Category Archives: Municipal politics

But is it news?

Posted on by
Reply


Rob FordToronto Mayor Rob Ford seems to get more than his fair share of headlines these days, most of them negative. The stories that follow are full of allegation, innuendo and “unnamed sources.” Gripping tabloid stuff. Real time soap opera. But is it news?

Most of these stories seem based on a simplistic media prejudgment of the man. Ford: bad. Stories that belittle, humiliate, denigrate and ultimately crucify Ford: good.

And in this heated, increasingly toxic environment, allegations, gossip and rumour get given the same status as fact and build on themselves. Everything is sensationalized to such an extreme that it becomes impossible for the audience to pry even shreds of truth from the media frenzy. It’s like trying to apple bob in a piranha pool.

This, of course, one expects of Fox News, QMI and Sun News. The latter two Canadian media groups waffle between defending Ford (usually for no other reason than he is a Conservative) and wallowing in the mud with the likes of The Star, Globe and the NatPost. After all, tabloid-style headlines sell papers, and they don’t want to miss out on the public appetite for scandal, real or imagined. Dollars are at stake.

And, of course, some of these media outlets have political agendas and allegiances with other political parties. Reporters may also have personal or social allegiances they try to shove below the radar while they write their latest exposé, based on anonymous sources.

Even the once-credible CBC has gotten into the act, barely able to contain its delight while it roasts Ford over yet another allegation, all the while justifying its lack of actual fact by uttering stock phrases about not having seen the video, or the allegations being unproven. As if that makes a difference to the listener. It’s just the old nudge-nudge-wink-wink and no one is fooled.

Continue reading →

161 total views, 3 views today

Pets and Policies: Why Dog Parks Matter

Posted on by
1


Dogs at PlayBack in April, 2011, I wrote a post about municipal policies towards pets, now in the blog archives. I noted then that…

A recent survey done by Colin Siren of Ipsos Reid estimated there are 7.9 million cats and 5.9 million dogs in Canada. The survey also shows that 35% of Canadian households have a dog, while 38% have a cat, which is consistent with other surveys conducted in the developed nations. Based on a figure of 9,500 households* we should have around 3,040 households with dogs and 3,610 with cats.

Well, the numbers have grown. We have (according to the 2011 census), 10,695 households. Round that up to 11,000 (because the census was done part-way through the year and we’ve had 18 months of construction since).

That suggests 3,850 households have one or more dogs, and 4,180 have one or more cats. Based on the average of 1.7 dogs per household, that means more than 6,500 dogs live in Collingwood. And, based on 2.2 cats average, more than 9,000 cats.

Are these stats still reliable? I believe so. They are similar to other surveys conducted in the US and the UK. They match what the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association found. A recent survey by the Humane Society of the United States suggests a slightly higher figure for dog ownership: 39% of households, but lower for cats (33%).

Continue reading →

226 total views, 3 views today

Collingwood and our Comparators

Posted on by
Reply


The recent KPMG presentation to council, May 13, included some interesting data about where Collingwood sits in several areas among its peers. These included staffing, parks, recreational facilities, taxes, debt ratios and operating costs. These figures were taken from data reported annually to the province.

KPMG selected six other Ontario municipalities as comparators: Owen Sound, Wasaga Beach, Midland, Bradford-West Gwillimbury, Orangeville and Port Hope. This represents a range of population from 16,214 (Port Hope) to 29,561 (Orangeville), and households from 6,750 (Port Hope) to 12,029 (Wasaga Beach). Data is current to 2011, but not 2012-13.

Collingwood (population 19,241, households 10,695) sits in the middle of the population range, but second highest in households. This is because we have both a high percentage of seniors and seasonal-home owners here (therefore smaller numbers of people per household). We are the second lowest in number of residents per household (1.79; Wasaga Beach is lower at 1.45) – every other community is between 2.14 (Midland) and 2.96 (Bradford-West Gwillimbury). The data doesn’t take into account the seasonal residents.

We are 3rd highest of the seven in reserves per household (more than $2,000). Unlike some municipalities, we have continued to build our reserves, rather than using a higher portion of our tax revenue for debt servicing. Orangeville was the lowest at under $500 per household, Owen Sound the highest at more than $2,500.

As a result, however, we are in the peer group second highest in debt per household (slightly higher than Bradford-West Gwillimbury at about $4,000 per household, but much lower than Port Hope at almost $6,000; Wasaga Beach was the lowest at under $1,000).

Continue reading →

186 total views, no views today

Understanding the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

Posted on by
Reply


Another of the Acts that direct municipal governance is the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. While considerably shorter than the previously-discussed Municipal Act – eight pages, 15 sections and less than 3,500 words – it is of perhaps equal importance. While it may seem vague to outsiders, it was written to clearly identify the nature of a conflict in black and white.

The Act allows no grey areas: there are no “perceived” conflicts in law, only clearly defined legal ones. This is obviously intended by the stringent wording that lays out what construes a conflict of interest.

This clarity absolves everyone of trying to second guess the intention of the Act, or trying to interpret degrees of conflict.

As lawyer Stephen D”Agostino writes,

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (“Act”) places a significant burden and risk upon local representatives. The standard of care in the Act is greater than that placed on elected representatives at the federal and provincial levels. Since its original proclamation in 1972, the Act has been tested in the Courts on numerous occasions. Often, the context for the dispute involves circumstances outside of the Act; the remedies of the Act providing a convenient arsenal for strategic advantage… The Act follows a simple model. Generally, if there is a “matter” before Council that touches on the councillor’s “direct or indirect pecuniary interest”, then there is a duty on the councillor to refrain from participating in the decision-making process related to the matter. Unfortunately, when dealing with conflict matters, this simple framework has been complicated by statutory exceptions, inclusions, and judicial interpretations.

There are two kinds of interest in the Act: direct and indirect. While direct conflict is not clearly defined, indirect is:

Indirect pecuniary interest
2. For the purposes of this Act, a member has an indirect pecuniary interest in any matter in which the council or local board, as the case may be, is concerned, if,
(a) the member or his or her nominee,
(i) is a shareholder in, or a director or senior officer of, a corporation that does not offer its securities to the public,
(ii) has a controlling interest in or is a director or senior officer of, a corporation that offers its securities to the public, or
(iii) is a member of a body, that has a pecuniary interest in the matter; or
(b) the member is a partner of a person or is in the employment of a person or body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 2.

Further, the Act defines ‘controlling interest’:

“controlling interest” means the interest that a person has in a corporation when the person beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, or exercises control or direction over, equity shares of the corporation carrying more than 10 per cent of the voting rights attached to all equity shares of the corporation for the time being outstanding;

Continue reading →

7,172 total views, 121 views today

The open government report

Posted on by
Reply


Accountability reportOn Monday’s agenda, council received a 21-page report from the clerk on the nature and mechanics of open government in Collingwood. This comprehensive report, titled the “Accountability and Transparency Policy,” because it also introduced a revised, formal policy, listed all of the bylaws, policies and legislation by which council and staff operate.

This is such an important and useful report that I felt it worthwhile to extract it from the April 13 agenda and make it available separately here. If you have not read it, or have any questions about how a council works and the rules that guide us, it’s worth reading. It opens by defining two terms:

Accountability: The principle that the municipality is obligated to demonstrate and take responsibility for its actions, decisions and policies and that it is answerable to the public at large.
Transparency: The principle that the municipality will conduct its business in an accessible, clear and visible manner and that its activities are open to examination by its stakeholders.

The report than goes on to further define how the municipality achieves these goals and why they are important:

Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that enhance public trust. They are achieved through the Town of Collingwood adopting measures ensuring, to the best of its ability, that all activities and services are undertaken utilizing a process that is open and accessible to its stakeholders. In addition, wherever possible, the Town of Collingwood will engage its stakeholders throughout its decision making process which will be open, visible and transparent to the public.

The report then provides a comprehensive list of how we currently comply with the requirements, as well as what we do to enhance and better them:

The Town of Collingwood currently complies with a host of legislation, policies and procedures that maintain an open and transparent decision-making process. For the purposes of the Policy, the Town’s various policies, procedures and practices have been divided into the following categories:
1. Legislated Requirements
2. Financial Accountability, Oversight and Reporting
3. Performance Measurement and Reporting
4. Open Government
5. Internal Accountability and Ethical Standards

I won’t repeat all of the material that follows, but will include the section about “open government” which is really about local governance and the policies and procedures we already have in place to achieve this openness:

Open Government
The following are policies, procedures and practices that ensure the Town is transparent  in its operations and that residents are not only aware of how decisions are made and carried out, but that they are able to participate as well:

  • Council Procedure By-law
  • Public Posting and Distribution of Council Agenda Meeting Documentation
  • Public Notice By-law
  • Procurement By-law
  • Land Sale/Disposal By-law
  • Closed Meeting Investigator Policy and Retainer
  • Facility Naming Policies
  • Committee/Board Recruitment Policies
  • Land Acquisition Guidelines
  • Accessible Barrier Complaint Policy
  • Records Retention By-law
  • Social Media Policy

Continue reading →

240 total views, 2 views today

The Municipal Act and Recorded Votes

Posted on by
Reply


A recent motion was made to make all council votes recorded votes. This has generated some confusion among council watchers about voting and both what we can and cannot do.

The Municipal Act makes it clear that calling for a recorded vote is every councillor’s right. It is not staff’s right. See Section 246:

Recorded vote
246. (1) If a member present at a meeting at the time of a vote requests immediately before or after the taking of the vote that the vote be recorded, each member present, except a member who is disqualified from voting by any Act, shall announce his or her vote openly and the clerk shall record each vote. 2001, c. 25, s. 246 (1).

It is usually reserved for significant items or contentious items. If every vote is recorded, we have no way of marking those. When you scan the minutes, recorded votes stand out. When they are all recorded, nothing stands out.

Keeping the vote voluntary rather than compulsory, gives each member of council the only opportunity available in law to underscore a vote he or she thinks is relevant.

It also makes us individually responsible for calling a recorded vote and for being present to be sure we do so.

The Act allows us to call it either before or immediately after a vote, so we have the opportunity to call one even after hands have been raised in a non-recorded vote. That is equally important because it give us a rare second chance to consider whether we believe the results should be recorded.

The Act does not place that responsibility on staff. Nor should we.

If an elected representative can’t decide what’s important enough for a recorded vote, then that person is doing a disservice to the role. Making every vote a recorded vote simply ‘dumbs down’ our role. I know of no community with such a requirement.

And finally, no one can “avert” a recorded vote, as one person suggested. It is an absolute right to call one, and all members at the table are required to respond when called. In fact, if you don’t respond, the Act says your refusal must be counted as a negative vote. Section 246 again:

Failure to vote
(2) A failure to vote under subsection (1) by a member who is present at the meeting at the time of the vote and who is qualified to vote shall be deemed to be a negative vote. 2001, c. 25, s. 246 (2).

We don’t vote on a request for a recorded vote. We can’t even debate it or comment on it. It goes directly to the clerk to call. It is not a request to council, but rather to the clerk, who cannot refuse to honour it.

Easily 90% of what we vote on falls into the category of procedural voting. We vote on accepting the agenda, the correspondence, the confirmatory bylaw, on receiving every committee minutes or staff report.

There were, as I recall, thirteen votes called last night, of which twelve were unanimous. Is there some compelling or historically significant reason to know how everyone voted on, say, accepting the consent agenda? Approving the previous meeting’s minutes? Or the correspondence? Or receiving the minutes of the Elvis Festival committee? Or on adjourning?

The Municipal Act was crafted by lawyers, politicians and experts in municipal governance. It has been modified over the years after comments from its stakeholders such as municipal councils and lawyers. I have every confidence that it serves us well. I don’t think it’s the best use of our time and energies to try and rewrite it just to suit a particular political agenda.

383 total views, 3 views today

Clawing our way back up the ladder?

Posted on by
Reply


In 2006, Moneysense listed Collingwood as the 11th best place to live in Canada. The other ten above us on that list were all major cities. We were the number one town. Mayor Geddes beamed.

Today we’re a lot further down the list. Numero 54 to be exact, out of 200.

I wrote about that list back in 2011. We plummeted from the giddy heights of 11th place to 61st by 2008. The fall didn’t stop until we hit 94th place in 2012, in the bottom half of the 180 places listed.

Now we’re back at 54th place. I suppose that’s come consolation – a rise of 40 places up the ladder, and in the top half.

You have to take the recently released 2013 list with a rather large grain of salt. Click on the town’s name in the overall ranking list and see what comes up.

NOT CollingwoodThat’s right: the photo is NOT Collingwood. It’s Blue Mountain Village. Now read the amounts for average house price and average household income. Wow. We’re rich!

Or maybe not – StatsCan reported the average family income here is roughly $60,000 (or $67,000 as shown here). Our treasurer reports the average family home is about $250,000 (it’s calculated as $274,000 here).

Moneysense shows our average income as $81,499 and average house price as $331,594. Way above the figures usually accepted for this town.

You think maybe Moneysense got it – and maybe the rest of their data for Collingwood – wrong? You think maybe they’re ranking the Village under Collingwood’s name?

I look at some of those stats and wonder. rain days: 110 – almost one out of three days per year? A 7% increase in population since 2011? Where did they get those figures? Maybe they can’t tell us apart from the Village.

I think we should ask for a recount. And maybe supply some correct data and a proper photo to the magazine.

(PS. We can always take heart we’re not among the ten worst places to live – seven of which are in Quebec).

 

 

507 total views, 1 views today