On the first day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the second day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the third day at Christmas, Council gave to me -
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony
On the fourth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the fifth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the sixth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Six councillors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the seventh day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Seven charity photo-ops
Six councillors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the eighth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Eight Deputy Mayor titles
Seven charity photo ops
Six councillors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the ninth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Nine Main St parking spots (but three were built on private property - whoops)
Eight Deputy Mayor titles
Seven charity photo-ops
Six councillors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the tenth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Top ten places to live in Canada (or did we come in thirty-first place?)
Nine Main St parking spots
Eight Deputy Mayor titles
Seven charity photo ops
Six councilors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase.
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the eleventh day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
An 11% increase on my water bill
Top ten places to live in Canada
Nine Main St parking spots
Eight Deputy Mayor titles
Seven charity photo ops
Six councillors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, Council gave to me -
Twelve months of Nwkt Town Hall blog topics
An 11% increase on my water bill
Top ten places to live in Canada
Nine Main St parking spots
Eight Deputy Mayor titles
Seven charity photo ops
Six councillors sleeping
Five months Old Town Hall delays
Four percent tax increase
Three brief words from Kelly,
Too many missed meetings, and
Broadband internet for Tony.
Merry Christmas Newmarket!
Monday, 14 December 2015
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Is Newmarket sponsorship a cash cow or money pit?
This is a photo from the Era's web page which shows two Town of Newmarket supervisors - Stephanie Dryiw (Supervisor of Marketing and Sponsorship, Recreation & Culture) and Colin Service (Supervisor, Marketing and Sponsorship). You can read the article via this link.
Ms. Dryiw isn't listed on the latest Sunshine list but Mr. Service is and his 2014 salary is listed at $124,484.98.
Being supervisors, we can assume each has direct reports below them. In the private sector, it's typical for a supervisor to have in the range of 10 employees. I don't know what ratio the Town of Newmarket uses but let's lowball and say 5 employees per supervisor. That makes the "Marketing and Sponsorhip" team 10 employees plus 2 supervisors.
If Mr. Service makes $124,000 then for a similar job, Ms. Dryiw must be making very close to $100,000 annually. Let's say that the average of the 10 employees is $35,000 annually too. This would make the department's payroll in the range of $550,000.
To be financially viable, the department would have to bring in at a minimum two to one ratio of sponsorship dollars versus expenses. Anything less than that makes the exercise not worthwhile. Pretend that there is no additional expenses other than salary, then you would be looking at $1,100,000 in sponsorship money annually. That means each of the 60 donors getting awards would have to sponsor events to the tune of just under $20,000 on average.
Here is a photo of all the sponsors:
Outside of Magna and Metro, I don't see others on this list who could afford a commitment of $20,000 annually. (Remember what a big deal the Town made of the dog park sponsors who agreed to $5,000 annually?).
Our Town Councillors talk about sponsorship money as a potential revenue source but from what I can see, the exercise has been a complete failure.
Town Council promised the dog park would be paid for by sponsors. It wasn't.
Town Council promised that the increased cost associated with the Old Town Hall would be paid by sponsors. Where is that money?
And when it comes to naming the Riverwalk Commons or ice rinks, I think that we're seeing corporate naming rights doled out at cut rates in order to preserve the facade that this sponsorship initiative is working out.
It's time to cut bait and save taxpayers the expense.
Unless, of course, the real reason for this program isn't revenue. Maybe it's photo ops?
Saturday, 5 December 2015
Why hasn't economic growth returned to Newmarket?
Earlier this year, York Region Council released a report stating that between the years 2010 and 2014, the economy in the Town of Newmarket created 100 jobs in all. This "growth" lagged well behind all other of York's nine municipalities, including those with a much lower population than ours.
Mayor Van Bynen fumed. He said publicly that this report couldn't be right and in the end he got York Region Council to revise its numbers to 500 jobs in all. Even that number was a paltry result when compared to the other York Region lower tier municipalities.
The question remains, if 2010-2014 was such a disaster, what is being done now to change this course?
We have a new Member of Parliament who sits on the government side of the house.
We have a new Member of Provincial Parliament who also sits on the government side of the house.
We have an united Town Council without any divisions in the ranks. Members of this Council are extremely tight with the Provincial and Federal level members, like never before.
Yet despite all the political cohesion between all levels of government, where are the jobs for Newmarket?
It's not a matter that Newmarket residents don't pay enough taxes to support growth initiatives. Our taxes have risen beyond the level of inflation for 10 years straight. Our mill rate sits at the second highest in York Region. Even though we lead in paying taxes, our economic growth trails everyone else.
It's not a matter that Newmarket Council isn't in sync with the Chamber of Commerce. These two groups couldn't be tighter. In fact, at the 2014 Chamber of Commerce debate for Mayor and Regional Councillor, the Chamber's president/moderator was likely the biggest supporter of the incumbent Van Bynen, Taylor campaigns, plus other members of Council too. Council and Newmarket Chambers absolutely adore each other.
It certainly isn't the fact that we don't invest public money into various businesses in town. The grants are there, even though they tend to flow towards supporters of Council first. Crony capitalism and corporate welfare are a way of life in Newmarket. It wasn't always this way, but Mayor Van Bynen has entrenched "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" as a way business gets done in this town.
We certainly have our own Newmarket Economic Development Advisory Committee (NEDAC) too. I can't tell you what this committee actually does because the committee has only met twice (once in October 2015 and then in November 2015) and the minutes of these meetings have not been published.
We seem to have all the necessary ingredients in place already. So why has our economy stalled while all the neighbouring towns and cities around us are booming?
Could one ingredient be missing?
LEADERSHIP
Without that, the jobs will never come to Newmarket.
Mayor Van Bynen fumed. He said publicly that this report couldn't be right and in the end he got York Region Council to revise its numbers to 500 jobs in all. Even that number was a paltry result when compared to the other York Region lower tier municipalities.
The question remains, if 2010-2014 was such a disaster, what is being done now to change this course?
We have a new Member of Parliament who sits on the government side of the house.
We have a new Member of Provincial Parliament who also sits on the government side of the house.
We have an united Town Council without any divisions in the ranks. Members of this Council are extremely tight with the Provincial and Federal level members, like never before.
Yet despite all the political cohesion between all levels of government, where are the jobs for Newmarket?
It's not a matter that Newmarket residents don't pay enough taxes to support growth initiatives. Our taxes have risen beyond the level of inflation for 10 years straight. Our mill rate sits at the second highest in York Region. Even though we lead in paying taxes, our economic growth trails everyone else.
It's not a matter that Newmarket Council isn't in sync with the Chamber of Commerce. These two groups couldn't be tighter. In fact, at the 2014 Chamber of Commerce debate for Mayor and Regional Councillor, the Chamber's president/moderator was likely the biggest supporter of the incumbent Van Bynen, Taylor campaigns, plus other members of Council too. Council and Newmarket Chambers absolutely adore each other.
It certainly isn't the fact that we don't invest public money into various businesses in town. The grants are there, even though they tend to flow towards supporters of Council first. Crony capitalism and corporate welfare are a way of life in Newmarket. It wasn't always this way, but Mayor Van Bynen has entrenched "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" as a way business gets done in this town.
We certainly have our own Newmarket Economic Development Advisory Committee (NEDAC) too. I can't tell you what this committee actually does because the committee has only met twice (once in October 2015 and then in November 2015) and the minutes of these meetings have not been published.
We seem to have all the necessary ingredients in place already. So why has our economy stalled while all the neighbouring towns and cities around us are booming?
Could one ingredient be missing?
LEADERSHIP
Without that, the jobs will never come to Newmarket.
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
They were elected but will they show up?
Despite the fact that sitting on Newmarket Council is considered part time work, I am still hesitant to write about attendance at council related meetings as a measure of a council member doing his or her job.
We've seen in the past Council members who have a perfect attendance record yet they contribute so little towards the debate of issues that their attendance doesn't matter. What's the point to being at a meeting if the council member doesn't contribute anything?
Conversely, we have seen council members who have missed a couple of meetings but their commitment towards their constituents could not be doubted. These members are engaged in debates, table motions, and come to every meeting prepared for the business at hand.
And yet, attendance can be a measure of the council member's attitude towards the important work before the town. Attending or not attending meetings is one facet of a council member's job and I recognize that there is work being done outside of these meetings. But the work done outside of the meeting isn't being recorded by anyone whereas we have records to refer to regarding attendance at meetings.
We should be able to reasonably extrapolate that a member of council who regularly skips meetings may not be particularly attentive to other aspects of their job. After all, if you don't show up when people notice you are absent, how can you convince anyone that you are working hard at the other times?
Here is a summary of meetings scheduled in 2015 for Newmarket Council:
We've seen in the past Council members who have a perfect attendance record yet they contribute so little towards the debate of issues that their attendance doesn't matter. What's the point to being at a meeting if the council member doesn't contribute anything?
Conversely, we have seen council members who have missed a couple of meetings but their commitment towards their constituents could not be doubted. These members are engaged in debates, table motions, and come to every meeting prepared for the business at hand.
And yet, attendance can be a measure of the council member's attitude towards the important work before the town. Attending or not attending meetings is one facet of a council member's job and I recognize that there is work being done outside of these meetings. But the work done outside of the meeting isn't being recorded by anyone whereas we have records to refer to regarding attendance at meetings.
We should be able to reasonably extrapolate that a member of council who regularly skips meetings may not be particularly attentive to other aspects of their job. After all, if you don't show up when people notice you are absent, how can you convince anyone that you are working hard at the other times?
Here is a summary of meetings scheduled in 2015 for Newmarket Council:
- Council meetings: 12 meetings (but 10 have minutes posted on line)
- Committee of the Whole meetings: 13 meetings (but 11 have minutes posted on line)
- Special Council meetings: 5 meetings (but 4 have minutes posted on line)
- Council Workshops: 11 meetings (but 10 have minutes posted on line)
So over a twelve month period, there are approximately 41 council meetings (or about one per week with the summer months scheduled off).
For the purpose of my review, I am only considering the meetings with minutes posted on line. Therefore my review will only consider 35 meetings in all. I am only considering absences but during some of these meetings, a council member may have arrived late or left early. For the purpose of my review, those instances are considered "in attendance".
Of the 35 meetings, the Mayor and Councillor Broome-Plumley have perfect attendance in 2015.
Council members Bisanz, Kerwin and Taylor have missed 6% of these meetings.
Councillor Vegh missed 9% of this year's meetings
Councillors Twinney and Hempen missed 20% of the scheduled meetings.
And Councillor Sponga has missed 26% of the meetings.
Newmarket residents interested in determining how well these politicians are serving the community should look at absenteeism as a problem. I know many of my readers are managers or business owners. How tolerant are you of an employee who misses work once every 4 or 5 days? What if 33% of your employees were absent from work at this rate? Could your workplace manage with this kind of absenteeism?
In the case of Newmarket Council, it is a rare occasion when all 9 members are present at any given meeting. On a frequent basis, two or more council members are not present while important issues are being reviewed and key votes are being missed.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the Library Board and the Central York Fire Services committees because they drive a large portion of the Town's budget each year. As luck would have it, Councillor Sponga sits on both of these important committees.
Between them, the Library and CYFS committees have met 18 times this year but only 15 meetings have minutes posted on line. Councillor Sponga missed 7 of the 15 minuted meetings for a 47% absenteeism rate.
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
Councillor Broome Plumley is taking care of (her employers') business
Over a year ago, I wrote this blog about the candidature of Ward 6 Councillor Kelly Broome-Plumley: Click Here
The allegation was simple: Who arranged for Councillor Broome-Plumley to have a "fully funded" campaign (as others have alleged) and what did they expect to receive in return?
As far as I know, Kelly Broome-Plumley has never spoken about how much money she raised. The sum far in away exceeded all others who ran for a ward council position.
From my observations, Councillor Broome-Plumley votes in tandem with the Mayor and Regional Councillor at every opportunity. The evidence of her voting record can be found here: Click Here Newmarket Councillors will vote a dozen or more times on various items each meeting. In approximately one year worth of voting, Councillor Broome-Plumley has been "in favour" of almost everything placed before her. She has only voted against items on 5 occasions in total. Even these "Opposed" votes were cast with her allies.
If the gruesome-twosome were looking for someone to rubber-stamp their agenda then the election of Kelly Broome-Plumley has been a resounding success. In this past year, we've seen tax hikes, service cuts, user fees increase, water rates rise, and less municipal government transparency. So while the Mayor and Regional Councillor may be "winning" with Kelly Broome-Plumely at their side, taxpayers of Newmarket have been on a crushing "losing" streak for quite some time.
Outside of Council meetings, Councillor Broome-Plumley sits on just one town committee. This may shock residents of Ward 6 because as a candidate for election, Ms Broome-Plumley was quite critical of the half-dozen committees her predecessor participated in. At the time, Broome-Plumley declared that was too few.
I could not find any community groups or other initiatives organized by the Councillor in the past year.
Nor could I find anywhere in the Era newspaper where she was quoted any issues relating to the town's operation or strategic plans for the future.
She has lead two initiatives in Council this term.
1) The outdoor skating rink at Whipper Billy Watson Park located just around the corner from her home; and
2) A walking trail connecting Yonge Street to Rita's Place
Both involved controversies.
The skating rink was given a single-sourced advertising agreement awarded to Ms. Broome Plumley's employer. No other business or community group was allowed to bid on advertising for this rink which featured large signs being posted within the public park promoting Ms. Broome-Plumley's employer.
The walking trail she promoted will cost us almost double what was originally planned for a less accessible trail involving more destruction of trees, extensive grading, and too small for usual maintenance measures.
Want to guess the reason why we are spending approximately $630,000 on this trail as opposed to the $305,000 budgeted in 2014?
It turns out a big wig at Snap'd, which has employed Councillor Broome-Plumley's husband in the past (including these photos published in Snap'd last year: Click Here) owns one the homes that neighbours this proposed trail.
Oh, and did I mention that the Town of Newmarket was also going to hand over, free of charge and paying all related legal fees, a few meters of land to each of these same home owners?
And to top it all off, Councillor Broome-Plumley thanks this Snap'd big wig in her blog yesterday, for "her leadership role in speaking for her neighbours and helping us come to a plan we can all be proud of."
How does spending more than double the original planned amount and giving away public land in the process while destroying natural habitat become a plan "we can all be proud of?"
Well it's true if Councillor Broome-Plumley's definition of "we" is exclusive to her alliance with Van Bynen, Taylor, and her employers.
The taxpayers and residents of Ward 6?
We're not included within Councillor Broome-Plumley's version of "we".
The allegation was simple: Who arranged for Councillor Broome-Plumley to have a "fully funded" campaign (as others have alleged) and what did they expect to receive in return?
As far as I know, Kelly Broome-Plumley has never spoken about how much money she raised. The sum far in away exceeded all others who ran for a ward council position.
From my observations, Councillor Broome-Plumley votes in tandem with the Mayor and Regional Councillor at every opportunity. The evidence of her voting record can be found here: Click Here Newmarket Councillors will vote a dozen or more times on various items each meeting. In approximately one year worth of voting, Councillor Broome-Plumley has been "in favour" of almost everything placed before her. She has only voted against items on 5 occasions in total. Even these "Opposed" votes were cast with her allies.
If the gruesome-twosome were looking for someone to rubber-stamp their agenda then the election of Kelly Broome-Plumley has been a resounding success. In this past year, we've seen tax hikes, service cuts, user fees increase, water rates rise, and less municipal government transparency. So while the Mayor and Regional Councillor may be "winning" with Kelly Broome-Plumely at their side, taxpayers of Newmarket have been on a crushing "losing" streak for quite some time.
Outside of Council meetings, Councillor Broome-Plumley sits on just one town committee. This may shock residents of Ward 6 because as a candidate for election, Ms Broome-Plumley was quite critical of the half-dozen committees her predecessor participated in. At the time, Broome-Plumley declared that was too few.
I could not find any community groups or other initiatives organized by the Councillor in the past year.
Nor could I find anywhere in the Era newspaper where she was quoted any issues relating to the town's operation or strategic plans for the future.
She has lead two initiatives in Council this term.
1) The outdoor skating rink at Whipper Billy Watson Park located just around the corner from her home; and
2) A walking trail connecting Yonge Street to Rita's Place
Both involved controversies.
The skating rink was given a single-sourced advertising agreement awarded to Ms. Broome Plumley's employer. No other business or community group was allowed to bid on advertising for this rink which featured large signs being posted within the public park promoting Ms. Broome-Plumley's employer.
The walking trail she promoted will cost us almost double what was originally planned for a less accessible trail involving more destruction of trees, extensive grading, and too small for usual maintenance measures.
Want to guess the reason why we are spending approximately $630,000 on this trail as opposed to the $305,000 budgeted in 2014?
It turns out a big wig at Snap'd, which has employed Councillor Broome-Plumley's husband in the past (including these photos published in Snap'd last year: Click Here) owns one the homes that neighbours this proposed trail.
Oh, and did I mention that the Town of Newmarket was also going to hand over, free of charge and paying all related legal fees, a few meters of land to each of these same home owners?
And to top it all off, Councillor Broome-Plumley thanks this Snap'd big wig in her blog yesterday, for "her leadership role in speaking for her neighbours and helping us come to a plan we can all be proud of."
How does spending more than double the original planned amount and giving away public land in the process while destroying natural habitat become a plan "we can all be proud of?"
Well it's true if Councillor Broome-Plumley's definition of "we" is exclusive to her alliance with Van Bynen, Taylor, and her employers.
The taxpayers and residents of Ward 6?
We're not included within Councillor Broome-Plumley's version of "we".
Saturday, 21 November 2015
Turf Fields - A tale of two cities
Here is a story of two turf fields in neighbouring towns. The first turf field, located at St. Maximilian Kolbe High School, is a partnership between the Town of Aurora and the York Region Catholic School Board. The second turf field, not yet built, will be a joint venture with the Town of Newmarket and the York Public School Board. That field is slated for Dr. J.M. Denison High School. Both fields cost $2,000,000 and both would generate revenues of approximately $10,000 annually. Both fields cost the municipality approximately $1,000,000 towards the cost of construction.
The Aurora turf field was constructed in 2010 and the agreement between the Town of Aurora and the Catholic school board has been termed a partnership.
By comparison, the Era is reporting that the agreement between the Town of Newmarket and the Public school board has hit a 'snag'. The Town wants the Board to cover 66% of the maintenance cost of the field. The Board feels the Town should cover the entire cost because the Board is providing the land for the field and the Town is benefiting from value of the land and the parking lot (which the Board maintains at 100% of the cost).
Of note, the Public Board has similar agreements in place throughout York Region and it is typical for the municipality to cover the maintenance costs.
At the Aurora field, it is reported that the Town of Aurora pays approximately $5,000 towards maintenance and $8,000 for lighting according to a 2010 article in the Era.
This week's Era story on the Denison field suggests that the annual maintenance cost of a turf field would be in the range of $60,000 annually.
The Town of Newmarket has a pricing policy that requires a 60/40 split on recovering costs. What this means is that 60% of the cost of operating a facility is recovered by the users and 40% is subsidized by the public.
If a turf field has a 20 year life span (and I think that is generous), then the amount of money that the Town must collect in user fees to recover the construction cost should be $30,000 plus an additional $36,000 to cover expected annual maintenance. (These figures are 60% of the total).
But the Town is only expecting to collect $10,000 annually. This leaves the public subsidizing this field to the tune of 81% of the total costs versus 19% of the cost borne by the users.
Before voting to approve this expense, Council needs to explain why it has deviated so greatly from the fees it charges to other user groups. Why is Newmarket Hockey paying its fair share of the cost of ice time, but user groups for this turf field are making off with a heavily subsidized rate?
Thursday, 19 November 2015
Reason dictates that we should oppose a publicly elected York Region Chair
There are a lot of arguments in support of "democracy" to elect the York Region Chair to replace the current system of election by the 21 members of Regional Council.
Personally, I think there are much bigger fish to fry in York. Electing the Chair doesn't rank in my top 100 list of issues.
The only reason it is even being considered is because it helps improve the profile of the Ontario Liberals. It is window dressing that makes them appear that they are in favour of public accountability when in actual fact, the government under Kathleen Wynne actually falls well short of anyone's standard in that regard. (And there are multiple real life events to draw from to support that statement).
To run a legitimate Region wide campaign will cost a candidate high six figures. To illustrate this point, consider that in the City of Toronto, John Tory raised $2.8 million for his 2014 mayoralty race. The City of Toronto has 2.6 million residents. Therefore, Mayor Tory spent over $1 per resident. Extrapolate from the 1.1 million residents of York Region and you get a sense of how much a winning campaign for Regional Chair will cost.
As no individual can self-finance such an expensive campaign, the eventual successful candidate will have to aggressively fund raise from those who can contribute - developers, government contractors, public sector unions, and lobbyists.
With this election, we would be giving great political influence to those with money, ignoring the advocates for the poor, for children, and the environment who are typically not as well financed.
Keep in mind that the Chair only votes when there is a tie and that has only happened once in 16 years. Who would spend that kind of money to never vote at York Region Council?
But perhaps the best reason to oppose the election of the Chair is because there could be conflict with the agenda that the Chair was elected on versus the agenda of the rest of Council that comes from the lower tier Mayors and Regional Councillors who occupy the Council seats.
Presumably, the rest of Council has their mandate from their municipality's council on what issues they should champion. I think the public has expressed their views already when electing their mayor and council.
The greatest number of public votes would come from voters living in Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan. Despite this, York Council has a balance in votes between those three cities and the remaining municipalities.
If a candidate wanted to win a public election, the way to go about it would be to promise all sorts of goodies to the voters who live in the big three but the cost of these goodies would be shared with the six municipalities who are receiving no benefit from them.
That would result in a deeply divided Council with the remaining six municipalities battling with the big three.
Do we really want to introduce into York Region the animosity that exists in Peel? As the smallest of the Peel municipalities, Caledon representatives can (and in fact have) blocked Peel Council decisions by walking out of votes causing the Council to lose quorum. It is not a good situation for anyone.
It is far better that we have a Chair (who currently only votes to break a tie) continue to represent the needs of all of York Region accountable equally to all of York Council. The only way to ensure this is through the election by the 21 Council members.
Personally, I think there are much bigger fish to fry in York. Electing the Chair doesn't rank in my top 100 list of issues.
The only reason it is even being considered is because it helps improve the profile of the Ontario Liberals. It is window dressing that makes them appear that they are in favour of public accountability when in actual fact, the government under Kathleen Wynne actually falls well short of anyone's standard in that regard. (And there are multiple real life events to draw from to support that statement).
To run a legitimate Region wide campaign will cost a candidate high six figures. To illustrate this point, consider that in the City of Toronto, John Tory raised $2.8 million for his 2014 mayoralty race. The City of Toronto has 2.6 million residents. Therefore, Mayor Tory spent over $1 per resident. Extrapolate from the 1.1 million residents of York Region and you get a sense of how much a winning campaign for Regional Chair will cost.
As no individual can self-finance such an expensive campaign, the eventual successful candidate will have to aggressively fund raise from those who can contribute - developers, government contractors, public sector unions, and lobbyists.
With this election, we would be giving great political influence to those with money, ignoring the advocates for the poor, for children, and the environment who are typically not as well financed.
Keep in mind that the Chair only votes when there is a tie and that has only happened once in 16 years. Who would spend that kind of money to never vote at York Region Council?
But perhaps the best reason to oppose the election of the Chair is because there could be conflict with the agenda that the Chair was elected on versus the agenda of the rest of Council that comes from the lower tier Mayors and Regional Councillors who occupy the Council seats.
Presumably, the rest of Council has their mandate from their municipality's council on what issues they should champion. I think the public has expressed their views already when electing their mayor and council.
The greatest number of public votes would come from voters living in Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan. Despite this, York Council has a balance in votes between those three cities and the remaining municipalities.
If a candidate wanted to win a public election, the way to go about it would be to promise all sorts of goodies to the voters who live in the big three but the cost of these goodies would be shared with the six municipalities who are receiving no benefit from them.
That would result in a deeply divided Council with the remaining six municipalities battling with the big three.
Do we really want to introduce into York Region the animosity that exists in Peel? As the smallest of the Peel municipalities, Caledon representatives can (and in fact have) blocked Peel Council decisions by walking out of votes causing the Council to lose quorum. It is not a good situation for anyone.
It is far better that we have a Chair (who currently only votes to break a tie) continue to represent the needs of all of York Region accountable equally to all of York Council. The only way to ensure this is through the election by the 21 Council members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)