CK Community Governance Task Force final report

8/6/2019 CK Community Governance Task Force final report

1/40

CHATHAM-KENT

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE TASK

FORCE

FINAL REPORT

April, 2010


2/40

Table of Contents

Item Page

Table of Contents` 1

Thank you 2

Introduction 3

Recommendations 3 - 5

Reference Material 5

Mandate 6

Task Force Members 7

Process 7

Resident Survey 8

Public Meetings 8 10

Inventory of Comments 10

Community Councils 10 11

Community Focus Groups 11 12

Size of Council 13

Representatives per Ward 14 15

Ward Design 15

Variance Calculation 16

Two additional Wards 17

Eight Full time Councillors 18

Committee of the Whole 19 20

Item Page

The Resident Disconnect,

-Own the Podium 21

Deputations to Council 21-23

Improving Communication 24

The Municipal Name 24

Community Contact

-Town Hall Meetings 25-26

E-mail/C-K Website 26

Chatham gets everything 27

The Agriculture Industry 27-28

Its like living in an outpost 28-29

Municipal Centres 29-30

Conclusion 31

Addendum

Maps

Existing Ward Design 32

New 8 Ward Design 33

Magnified View of

New Chatham Wards 34


3/40

P a g e | 2

Thank you

The Task Force wishes to thank Council for having given us the opportunity to help itfind ways to enhance the Governance of the municipality.

We gratefully thank the hundreds of residents who completed the Resident Survey,attended the public meetings and provided us with ward designs, background research

material and written comments. We paid close attention to all submissions.

The municipal staff support we received made our task much easier. Everythingincluding arranging meeting locations, ensuring that needed audio and video systems

were available and operational, providing computer assistance in analyzing survey

data, mapping alternatives for ward realignment and taking notes of all meetings wasprovided professionally and efficiently.

While there were a number of municipal employees who worked behind the scenes tosupport the Task Force, we wish to acknowledge and thank the following four who

dedicated endless time, energy and knowledge for our benefit.

Dawna Urquhart, Executive Coordinator to the Chief Administrative Officer

Elinor Mifflin, Municipal Clerk/Freedom of Information Coordinator

Maria Kernohan, Executive Assistant

Mark Anglin, Methods & Procedures Analyst

It quickly became obvious to all of the Task Force members thatDave Weldon ofCivicSolutions+ Inc. was an excellent choice as our facilitator. His deep knowledge

of the Municipal Act often helped us avoid amateur mistakes with regards to what

can and cannot be done under the Act. Apart from his technical knowledge, we are also

very appreciative of his research, perseverance and diplomacy while moderating nine,

at times quite passionate public consultation sessions. His professionalism is second tonone.


4/40


5/40


6/40

P a g e | 5

12. Recommendation: The Municipality should provide more information about the life-

cycle budget and how it affects its constituent communities. See page 27

13. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that an Agricultural Liaison

Committee of Council be established. See page 27

14.Recommendation: For areas of the Municipality that are long distance telephone

calls to Chatham, Council should take immediate steps to ensure that all municipal facilities,

operations and Councillors are reachable via a 1-800 phone number. See page 28

15. Recommendation: Using the Sudbury precedent, Council should urge federal

regulatory authorities to ensure that telephone contact between all Chatham-Kent residents

and businesses can be made without incurring long distance charges. See page 28

16. Recommendation: Municipal Centre Customer Service Staff should become advocates

for the resolution of resident enquiries. See page 29

Reference Material

The Task Force relied heavily on two reports that acted as important reference material:

Meyboom The report of the Final Restructuring Order for Kent County and the City

of Chatham prepared by the Meyboom Commission dated April 28, 1997.

Berkeley The Corporate Review Report of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent

prepared by The Berkeley Consulting Group dated April 2, 2008.


7/40

P a g e | 6

Mandate

The Council Governance Task Force has been created as an adjunct to the CorporateReview Committee in order to explore the Council governance and structure issues

raised by the Corporate Review report. (Berkeley)

The Task Force will be aided by the Corporate Review Report, background reports andpublic consultation in recommending a suitable governance model for the Council of

the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for consideration by Council.

The Corporate Review Committee (The Committee) will establish the framework forthe work of the Task Force.

The Task Force shall be selected by the Committee upon receipt of applications inresponse to public advertisements by citizens to serve the Task Force. In determining

the Task Force membership the Committeeshall have regard to the geographic wards

and the principal of representation by population.

The Executive Coordinator to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality ofChatham-Kent shall act as the Recorder for the Committee.

The Task Force will report on its review to the Committee who report back to Councilwith its findings and recommendations.

The Task Force shall inquire into the composition and organization of Council andshall be guided but not restricted in its inquiry by questions and issues put before it by

the Corporate Review Committee. (May 2009)

Note: The Task Force has chosen to present its final report to both the CorporateReview Committee and Council.


8/40

P a g e | 7

Task Force Members

Task Force Members appointed by Council were:

Robert Adamson Wheatley Ward 1

Daryl Dawson Blenheim Ward 2

Jacqueline Van Eerd Beatty Bothwell Ward 3

Paul J. Haslip - Pain Court Ward 4

Donald Chip Gordon Wallaceburg Ward 5

Marie Cadotte Chatham Ward 6

Dave Weldon of CivicSolutions+ Inc. was appointed by Council as the facilitator to theTask Force.

Process

Initial research conducted on behalf of the Task Force analysed the structure andmembership of a number of Councils from similar Ontario municipalities.

Criteria used in ward boundary reviews and rulings of the Ontario Municipal Board onapplications referred to it were examined.


9/40

P a g e | 8

Resident Survey

The Task Force initiated its public consultation process by releasing a resident survey.Every question on the survey was suggested and written solely by the members of the

Task Force. We started with a blank sheet of paper.

The survey was posted on the C-K web site, paper copies were available in allmunicipal centres, hundreds of copies were delivered by task force members and

hundreds more were sent via a large e-mail list.

Newspaper advertisements and press releases advised residents of the survey andencouraged them to participate.

A total of 321 residents responded to the survey. In 1997, the Meyboom Commissionreceived 234 written submissions regarding the whole amalgamation project.

The Task Force views the results of the survey as a reasonable representation ofresidents thoughts on the questions asked. The comments made at the public

meetings tended to be similar to those received from the survey.

Several survey results are mentioned in the following sections of this report. A complete summary of the responses to the Residents Survey will be downloaded

onto the C-K website.

Public meetings

We held 9 public meetings from October 22, to December 1, 2009. Locations visitedincluded, Wheatley, Blenheim, Tilbury, Chatham, Ridgetown, Bothwell, Wallaceburg,

Dresden and Grande Pointe.

The power point presentation at these meetings included information about:The role of the Task Force

Highlights of the Resident Survey results

Ward boundary realignment criteria

Several new Ward boundary options


10/40

P a g e | 9

Single versus multiple elected representatives per ward

Proposed new ways to involve residents in municipal matters

Compared sizes of a number of other municipal Councils to that of C-K

Invited comments and suggestions from the audience

A total of 200 residents attended the nine public meetings with several Members ofCouncil present at each meeting. Those attending represented 0.19% of the total

population of C-K.

The feedback received at the Public meetings indicates that a significant number ofresidents living outside of the former City of Chatham continue to feel that theiropinions and specific needs are neither understood nor being met by the municipality.

The comments and perceptions of residents were many and varied and canbe summed up under the following general topics:

If it isnt broken, dont fix it

Enhance two way communications

Those who dont attend meetings feel that, they will just do what they want

anyway

Distrust of government

o Frustration in getting responseso Accountability of money spento Strong administration = Weak Council

Chatham rules and gets priority, no matter what

Rural/Urban divide rural seen as disadvantaged

Establish Council Committees

Dont change current structure


11/40

P a g e | 10

Council is too big

Realign Ward Boundaries

o Not enough rural representationo Rural Councillors responsible for too large geographic areaso Chatham to be split up into more than one Wardo Expand the Wallaceburg wardo Fix the Merlin Town Line boundary

Name of the Municipality was a mistake

For seniors only the youth were absent and showed no interest

While some of the more negative comments expressed at the meetings may not besubstantiated, they do represent the very real and frustrated perceptions of a portion of

the population.

We believe that enhanced outreach by the Municipality is necessary. There is a need to better explain the various programs that C-K delivers, outline

proposed changes being considered to communities and provide opportunities forresidents views on issues to be heard.

With enhanced communication networks and concerted efforts to re-connect withresidents, legitimate concerns can be addressed and hearsay fuelled misconceptions

reduced.

- Inventory of CommentsA 38 page inventory of all comments made during the public meetings will be

downloaded to the C-K website.

Community Councils

Berkeley recommended that Community Councils be established and be given theauthority to make decisions on local matters. Council would then be in a better

position to focus on long term issues that affect the broader municipality.


12/40

P a g e | 11

Unfortunately, the Task Force discovered through its research that currentprovincial legislation does not allow a Council to delegate decision making

authority to another body.

If it did, the Task force is of the view that the accountability of Council would beweakened. While Council would continue to have responsibility to raise funds from

taxpayers, it would be giving up some of its authority over the control of expenditures.

Such a structure in our view, would add to, not lessen political tensions.

Recommendation: : Since the delegation of decision making to CommunityCouncils for Chatham-Kent is not permitted at this time by Provincial

legislation, the recommendation of the Corporate Review Report to do so not be

pursued.

Community Focus Groups

The Task Force studied the concept of Community Action Networks currently in placein the City of Greater Sudbury. While the Networks do improve the ability ofcommunities and residents to interact with municipal representatives, the Task Force

feels that the rule laden formal context in which they operate would be too restrictive

in C-K.

The Task Force believes Community Focus Groups will address the issues raised in theBerkeley report regarding the citizen disconnect and communities of interest.

Currently, there exist 8 volunteer based Community Focus Groups in the municipality. Wheatley Concerned Citizens Merlin Advisory Council

Erieau Partnership Association Shrewsbury Raglan

Bothwell Community Boosters Ridgetown Revitalization Committee

Dresden.ca East Side Pride

A ninth organization, the Wallaceburg Task Force has been a special case where senior

governments provided temporary funding for full-time staffing. We suspect that this


13/40

P a g e | 12

Wallaceburg community group will continue on as a volunteer organization once the

government funding ends.

What follows is how one of the most successful of these groups described their

organization:

1. After amalgamation, we knew that if we did not form some type of FocusGroup, our communitys concerns would not be heard.

2. It is an apolitical group.3. Sub-committees are formed to handle various issue categories.4. An annual membership fee of $5.00 is charged to cover costs.5. There is a chairperson, treasurer and secretary. No board.6. Agendas are prepared by the chair.7. The only rule is, the first concern brought to a meeting by a non member is free.

Subsequent issues raised trigger a $5.00 fee, which simultaneously provides the

resident with a one-year membership. Members can bring multiple concerns to

a meeting.

8. Minutes of meetings are distributed in local stores.9. Municipal funding has never been requested in order to minimize red tape.10. Elected representatives often attend meetings as observers.11.There is a secret hand shake. (Not really, we just wanted to see if you were

paying attention!)

Recommendation: Council should encourage and promote the formation of

additional volunteer Community Focus Groups throughout the municipality.

Municipal support for these groups should be determined by Council andAdministration.

We would suggest that such support be offered with as few conditions as possible.


14/40

P a g e | 13

Size of Council

BerkeleyPage 19 of Berkeley states: We (Berkeley) are recommending that Chatham-Kent

reduce the size of its Council to 10 or 11 members, preferably by altering Ward boundaries.

Council should only accept this recommendation if it accepts our recommendation respectingCommunity Councils. Reducing Council size without implementing Community Councils

would be too damaging to areas outside Chatham.

Recommendation: Since the Task Force has rejected the concept of Community

Councils as a recommendation, it seems prudent to follow Berkeleys advice and

not recommend a drastic reduction in the size of Council.

Resident Survey

Question #13: Have you ever contacted the Mayor or another member of Council abouta municipal issue? Answer: 65% Yes.

Question # 14: Have you ever contacted more than one member of Council about the

same matter? Answer: 68% Yes.

Question # 19: Do you think that the present Chatham-Kent Council is too large?

Answer 66% Yes.

Question #20: In addition to the Mayor, please indicate the number of Councillors that

you think is needed to effectively govern Chatham-Kent?

Answer:

9 councillors 23%

10 councillors 24%

12 councillors 18%

17 councillors 20% (the status quo)

Other 15%

Total 100%

Question #22: Should there be more than one Councillor elected to serve each ward?

Answer 59% Yes.

Question # 23: Does the current make up of Council provide your community with

appropriate representation? Answer: 61% Yes

Even though the Task Force is not prepared to recommend a significant reduction in the size

of Council, it is still rather striking that 65% of the survey respondents would prefer to see a

smaller number of people sitting at the Council table.


15/40

P a g e | 14

Representatives per Ward

Throughout all of the public meetings it was very clear to the Task Force, that there isno significant interest in having one elected Councillor per ward.

What did pop out of the entire public consultation process was the disparity betweenwards with regards to the number of elected representatives.

Wards 1, 3, 4 and 5 combined have 46,415 residents. Each of those residents has 2elected representatives at the Council table.

Each of the 16,470 residents of Ward 2 has 3 elected representatives Ward 6, with its population of 45,292 lays claim to 6 elected representatives per

resident.

Flipping perception around 180 degrees, each one of the 6 elected representatives ofWard 6 is faced with potential of having to deal with questions and issues from all

45,292 residents. The representatives from Ward 5 have a total of 10,903 residents to

field calls from. It would be fair to say that the work load of Councillors in Ward 6 has

the potential to be significantly higher than those Councillors from other Wards.

Population Per Councillor

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ward

Population

Population Per Ward

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ward

Population


16/40

P a g e | 15

Recommendation:The Task Force recommends that, two Councillors beelected from each Ward.

In order to implement this recommendation, a redesign of the number of Wards andtheir boundaries is absolutely necessary.

Ward Design

We wish to remind the reader that the October 2014 is the earliest municipal electionthat could possibly implement changes to the Ward boundaries.

The current design of C-K Wards was established by the Restructuring Order of theMeyboom Commission.

One of the most significant guidelines used by the Ontario Municipal Board to judgethe validity of municipal ward designs is a limit on the variance of population of one

ward against the average population of all wards in the municipality.

The variance in total population of one ward should not exceed 25% of the averagepopulation of all wards.

The chart on the following page provides a rather interesting piece ofinformation. When the OMB variance calculation is applied to the existing

ward structure of C-K, the variance range is from -40.5% to + 151.2%. If

those variances as they exist today were submitted to the OMB for review,

the design would very likely be rejected.


17/40

P a g e | 16

The Current 6 Wards and 17 Councillors

Variance Calculation

Versus

The New 8 Wards and 16 Councillors

6 Wards

Population

8 Wards

Population

Diff % Counc 6 Wards

Pop/Counc

Counc 8 Wards

Pop/

Counc.

Change %

Ward 1 11,226 12,962 +1,736 +15% 2 5,613 2 6,481 +868 +

Ward 2 16,470 14,032 -2,438 -15% 3 5,490 2 7,016 +1526 +

Ward 3 11,477 12,233 +756 +6% 2 5,738 2 6,117 +379 +

Ward 4 12,989 12,276 -713 -5% 2 6,494 2 6,138 -356 -

Ward 5 10,723 12,360 +1,637 +15% 2 5,361 2 6,180 +819 +

Ward 6 45,292 14,794 -30,498 -67% 6 7,549 2 7,397 -152 -

Ward 7 -- 14,751 +14,751 -- -- 2 7,376 -173

Ward 8 -- 14,769 +14,769 -- -- 2 7,385 -164

Totals 108,177 108,177 17 6,363 16 6,761

Variance Calculation 6 Wards 8 Wards

Average Population 18,029 13,522

Lowest Population 10,723 #5 12,233 #3

Difference 7,126 1,289

% Variance -40.5% -9.5%

Highest Population 45,292 #6 14,794 #6

Difference from Average 27,263 1,272

% Variance +151.2% +9.4%

Provincial Variance Guideline 25.0% 25.0%


18/40

P a g e | 17

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that two additional wards becreated for a total of 8 wards. (see Map at the end of the Report)

The new ward design fixes the request we received to correct the boundary of Ward 1along the Merlin Town Line.

The Wallaceburg ward has been expanded to include the area north and west ofexisting ward boundary.

Chatham has been divided into three wards. The variance calculation the new 8 ward design offers is only 9.5%. It is the Task Forces opinion that the new ward design also maintains the community

of interest guideline that the OMB considers as part of its review process of ward

realignments.

Population Per Ward

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ward

P

opulation

Population Per Councillor

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ward

P

opulation


19/40

P a g e | 18

Appended at the end of this Report are the following Maps:o Boundaries of the proposed 8 Wards.o

An enlargement of the former Chatham area showing detailed boundaries forproposed wards 6, 7 and 8.

o Existing ward boundary structure

An Idea for the next generation

Eight Full-Time Councillors

The Task Force has designed an 8 ward municipality that has balanced the population to a

very low variance. Our principal recommendation calls for 8 wards of 2 Councillors each

for a total of 16. We see another possibility for the future.

At this time we simply wish to present the idea that if Council were to be reduced to one

Councillor per ward, those on Council together with the Mayor should be considered full-

time positions. How does this improve the Governance of the Municipality?

Each Councillor would have an office within his or her ward, preferably in facilitiesowned by the Municipality.

Wards 1, 3 and 4 could maintain a main and a sub-office in order to have a presence inTilbury & Wheatley, Ridgetown & Bothwell, Dresden & Pain Court.

Councillors would have more time to meet with residents, attend day-time communityfunctions and Council committee meetings.

Unlike Provincial and Federal politicians, municipal Councillors would spend the vastmajority of their time doing Council work within the Municipality.

Councillors and the Mayor would have time to travel outside of the Municipality tohelp promote and encourage economic development. We envision Team C-K visiting

foreign Countries and businesses in an effort to raise the profile of the community. A team of full-time Councillors and Mayor has the potential of creating a huge

competitive advantage over other nearby municipalities who are much larger and who

are all looking to expand and diversify their economic base.


20/40

P a g e | 19

Committee of the Whole

Currently the Chatham-Kent Council functions without Standing Committees. Most Council business comes directly to the floor without having first been discussed

by either a smaller group of Councillors or in a less formal Committee of the Whole

environment.

Such a structure is unusual in a municipal setting. Most Councils manage their deliberations either by way of a series of Standing

Committees made up of a smaller number of Councillors or through a Committee of

the Whole system.

In either case, all matters are normally discussed by one of the Committees beforebeing presented formally for debate by the entire Council.

Currently, when matters come to C-K Council, they are debated and Councildetermines how it wishes to dispose of them.

If a Councillor wishes to get more information or to research an issue further beforemaking a decision, that opportunity is not available unless a majority of Council agree

to a deferral.

There is no time for sober second thought before making a final decision. There is noopportunity for Councillors to seek resident input or for residents to contact theirelected representatives to express their views.

The Task Force is convinced that a series of Standing Committees will lead tojurisdictional disputes over which Committee should be dealing with a particular issue

or could result in different Committees making contrary recommendations on similar

matters. As Committees stake out their respective mandates, a silo effect could pervade

municipal decision making both at the Council and staff levels.

The Task force does not support the establishment of a series of Standing Committeesto process the matters coming before Council.


21/40

P a g e | 20

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that Council should conductits business through a Committee of the Whole structure.

All matters would normally first be dealt with at Committee of the Whole. Debate and discussion would be less formal than at Council meetings. Committee of

the Whole recommendations would then have to be presented to Council for final

decision.

All members of Council would receive the Committee of the Whole agenda. NoCouncillor would ever feel as though they were out of the loop, or surprised by a

committee recommendation they had not previously heard of. Everyone on Council

gets to participate.

Committee of the Whole meetings should be held at least one week prior to the CouncilMeeting where matters discussed at the Committee Meeting can be acted on by

Council.

The position of Chair of the Committee of the Whole should be rotated among theCouncillors with each member serving for a term of about three months. This will

relieve the Mayor of the responsibility of chairing both the Council and Committee

meetings.

The person serving as Chair of the Committee of the Whole should be designated as theActing Mayor in the absence of the Mayor.

Over Councils term, this will provide the opportunity for all Council Members to honetheir skills chairing meetings and will establish certainty regarding who has the

responsibilities of the Mayor in the event that he/she is absent. (16 councillors X 3

months as chair = 48 months or one full 4 year term of office)

Residents could make deputations before the Committee of the Whole. A Committee of the Whole system will enhance residents ability to bring matters of

concern to Councils attention and to comment on proposed plans or policies being

discussed by Council.


22/40

P a g e | 21

The Resident DisconnectOwn the Podium fixing the disconnect

Berkeley (page 17) we were constantly hearing about alienation and discontent,especially in the communities outside of Chatham.

During the public consultation process, the Task Force also heard a tsunami ofcomments that demonstrated the depth of frustration across most of the municipality.

Residents of Chatham-Kent need to own the podium that provides accessto their elected representatives.

Deputations to Council

Berkeley (page 23) One of the main difficulties with the Procedural Bylaw is that thereare a great many hurdles that must be overcome before a deputation from a citizen is

permitted. In fact, the Clerk and CAO are given a great deal of authority over the

process. Unfortunately, we have been left with the impression by interviewees and

external stakeholders that this authority is frequently invoked. We have been told by

some that potential deputants are in fact required to submit their entire presentation

in writing in advance so that it can be vetted by Administration before it is allowed to

be presented. To the extent that this might be true, we find this practice quite

unacceptable and unjustifiable.

The Task Force noted the following comment during the Bothwell public meeting: (Onthe subject of deputations to Council) . We have had a few deputations definitely

unfair to us. We have to submit our information one week in advance so it can get on

the agenda. Why not just the topic and not the whole document? They make it so it is

not editable. There should be some simple way to give deputations at least the same

length of time the city planners talk. When Council has the information ahead of time,

Council is ready to rebuke and we dont get a chance to say anything.

The current Procedure By-law is stacked against resident input into the Councildecision making process.

A person wishing to make a presentation to Council must apply in writing to the Clerkseeking permission to do so.

A written submission must be presented and if the matter is not on the CouncilAgenda, municipal staff determines if the matter falls within the Councils jurisdiction.

No more than two deputations are allowed per Council meeting (Procedure By-law,

Article 7.13).


23/40

P a g e | 22

In effect, the bureaucracy controls who get to address their elected representatives andwho does not.

A maximum of only 48 residents in a community of over 108,000 people can addressCouncil over the course of a year.

To make matters worse, deputants are only supposed to address Council on matters onthe Council Agenda.

Requests to do so must be made six working days before the Council meeting(Procedure By-law, Article 7.6).

But, the first time a person can be sure that a matter is on the Agenda occurs when it ispublished and, that does not occur until noon on the Friday, one business day before

the meeting (Procedure By-law, Article 4.3); a whole week after the final date to

request deputant status.

While not specifically designed to do so, all of the above leads to a very non-inclusivedecision making process that alienates the voting public and enhances the feeling of

disconnect referred to in Berkeley.

Recommendation: We recommend that the rules for Deputations before

Committee of the Whole and Council be modified as follows:

Committee of the Whole:

Deputants can address the Committee of the Whole No limit on the number of Deputants Notice of the subject to be addressed provided to the Clerk by noon

on the day of the meeting

Eight minute speaking time limit per DeputantCouncil:

Deputants can address Council on matters on the Agenda No limit on the number of Deputants Notice of intent to appear and subject to be addressed to be provided

to the Clerk by noon on the day of the meeting


24/40

P a g e | 23

Eight minute time limit per Deputant if he/she has not previouslyaddressed Committee of the Whole or Council on the matter

Five minute time limit per Deputant if he/she has previouslyaddressed Committee of the Whole or Council on the matter.

With a new Committee of the Whole structure in place, opportunities for publicinterface with Council will be enhanced. While there may be a concern that the time

devoted to hearing Deputants could become excessive, experience in other

jurisdictions demonstrates that such is not the case.

Careful meeting management by its Chair should ensure that Deputations proceedsmoothly, that there is not undue duplication of material presented and that time

limits are respected.

These relaxed rules should assure residents that their Council is prepared to hear theirconcerns and points of view.

The alienation and disconnect expressed to the Task Force should diminish markedly.

Recommendation:To ensure that Council Members and the public have

sufficient time to absorb the impact of recommendations being made by staff

and others, Agendas for all Committee and Council meetings should be made

available by the close of business on the Thursday of the week before theparticular meetingis to be held.

This will provide everyone time to digest the material, to make enquiries of staff orCouncil and to clarify issues before Committee or Council debate the matter.

We expect that most questions residents or Councillors may have, should be able to beresolved before the meeting in question, thereby minimizing the number of people who

feel a need to appear as Deputants.

Steps to implement the initiatives outlined as part of the own the podiumrecommendations should begin immediately.


25/40

P a g e | 24

Improving Communication

During the public meeting all too often we heard comments to the effect thatAdministration is the tail wagging the dog and that a strong Administration equals a

weak Council. The Task Force does not agree with these comments. The frustrationexpressed by those comments however did get our full attention.

Councils role as the governing body for the municipality should be to provide theorganisation with appropriate foresight, oversight and insight.

The role of a Councillor need not be to get things done for constituents. A few simple changes to how the municipality communicates with its residents and to

the ways and means that residents can interact with the municipality will go a long way

to ensuring that this is indeed the case.

Some changes that involve businesses and agencies outside of the control of themunicipality will take longer to implement but need to be pursued.

Municipal Name

The current name of the Municipality is an issue that several residents raised with TaskForce members. We believe that Chatham-Kent Council should take steps to addressthis issue.

It is an understatement to say that a number of Chatham-Kent residents were nothappy with the creation of the municipality 13 years ago.

They were comfortable living in their own smaller communities with their own Counciland their own way of conducting municipal business.

Not only was a new, more impersonal structure thrust upon them, but they were alsotold that the name of their former municipality would no longer exist. And, to make

matters worse, the name of the big city was going to become the name of where they

chose to live.

One individual at the Wallaceburg public meeting expressed quite well the sentimentsof many residents: The name was the biggest mistake. It alienated every rural person.

There is nothing worse than telling a rural person that you are from the former

community of somewhere. We should never have to say that. It is the worst insult to


26/40

P a g e | 25

have to experience but it is the easiest to fix. How much pride have you lost in your

community since amalgamation?

About 60% of current residents of Chatham-Kent live in areas that were not under thejurisdiction of the former City.

Recommendation: Council should begin a process that provides significant

resident input into determining whether they wish the current name of the

municipality to be changed; and if so, to select its new name.

Community Contact

The Task Force explored several options to mitigate the time and travel involved toattend Council meetings for residents in outlying communities. We suggested that

Council meetings be held in locations other than the Council Chambers, but heard that

residents felt the idea would neither improve communications nor increase attendance

at Council meetings.

We heard that there would be no guarantees that a meeting being held in Wheatley,for instance, would have matters on the Agenda that were of particular concern to

residents there.

Some residents told us that they were sure that some members of Council had neverbeen to their part of Chatham-Kent and, therefore, did not understand their specific

community issues.

It is imperative that the Council and staff better understand the concerns of residentsin all corners of their large, diverse municipality. Rather than bring a meeting with a

pre-determined agenda to one of the Chatham-Kent communities, occasional meetings

where residents can make Councillors aware of issues that are important to them

would be more beneficial.


27/40

P a g e | 26

Recommendation: We recommend that at least one Town Hall type meeting be

held annually in each Ward.

The Town Hall meetings should be co-chaired by the appropriate Ward Councillorsand all Members of Council should be encouraged to attend.

An update of Council initiatives in the particular community should be provided withthe balance of the meeting devoted to answering questions from and listening to

concerns of the communitys residents.

E-Mail and the C-K Website

Resident Survey: Question # 18 What method would you prefer to use to contact theMayor or members of Council? Answer: e-mail 71%

However, one individual commented that finding a Councillors email address was likesearching for a hidden door in a video game.Such challenges should be left for video

game players.

Recommendation: The Chatham-Kent web site should be redesigned to make it

much more intuitive or user friendly.

Contact information for Councillors and staff should be front and centre. Continuousupdates of pertinent, current information needs to be provided.

The search feature of the website needs to be much more obvious. Even thoughGoogle technology is used, search results are far from being comprehensive.

The home page of the website should include a very visible large button that indicatesHave your say or opinions or The podium. There should be some easily accessedmethod for residents to electronically contact the municipality in order to express an

opinion or to make an enquiry.

Chatham-Kent should vigorously pursue using social media to interact with itsresidents.


28/40

P a g e | 27

There was a distinct lack of participation in the Task Force public interaction processby younger residents of Chatham-Kent. Apathy with the political process is not unique

to either Chatham-Kent, or to the municipal sector of government.

Governments at all levels need to address this problem, and utilizing media that youngpeople use is one avenue that should be pursued. Chatham-Kent should position itself

as a leader in engaging its young residents in civic discourse.

Chatham gets everything

A recurring theme heard in the public meetings was that residents do not feel that theyhave received value for their tax dollars since the creation of Chatham-Kent.

We repeatedly were told that Chatham gets everything at the expense and to thedetriment of the other communities.While we do not believe that to be the case,

it is the perception of many residents.

Recommendation: The Municipality should provide more information about the

life-cycle budget and how it affects its constituent communities.

While this may not be possible for all of its operating budgets, capital works candefinitely be segregated on the basis of where they are constructed. Over time, this should demonstrate that the creation of the amalgamated municipality

is and has been financially beneficial to the areas outside of the former City.

The Agriculture Industry A significant economic engine for C-K

Representatives of the agricultural sector addressed the Task Force and advised of thesignificant impact that it has in the Chatham-Kent economy.

They expressed the opinion that most Councillors did not understand their specificissues, needs and contributions and suggested that there should be some special

representation of the sector on Council.


29/40

P a g e | 28

Pictures of turn-of-the-century Councils located in the Blenheim Municipal ServiceCentre show that Councils of that era actually had an agricultural representative sitting

as a member.

This contributes further to the perceived rural/urban divide.

Recommendation: The Task Forcerecommends that an Agricultural Liaison

Committee of Council be established.

Several Councillors should be appointed as members to work with the agriculturalcommunity and to serve as a conduit for bringing their concerns to Councils attention.

The point of this recommendation is to emphasize that Council needs to spend asmuch time listening and helping the agricultural industry as it does the various

Business Improvement Associations and Chambers of Commerce across the

municipality.

It is like living in an outpost

Because of the large geographical area of Chatham-Kent, many parts of the communityare not accessible to others by telephone without paying long distance charges.

Recommendation: For areas of the Municipality that are long distance

telephone calls to Chatham, Council should take immediate steps to ensure that

all municipal facilities, operations and Councillors are reachable via a 1-800

phone number.

After several years of lobbying by members of the Greater Sudbury City council, theCRTC, on December 20, 2007, approved the creation of an expanded calling area forGreater Sudbury.


30/40

P a g e | 29

Recommendation: Using the Sudbury precedent, Council should urge

federal regulatory authorities to ensure that telephone contact between all

Chatham-Kent residents and businesses can be made without incurring

long distance charges.

Similarly, Council should work to have all residents and businesses inChatham-Kent included in the same phone book.

There is a proliferation of various media serving Chatham-Kent communities. Councilmeetings are currently televised live on cable television, yet all residents of Chatham-

Kent are not included in its service area.

Outlying communities, as a result, feel left out of the loop if they want to keep up todate on Council deliberations.

While beyond the jurisdiction of Council, it shouldwork with cabletelevision providers to expand the areas that they serve with an ultimate

goal of having the entire community serviced.

At the same time, the municipality should provide live video steaming orpod-casting of Council Meetings as an alternative or supplement to cable

television coverage, giving residents from all corners of Chatham-Kent

who have a computer real-time access to Council meetings.

Not all newspapers serving the former Chatham area are delivered everywhere in themunicipality. This contributes to the feeling of living in an outpost that we heard from

some residents. Efforts to encourage municipal wide circulation of print

media should be initiated.

Municipal Centres

The establishment of Municipal Service Centres after the creation of Chatham-Kentwas a focal point of the delivery of services outside of the former City of Chatham.

The creation and operation of those centres has been a success. The Task Force heard that the Customer Service Staff in the Municipal Centres

understood the pulse of the communities that they serve and should be given more

latitude to resolve resident enquiries and complaints.


31/40

P a g e | 30

If the role of Customer Service Staff is modified to allow more latitude in resolvingresident issues, then Council Members time will be freed up to allow them to focus on

longer term issues facing the municipality.

Recommendation: Municipal Centre Customer Service Staff should become

advocates for the resolution of resident enquiries.

The Task Forces goal with regards to this recommendation is that Customer ServiceStaff should become top of the mind or the go to people for all Municipal residents

who have a need to contact the Municipality.


32/40

P a g e | 31

Conclusion:

The Task Force is proud to note that every recommendation is the result of

unanimous agreement amongst the six members. After reviewing all the input

we received from the citizens of Chatham-Kent, we offer these suggestions withconviction that they can improve citizen input into the process of governing the

municipality. We also believe our recommendations can help Council improve

the organization of its workload.

Additional information:

The following items will be made available on the C-K Municipal website.

1. The full summary of the Resident Survey.2. The full Inventory of ideas and comments from the public meetings.


33/40


34/40


35/40


36/40

P a g e | 35

Addendum

On April 12, 2010, Council adopted a series of amendments to the Procedural By-Law. TheReport of the Task Force had been finalized at that time, but had not yet been presented to

Councils Corporate Review Committee. Since parts of our Final Report deal with

implications of the Procedural By-law on residents access to the municipal decision making

process, the Task Force reviewed the new By-law. Our attention and focus was limited to the

amendments made to the section of the By-Law involving Deputations to Council.

We offer the following observations and recommendations with regard to the new

deputation rules.

7.4 Original: Deputations shall not:

f) appear for the purpose of publicly announcing a local event.

New 7.4: Deputations shall not:

f) appear for the purpose of publicly announcing a local event unless authorized by the Chief

Administration Officer.

Comment:

The by-law is silent on what criteria the CAO will use to authorize the announcement of local

events as outlined in 7.4 f. The public would clearly like to know what the rules are

concerning this section of the by-law.

7.6 Original: Any person who wishes to appear before Council shall make written

application to the Clerk at least six (6) working days preceding the Council meeting, to be

placed on the Agenda to appear before Council at the meeting at which it will be dealing with

the item of interest to the deputation. A written submission must be submitted with the


37/40

P a g e | 36

request to appear and shall be copied and distributed as Deputation submissions to Council

Members.

New 7.6: Deputation Item on Current Agenda

Any person who wishes to appear before Council regarding an item on the current agenda

shall make a written application to the Clerk, by 3:00 p.m., the day of the meeting, to be

placed on the Agenda to appear before Council at the meeting at which it will be dealing with

the item of interest to the deputation. Presentation material must be submitted with the

request to appear and shall be copied and distributed as Deputation submissions to

Members.

a) The Clerk shall review the presentation material and in consultation with the ChiefAdministration Officer, determine if the subject matter and nature of the deputationsrequest falls within the jurisdiction of Council.

Comment:

Given that the deputation has made a specific request to present or comment on an Item

already listed on Councils agenda, it should be obvious that the matter is within the

jurisdiction of Council.

We recommend that 7.6 a) be deleted .

New 7.6 b): The Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer, may refuse a

deputation where there has been at least one (1) public meeting held at which the public was

provided the opportunity to make formal presentations on that subject matter.

Comment:

The Task force is of the view that this section should be deleted. Its inclusion will not help to

reduce the feeling of disconnect between residents and the municipality.

In a democratic society, the ability of residents to make their opinions on a matter known to

their elected representatives should not be vetted by members of the staff. To restrict such


38/40

P a g e | 37

access if the matter has been the subject of a prior public meeting could eliminate a residents

right to appear at future OMB Hearings if the resident was unable to be present at the

previous public meeting.

New 7.6 c): A maximum of five minutes shall be allotted for each deputation.

Only upon a verbal motion to extend the five-minute limit, adopted by a majority of

Members, shall the five-minute limit be extended.

Comment:

The original time limit was 10 minutes. Consistent with the recommendations in our Report,

the Task Force is recommending 8 minutes.

New 7.6 d): The number of deputations to address an item on the current agenda will be

unlimited, but subject to the discretion of Members, can be limited in order to allow for

efficient and effective operation of the meeting proceedings.

Comment:

Therefore, unlimited is not actually so. We recommend that the number of deputations to

address a current agenda item be unlimited and not subject to limitations by Council.

New 7.7: Deputation Item not on Current Agenda

When a request is received for a deputation wishing to be heard on an item which is not listed

on the agenda, the person shall submit in writing, the nature of the presentation to the Clerk.

Comment:

The requirement for written submission of the nature of the presentation is reasonable.

However, subsections of this new section require that presentation material needs to be


39/40

P a g e | 38

reviewed by staff before the request can be grated (7.7 a). It is our view that the nature or

topic of the presentation should be all that the Deputant needs to submit.

New 7.7 a): The clerk shall review the presentation material and in consultation with the

Chief Administration Officer, determine if the subject matter and nature of the deputations

request falls within the jurisdiction of Council.

Comment:

Upon hearing the presentation, Council should determine (with the help of its staff if it so

desires) whether a matter is of municipal jurisdiction. Matters that are of municipal

jurisdiction change over time. Not too many years ago most people would have said thatclimate change, for instance, was a matter outside of a municipalitys jurisdiction; yet now,

most have policies dealing with how they will minimize impact on global warming through

changes in their day-to-day operations, etc.

New 7.7 c): Once it has been concluded that the presentation/request does fall within the

jurisdiction of Council, the Clerk shall forward a copy of the written submission to the Chief

Administrative Officer to determine if an administrative report should accompany the

submission on the next or subsequent agenda. The Chief Administration Officer shall

determine which General Manager shall report on the issue and the timing of that report. TheClerk shall advise the deputation accordingly.

Comment:

We recommend that the deputation simply be allowed to make its presentation. It should be

left to Council to request (or not) an administrative report with regards to the issue raised by

the deputation.

New 7.7 e): A maximum of ten minutes shall be allotted for each deputation .

Comment:

As above, we recommend eight minutes.


40/40

P a g e | 39

New 7.7f): No more than a combination of four planned deputations or presentations shall

be allowed at any meeting.

Comment:

We disagree with the limit on the number of deputations per meeting.

Although we certainly understand the need to keep the length Council meetings to a

reasonable amount of time, our recommendation to allow deputations to the Committee of

the Whole should go a long way towards managing and possibly reducing the time spent

listening to deputations in the more formal setting of Council meetings.

New 7.9: The Chief Administration Officer may refuse deputations under the following

circumstances:

b) No written submission together with handouts or materials is provided with therequest to appear.

Comment:

We disagree with the requirement that the entire presentation be submitted in writing prior

to the meeting.

Documents

CK Community Governance Task Force final report