Proposal for revitalized management of Clearview
Posted by AWARE Simcoe July 11 2013
Copyright 2013 – Peter Lomath and Dave Huskinson.
First presented to a seminar about the MPAC property assessment system on January 24, 2013
Putting the management of Clearview firmly BACK in the hands of a smaller revitalized council NOT leaving it with the bureaucrats!
Eliminate the ward system
Getting rid of the archaic ward system and allowing taxpayers to select their three representatives from the BEST QUALIFIED runners regardless of where those people live in Clearview would result in the removal of acclamation and no longer result in the “same-old, same-old” representation, and the potential for tired and ill qualified representation to stunt the growth of the township by simply rubber-stamping everything that gets put in front of them. Residents deserve the right to elect the brightest, best qualified and most experienced people to represent them in Clearview regardless of where they live within the community.
Reduce the number of councilors from 7 to 3
In conjunction with getting rid of the ward system Clearview would then have an opportunity to reduce the number of councilors and hopefully get rid of the rubber stamp approval process for everything that staff wants and replace it with representation of the interests and concerns of the taxpayer. This reduction would still provide Clearview with a higher level of representation per 1000 residents than most other communities, a new representative level of one elected party for each 3000 residents (3 councilors + Mayor + Deputy Mayor) and would yield expected savings of over $120,000 per year in continuing long term reductions on the tax burden.
Better representation for their constituents by requiring councilors to bring forward matters with the signatures of 10 taxpayers
Require councilors to respond to signed requests from 10+ taxpayers to require matters to be placed before council. Currently the Mayor and Staff determine what gets to the agenda and we have seen situations where for example the request by a number of taxpayers to require the use of the sound system at all public meetings has been denied unilaterally by the Mayor. Matters of concern to taxpayers should not be denied for discussion by either the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or staff members.
A requirement for council to hold a public budget meeting PRIOR to the start of the budget process
To allow at the OUTSET of the process for input of budget concerns from the public to provide council with a full understanding of taxpayer expectations on an equal basis as that of the requests of staff. With no regular communication between taxpayers and council it is impossible for councilors to know what is expected of them by taxpayers nor what limits need to be considered as taxpayers are increasingly under a barrage of other increases such as for hydro and water/sewer.
A requirement for council to hold a public budget meeting for TAXPAYERS to get explanations at the end of the budget process and BEFORE the budget is passed
To provide taxpayers with an opportunity to find out why certain decisions were made by council. Last year taxpayers were allowed just a little over 20 minutes to ask questions of council regarding the budget, the rest of the time was taken up by councilors “lecturing” taxpayers on the problems of fulfilling their role as guardians of the public purse. Needless to say almost no questions were answered in any depth and the resulting budget was a fait accompli for all staff requests.
A bylaw to require councilors and staff to respond to budget questions sent to them by email or letter in a timely manner and during/within the budget process and with a realistic “cut-off” date to allow responses in time for consideration.
Since Clearview council limits the time (less than 20 minutes of REAL question time at the last “public” meeting – it should be incumbent upon councilors to start representing their electorate by getting answers to budget questions from taxpayers so that councilors gain a better understanding of the concerns of citizens and the quality of the answers provided to their questions AHEAD of the final budget vote
Require staff to produce “zero based” budgets To ensure that every line item of the budget is disclosed and must be approved, rather than only changes. Zero-based budgeting is an approach to planning and decision-making which reverses the working process of traditional budgeting. In traditional incremental budgeting, departmental managers justify only variances versus past years, based on the assumption that the “baseline” is automatically approved. By contrast, in zero-based budgeting, every line item of the budget must be approved, rather than only changes. During the review process, no reference is made to the previous level of expenditure. Zero-based budgeting requires the budget request be re-evaluated thoroughly, starting from the zero-base. This process is independent on whether the total budget or specific line items are increasing or decreasing.
To develop a minimum 5 year budget projection each year for ALL aspects impacting residency costs for both homes and businesses.
Current budgets only set values for components of the property tax system for the upcoming year. Residency costs which include water/sewer and any other usage fees are more appropriate for taxpayers to set their own budgets and these need to be made for a 5 year period to be of any value for planning purposes.
Eliminate Budget to Budget (B2B) comparisons and show all budget comparisons in Actual to Budgeted (A2B)format
Although Zero Based Budgeting would remove any need for comparisons against previous years, if there are any comparisons they need to be based on ACTUAL values where possible so that the bloating function of budgetary values does not enter into the equation.
To set the precedence in spending for basic existing infrastructure of the township over recreational or new infrastructure.
Each year council spends more time listening and in some cases supporting new requests for infrastructure (libraries and recreational facilities) than it does on dealing with the ever nearing FISCAL CLIFF of the deterioration in our existing infrastructure. NO new spending on infrastructure should be considered or allowed until ALL required funding in the form of reserves for existing infrastructure and any mandated updates for safety and accessibility issues is “topped up” based on a 10 year projection by staff.
Set up a Taxpayer budget oversight committee under the chair of a councilor with business or finance experience equivalent in scope to the current size of the budget of the township and with members from the community with similar experience. To ensure that the community gets to deliver to council the same level of input and comment on the budget as do staff, drafts of budget expectations from staff come to this committee at the same time as they are released to council so the budget process now becomes an “equal opportunity” exercise for everyone in the community.
Require departments to provide solid support of purported justification for spending along with the cost benefit analysis performed to show the net benefit for taxpayers and to have them show why new funding should be made available when there is a large outstanding uncollected debt.
For the past two budgets the fire department has based some of its requests for spending on “tenuous” factors such as reductions in the costs of a residents insurance if certain standards for equipment condition and capability were met while at the same time they have acknowledged a huge debt collection problem for services rendered to those who are not residents of Clearview. Excepting funding required to operate, the fire department should first bring its accounting back into order then provide the long term funding requirements base upon information that can be validated by citizens as being accurate and showing reductions in insurance premiums.
Communications bylaw
To overcome the almost total lack of communication by the Clearview Council and staff and setting down the standards for timely delivery of responses and a protocol allowing citizens to “force” responses when they are not forthcoming. This bylaw would also REQUIRE the “Head” for Freedom of Information purposes to be held responsible for any failure in delivery of requests within the 30 day period mandated by Ontario law.
Require the use of sound systems – addition to the procedural bylaw
To ensure that members of the public with hearing difficulties can fully participate in the governmental process without discrimination.
Set a fixed time on the council agenda for public comment
It’s well known that Clearview council has no respect for the public and they show this at each council meeting by moving the time allocated for a member of the public to speak back and forth across the typically 3 hours that council is in session. This needs to be a set time so that those wishing to speak might have a clear indication of when to arrive and leave meetings.
Recording of minutes and maintenance of full voting records
MINUTES of ToC meetings could well be called “seconds” since they typically lack sufficient detail to act as anything more than a record that deliberations took place. With the refusal of Mayor Ferguson to accept the offer of only1taxpayer.ca to provide AT NO COST TO THE ToC the digital recorder necessary to implement recording or streaming audio of council meetings, anyone who could not attend a meeting and looking for information about council meetings is left with a record that fails to provide the level of content that would allow full understanding of what was discussed. The Ontario Ombudsman has agreed that ALL meetings should be recorded (audio) and the recordings made available through libraries to those who cannot attend meetings.
The second problem with the meeting records for ToC is the lack of voting records for anything less than a major “confrontation” between members of council when a councilor calls for a recorded vote to ensure a record of very “close” ballots. VOTING RECORDS are one of the few ways that voters have to evaluate the position of their elected representatives when making decisions on who to vote for in elections so when decisions are recorded without attribution, the elected officials get “let off the hook” when it comes to being counted at election time.
Change the standard work week for Clearview staff from 35 to 40 hours each week, the same as that worked by those in the private sector
Improve efficiency and not have to hire as many new staff. This would provide the same level of service available to employers in the private sector and start to bring the costs of the public sector into line with the private sector that pays their salaries and benefits.
Combine the role of the CAO and Clerk into a single suitably qualified person
For Expected savings of over $150,000 per year in continuing long term reductions on the tax burden.
Reduce staffing as people retire or decide to leave
Reduce costs to bring staffing levels and costs back to those of 2006 when the township had more residents and the same basic infrastructure.
Build a data base of residents with expertise in various area’s to be first level “consultants” able to provide input to council on staff on the best and most cost effective way to proceed when Clearview is considering using outside personnel.
To cut costs and to validate the need and costs for any such outsourcing.
Quality of service bylaw
Clearview does not have a Quality of Service (QoS) bylaw so taxpayers have no idea of what to expect from staff, the staff have no understanding of their responsibilities and the quality of the services that are delivered by the municipality suffer. A quality of service bylaw sets a defined measure of performance in for both council and staff including such aspects of service as the time that is allowed for response to questions from the public, the ways in which residents can complain or register concerns about the way in which the township is being run and many other factors.
And finally, with regard to the representation that we receive at the County of Simcoe:
A bylaw that REQUIRES the Mayor and Deputy to vote at the County of Simcoe based upon council discussion and VOTED-UPON (recorded) consensus.
Reason – If this was enacted then at least the voting decisions of Mayor and Deputy would have received some level of scrutiny by the elected representatives of Clearview.
Explanation – The Clerk of Simcoe County has confirmed that the Mayor and Deputy Mayors from each of the municipalities in Simcoe County do not have to confer in any way with their respective councils (or for that matter with anyone else), their vote is theirs to deliver any way THEY want!
This is a really scary scenario that if known to most taxpayers ahead of the last election might have caused them to voted differently based upon last terms track record.
During the “Site 41” debates Clearviews representatives at County both voted in favor of the dump despite the huge lack of support from residents of all of the townships affected. Our Deputy Mayor provided me with her reasons for the way she voted – her personal view, our Mayor did not!
Leave a Reply