Council approves smaller council, ward change
Administrator | Jan 27, 2016 | Comments 85
Official changes to the size of Prince Edward County’s council and electoral ward boundaries were approved Tuesday night at Shire Hall.
The plan, endorsed in November, reduces the size of council to 13 members plus a mayor and joins Bloomfield and Hallowell wards for the 2018 municipal election. One councillor position is removed from there, and another from Sophiasburgh.
The new plan replaces the current 15 councillors from 10 wards plus a mayor where Hallowell has two representatives; Bloomfield one and Sophiasburgh two.
Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board are possible for 45 days following the bylaw change.
Council voted 10-6 in favour of the change. Those who previously favoured plans for a further reduced council size voted against, but Mayor Robert Quaiff also noted it was time to move on.
Councillors Kevin Gale, Barry Turpin, Jim Dunlop, Bill Roberts, Gord Fox joined Quaiff in a vote against the new plan.
Filed Under: Local News
It is good to see that this topic is still being discussed – shows how important it is to the public. I’m not sure what this Sandar person is going on about – but at least she now admits that she is playing the role of “the messenger” – as I suspected. However, in a previous email this person claimed that the referendum that was passed by 81% of the 2010 voters (approx. 8000 voters) didn’t matter – but her comments on the Revitalization of Downtown supporting a much smaller survey result – well she uses this as proof that tax dollars should be spent in “downtown” Rednersville?? Good grief!
Rob:
lol @ fear mongering. Not my style. Besides if one is afraid then one shall soon be lost in their ways. One must be astute and confident based on their reasons or convictions for doing taking up a challenge . . . OMB, etc. I’m sure you would agree. If one has no valid and creditible evidence to proceed then why go forth with fear tagging behind on coat tailes. Go forth with confidence.
I’m just the messenger. Thanks for pointing out the possible mistaken info, sorry if my info appears to be erroneous. After having spoken with someone who has researched the OMB process, that is what was relayed to me. * shrugs *. I will further check out my source. One who is serious in launching an appeal he/she be would wise not to depend on this venue for friendly advice to start with.
Gary:
Mayor Quaiff is the man to be quoted, by the public, by the news media. Not sure why the mayor said what he did re: 9 ward plan. I wasn’t there when the media was taking notes. sorry.
Dennis Fox:
And really …. Who are YOU? there’s no need to prove it; besides who would believe you? For you to ask me and not others is totally ridiculous in this forum. The forum allows one to be anonymous, taken further they/we ARE anonymous, but must act with respect and courtesy. I have been such.
I will support any councillor or anyone after I make an analysis of my impression and of their intention for self gain or gain for others betterment. It’s simple. The base is honesty and integrity. But once my good opinion is lost, it is lost forever.
“Comments” in this forum are more important than the source from which they came. imo. Identity shows ones ego and self importance. It’s not necessary.
YOUR QUOTE: >>> ” and sounding like the “town crier? ” And I emphasize that last word. <<<
. . . I shall take that as compliment, thank you.
Wikipedia Quote:
" As in England, town criers were the means of communication with the people of the town since many people could not read or write. Proclamations, local bylaws, market days, adverts, were all proclaimed by a bellman or crier.
In Goslar, Germany, a crier was employed to remind the local populace not to urinate or defecate in the river the day before water was drawn for brewing beer. "
Sandar, you are wrong about the petition. Like I said before. It is not required in this case for an OMB challenge. One person can do it. Again stop with the fear mongering.
Sandar; you like to quote Mayor Quaiff. What did he say to the media after the vote to select the 9 Ward Plan? I am sure any appellant to the OMB will be using it.
Sandar – reveal your real name and stop hiding -then your comments might have some credibility. At least those who are opposed to some councillors – particularly those from Ameliasburgh, have a just reason for doing so. So tell us all, why are you supporting them and sounding like the “town crier?” And I emphasize that last word.
you two sound like a broken record, replaying over and over. Why are you not running for council, do something about what you are grumbling about?
I agree with Mayor Quaiff when he said “not to make size of council a campaign issue”.
An OMB appeal requires a petition to be attached consisting of 1 percent of the electorate (electorate = total people able to vote in PEC). I hope that their names and addresses would be public info. Be interesting to see from which wards and what business/occupation. That would speak volumes.
Councilors Epstein and Hull caved and let the Picton residents down. I feel I was misled at the door. I felt excited at their election but now I have lost trust.
I really can’t be bothered anymore with the whole bunch of them – a total disappointment whether on or off the camera. I had such hope for this council, and they have let the public down more than any other council. At election time 9 out of 16 promised to reduce the size of council substantially (The Times Survey) and a year later that number dropped to 6 – with all but one of the new Councillors(Roberts) changing their minds to protect their jobs. The public needs to make sure that those who lied and mislead them, never get elected again.
Can’t wait to watch the Athol councilor play for the camera!
Can’t wait for the theatrics and posturing!
“Live streaming council meetings” underway for end of April early May.
My post was entered twice, sorry pc lagged and had probs. Please disregard the first one.
Emily:
“””” Sandar; are you satisfied with how our Council dealt with this matter? Do you feel it was conducted in a manner respectful of the process and the public? “””
There are degrees of satisfaction and we all will fall on the bell curve somewhere.
The Mayor has some great qualities however, the Mayor has shown his critical inexperience for the 2nd time, that I know of. Parts of the meeting and process got away from his control as impartial leader and as well, his attention to proceedings. Also the clerk was very busy with minutes, plus the chaos. Example: having 2 motions on the floor at one time … NOT EVER a good thing for protocol and legality.
Some councillors and I won’t repeat as said previously were disrespectful and out of line/ out of order and they knew it. The Mayor knew it. He froze. The public sitting in the pews were also owed an apology that night and it was never made to us. “So Be It” is not an apology!
Fairness to the Public: I listened to everyone at shire hall and at my town hall meeting; the survey had flaws of which Admin must take responsibility for. imo. It was understood the survey had the option of being considered or of being disregarded.
The flaws to name a few:
— change of date of expiry of which was never reflected in the many forms left in libraries. This would effect people thinking they missed the deadline when they didn’t.
— Telephone surveys were not accessible in some wards by more than one person of the family. The clerk had to turn on the selection of more than one so spouses could fill it in.
— The margin of error in the survey was never considered.
— The selected plans meeting the criteria put forward to be voted on knowing sure well that at least 2 of them didn’t meet it. But you know all this.
— etc. add to the list.
People must be present at Shire Hall to witness what happens that never gets written in the newspapers.
“Live Streaming” ? Anyone emailed their councillor to find out when or if?
Forgive my redundancy.
Emily:
“””” Sandar; are you satisfied with how our Council dealt with this matter? Do you feel it was conducted in a manner respectful of the process and the public? “””
There are degrees of satisfaction and we all will fall on the bell curve somewhere.
The Mayor has and is showing his inexperience. Parts of the meeting and process got away from his control as impartial leader and attention to proceedings, also the clerk was very busy with minutes. Example: having 2 motions on the floor at one time … NOT EVER a good thing for protocol and legality.
Some councilors and I won’t repeat as said previously were disrespectful and out of line/ out of order and they knew it. The Mayor knew it. He froze. The public sitting in the pews were also owed an apology that was never made to us that night. “so be it” is not an apology!
Fairness to the Public: I listened to everyone at shire hall and at the town hall meeting in my ward, the survey had flaws to name a few, which Admin must take responsibility for imo:
— change of date of expiry of which was never reflected in the many forms left in libraries. This would effect people thinking they missed the deadline when they didn’t.
— Telephone surveys were not accessible in some wards by more than one person of the family. The clerk had to turn on the selection of more than one so spouses could fill it in.
— The margin of error in the survey was never considered.
— The selected plans meeting the criteria put forward to be voted on knowing sure well that at least 2 of them didn’t meet it. But you know all this.
— etc. add to the list.
People must be present at Shire Hall to witness what happens that never gets written in the newspapers.
“Live Streaming” ? Anyone emailed their councilor to find out when and if?
Sandar; are you satisfied with how our Council dealt with this matter? Do you feel it was conducted in a manner respectful of the process and the public?
Of course it is a Corporation, never said it wasn’t, “not a corporation that is functioning progressively”. Shire Hall has it’s own culture.
Mark: Ah, yes CAO. thanks, lest I forgot.
“”” Remember it’s Shire Hall we are talking about not a Corporation that is functioning progressively. “””
? If not a Corporation, then why does it say it is on the website, property tax bills/receipts, by-laws, etc. Also, has a Corporate Services and Finance Dept.?
Begs the question: if its NOT functioning progressively then what is the difference between that and a Corp. that IS functioning progressively?
Is it a quasi-Corporation and yet be called “The Corporation of Prince Edward County”?
The Mayor is CEO. The top administration person is CAO. Council got rid of the former CAO because they realized he was no yes man, would direct them back to policy and would not put up with the antics. Remember it’s Shire Hall we are talking about not a Corporation that is functioning progressively.
How soon we all forget about how inept previous councils and mayors have been. Esp. with decisions on Picton’s sewage, gravel pit purchase, etc.
This Mayor and his council (esp. the new members), are intending on integrity from my observations and conversations. Admin. has a hold of the reins of policy and finance all done behind closed doors. Why did this council get rid of one CEO, (I think it was CEO) along with his grand piano? lest we forget.
DennisFox: No need to personally disrespect my comments calling them “convoluted”. Why don’t you run for council? Inject some credibility with your presence. You might find once you are on council that bad mouthing oneself would be an exercise in personal entertainment with your psyche.
The petition to council was in reference to the collection of costs from the challenger to the OMB “if” they lost the appeal. (read earlier comments)
What is all this talk about a petition? I have been told You don’t need one this because council brought this forward with the bylaw. They needed the petition before to bring it forward. The appeal form are on line. Dennis , have you talked with a lawyer? Any idea on costs?
It’s called “apathy” Dennis. Same old politics. Are you aware of the history and culture of Shire Hall and how it operates and is managed?
What this exchange and banter has shown is that there is a lot of interest in the community over this issue of council size. As the person know as Sandar has shown, as convoluted as he/she got, there are interests on both sides of the argument. I for one believe that our Council no longer has any credibility left – not even most of the newly elected. Bill Roberts is the exception and deserves our support. Frankly, I am disappointed that this community hasn’t been raising the roof off Shire Hall – I have never seen politicians ignore and play games with the public the way this council has. After 8 years of following this issue and attending meetings, I can’t believe how it has ended with such a ridiculous decision going from 16 to 14 members of council. Talk about a make work project – disgusting!
3 Councillors does not make a majority or a tie vote. Yes, a block. There are a few blocks therein, another is the 4 in the old boys club. All of them politicking along. Is this what would happen with a 7-8 member council? Blocks facing off against one another? Power for sale?
Anyhow all this past being regurgitated gets us back to the question on the ballot… vicious circle, the wheel of fortune taking a turn.
DennisFox: lol Why don’t you run for council?
I’m not going to start any petition, no thank you. I’m just saying . . . I’m just putting it out there as to what has been tried before. Desperate people, do desperate things.
The mayor’s proposal was to reduce council size. He said it, he did it by 2 this time. In 5yrs. we’ll try again, if we are not amalgamated with Quinte West by then.
Ameliasburgh’s 3 Councilors are not receptive to any real change to Council that provides voter equity. They consistently vote as a block. At least one spoke at the Bloomfield town hall pushing “Status quo”. Their real role should have been to listen and gather community opinion rather than presenting their own selfish agenda.
Dear Sandar –
Please say hello to the Ameliasburgh 3 for us all! Your rebuttals to so many makes one believe you are doing it on behalf of others. So explain to us all again, why a petition to seek cost from taxpayers challenging a foolish council decision is justified and why not demand payment from a council that has wasted so much time and money on protecting their own jobs. Go ahead, we’re listening…
Dennis Fox: Anyone can sit in the pew at Shire Hall and watch petitions be entered. I was there that night. I listened. I heard that people from all over the county signed. You seem to find someone to blame.
I never once heard > boogeyman in council. I did hear “trickery”. Do you not feel tricked? Fear is a political tactic. You either succumb to it or face it, go forward and find out the truth.
“”” I have never heard of any group of residents taking up a petition to protect their inept politicians from a costly challenge “””
There is always a first time. It would be a move to protect the taxpayer’s dollars from leaving the coffers. I dare surmise to set a precedent. Put it in the council record to move it forward for next time. imo
Emily: interesting point.
Chuck: I’d be surprised if the OMB made a ruling that the County pay the challengers expenses. What is the history of a ruling like that?
Anyone find out more about Live Streaming council meetings?
The Mayor is in a tough spot on this one. After his vivid comments following the vote for the 9 Ward Plan he would surely be called as a witness for the appellant. I suspect Councilor Roberts would be called as well.
The Mayor was initially furious with this decision and the process manipulation used to get there. As Emily stated he has since softened or avoided the discussion knowing full well that the County is on a slippery slope. He fears for good reason that the OMB will implement a ward system that while fair to all, it is not County chosen.
The Mayor spoke strongly upon the initial vote fearing the County was quite vulnerable at the OMB. He was angry. He has since avoided that stance since I expect he has been cautioned by legal services that they may have to defend that decision and the waivering process that was allowed to be used.
My view is that an OMB challenge would have a high opportunity for success. There is also a good possibility that those challenge costs would be placed upon the County since they created the inequitable issue by not following their own criteria for selection.
Sandar, Sandar, Sandar – why do I get the feeling that you are being told what to say from our Councillors in the north part of the County? This is exactly how they think – scare the people with boogeyman stories, claiming “TRICKERY” and then do what you what by ignoring what the people want. I have never heard of any group of residents taking up a petition to protect their inept politicians from a costly challenge – one they created! If you have been following this discussion from the start, you know that the majority are in support of an OMB challenge. Rest assured, if i decide to go that route, it will be based on legal advice and not out of self-interest and fear mongering.
There’s also a chance that someone will start a petition to have the challenger pay for costs if they lost the OMB appeal. And march into Shire Hall to present that to council. (more time, more money wasted). It would not surprise me one bit. Some people will be angry enough. Our taxes are already unable to cover costs of important things plus county roads.
I would like to see from the survey results: the areas where the voters voted for each plan. This would tell us the density of votes coming from which areas.
Also I’ve heard many people say: “I’m sick of hearing about this issue”. OMB says “every five years” look at a review of things in the county ie: population changes, development, etc. Council has never been able to wait 5yrs. People have feelings about this fact alone.
In 5yrs. one sure change is that many aging county seniors will be dead, many will move out, closer to Trenton / Belleville / Napanee hospitals.
Dennis:
If I were you, I would not count on other people to donate ENOUGH money. Most people including myself are donating to PEC hospital fund, etc. Be prepared to rely on yourself and your lawyer, he’ll stick with you; he’s in it for the money. Unless you are a lawyer then things have a different perspective.
DISAPPOINTED IN A BIG WAY. Is there ‘Something Wicked” at Shire Hall that somehow every new council ends up acting just like the last? First 1, now 2 less at the horseshoe, after all the public input pointed to a very different solution. I thought we elected real people who listened, but somehow they seem to turn into the Shire Hall Zombies. Something in the water?
Council has denied many of the residents, voter equity. They tossed the criteria out the windows of Shire Hall and opted for old township protectionism.
Hello Rob – good idea about asking The Times about community interest – and the two other papers as well. While I am “maybe” interested in filing a appeal, it would be good to know if the community can stomach more of this issue – Council just about put me to sleep over it – and I too am one of the faithful wanting real change! However, this web site has shown that it is a popular topic of discussion. I wonder how many would actually donated to a legal fund to challenge Council’s decision at the OMB?