

• 14 respondents support a 32 member council;

• 13 respondents support a 17 member council, two of which indicated they would prefer the members to be directly elected;

• Two respondents support a 23 member council as recommended by the Berkeley Report;

• One respondent supports a smaller council, but “details need to be worked out.”

“Notwithstanding their opinions regarding the size of County Council, a majority of County Councillors who responded …. indicated support for a flexible approach to allow the local municipalities to appoint a council representative to the upper tier council,” according to the report. “In considering the composition of County Council, the need for the member municipalities to be represented on County Council was clearly stated during the interviews. In order to help ensure effective communications and liaison between the county and the member municipalities it was also regarded as important that the members of County Council serve on the councils of the member municipalities. As such, there was little support for direct elections to the upper-tier council.”

As a result, the status quo is the recommended option for both size, 32 members, and composition, the mayors and deputy mayors.

The role of Warden, and the term served, currently two years, is also poised to change as a “clear consensus among County Councillors that the position of Warden should be a full-time dedicated position at the County. The expectations of a full-time head of council would be such that he or she would only serve on one council and no other.” What isn’t, is the method in which the head of council is selected, currently by secret ballot by County councillors.

“The results of the interviews did not suggest a desire to change the method of selecting a Warden, in that they wish to continue to elect one from among themselves as Warden. However, four (4) respondents noted their support for direct election.”

To change the length of office in time for the 2014-18 new council term, notice must be provided, and a public meeting held, and changes enacted by Dec. 31, 2013.

The report recommends a four-year term served by a “full-time Warden to be elected by County Council. The candidate need not be a member of County Council in order to be elected Warden, but should they be a member, they would be required to vacate their seat on local council.”

And the other significant change being proposed is to replace the system of standing committees with a committee of the whole system.

• Members question the effectiveness and efficiency of the current system whereby matters discussed at length at a Standing Committee meeting are repeated at length at County Council;

• Frustration was expressed with the current system which makes this inefficiency inevitable given only a third of members participate in each Standing Committee discussion;

• While most members have confidence with their understanding of the responsibilities of their Standing Committee, they would prefer greater input into how decisions are made by the other Standing Committees;

• While members understand the length of meetings is unpredictable, many believe there should be regularly scheduled breaks to minimize the number of people who leave and re-enter the room mid-meeting; and

• Members are displeased with colleagues who arrive late, depart early or otherwise threaten quorum, a scenario that rarely occurs at local councils.

The committee of the whole system allows all members of council to partake in discussions, including moving motions and recommendations, currently not the case with the three key separate standing committees – Human Services, Corporate Services, and Performance Management.

The report recommends “a Committee of the Whole system be implemented to replace the current Standing Committee structure, and that staff be requested to prepare a report to the Governance Committee recommending a process and the procedural requirements associated with implementing this change.”

At this post, it was not confirmed whether these changes being proposed at the County council level will be circulated to each of the member municipalities for comments, and or a public meeting held prior to a final vote by council.