CHATHAM-KENT COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT April, 2010

Table of Contents
Item Page Item Page

Table of Contents` Thank you Introduction Recommendations Reference Material Mandate Task Force Members Process Resident Survey Public Meetings Inventory of Comments Community Councils Community Focus Groups Size of Council Representatives per Ward Ward Design Variance Calculation Two additional Wards

1 2 3 3-5 5 6 7 7 8 8 10 10 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17

The Resident Disconnect, -Own the Podium Deputations to Council Improving Communication The Municipal Name Community Contact -Town Hall Meetings E-mail/C-K Website Chatham gets everything The Agriculture Industry Its like living in an outpost Municipal Centres Conclusion Addendum 25-26 26 27 27-28 28-29 29-30 31 35-39 21 21-23 24 24

Maps Existing Ward Design New 8 Ward Design Magnified View of New Chatham Wards 34 32 33

Eight Full time Councillors 18 Committee of the Whole 19 20

Page |2

Thank you
The Task Force wishes to thank Council for having given us the opportunity to help it find 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. Everything including 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 was provided professionally and efficiently. While there were a number of municipal employees who worked behind the scenes to support 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 that Dave Weldon of CivicSolutions+ 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 to none.

Page |3

Introduction
The Task Force approached this project with open minds, no pre-set agendas and a clean slate. We read the relevant reports, consulted the public and became aware of the following issues we thought needed addressing: Accountability Communication Deputation Barriers Disconnect Flawed Ward Design Lack of standing Committees at Council Name of the Municipality Rural versus Urban Unequal Representation

Summary of Recommendations
1. Recommendation: Since the delegation of decision making to Community Councils 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. See page 10 2. Recommendation: Council should encourage and promote the formation of additional volunteer Community Focus Groups throughout the municipality. See page 11 3. 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. See page 13 4. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that, two Councillors be elected from each Ward. See page 14 5. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that two additional wards be created for a total of 8 wards. See page 15 6. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that Council should conduct its business through a Committee of the Whole structure. See page 19 7. Recommendation: We recommend that the rules for Deputations before Committee of the Whole and Council be modified as follows:

Page |4

Committee of the Whole:

Deputants can address 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 Deputant

Council: 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 Eight minute time limit per Deputant if he/she has not previously addressed Committee of the Whole or Council on the matter Five minute time limit per Deputant if he/she has previously addressed Committee of the Whole or Council on the matter See page 21

8. 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 the particular meeting is to be held. See page 23 9.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. See page 24 10. Recommendation: We recommend that at least one Town Hall type meeting be held annually in each Ward. See page 25 11. Recommendation: The Chatham-Kent web site should be redesigned to make it much more intuitive or user friendly. See page 26

Page |5

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

Page |6

Mandate
The Council Governance Task Force has been created as an adjunct to the Corporate Review 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 and public 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 for the work of the Task Force. The Task Force shall be selected by the Committee upon receipt of applications in response to public advertisements by citizens to serve the Task Force. In determining the Task Force membership the Committee shall have regard to the geographic wards and the principal of representation by population. The Executive Coordinator to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent shall act as the Recorder for the Committee. The Task Force will report on its review to the Committee who report back to Council with its findings and recommendations. The Task Force shall inquire into the composition and organization of Council and shall 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 Corporate Review Committee and Council.

Page |7

Task Force Members

Task Force Members appointed by Council were: Robert Adamson Wheatley Daryl Dawson Blenheim Jacqueline Van Eerd Beatty Bothwell Paul J. Haslip - Pain Court Donald Chip Gordon Wallaceburg Marie Cadotte Chatham Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6

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

Process
Initial research conducted on behalf of the Task Force analysed the structure and membership of a number of Councils from similar Ontario municipalities. Criteria used in ward boundary reviews and rulings of the Ontario Municipal Board on applications referred to it were examined.

Page |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 all municipal 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 and encouraged them to participate.

A total of 321 residents responded to the survey. In 1997, the Meyboom Commission
received 234 written submissions regarding the whole amalgamation project. The Task Force views the results of the survey as a reasonable representation of residents 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 visited included, 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

Page |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 of Council 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 of residents living outside of the former City of Chatham continue to feel that their opinions and specific needs are neither understood nor being met by the municipality.

The comments and perceptions of residents were many and varied and can be 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 responses o Accountability of money spent o 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

P a g e | 10

Council is too big

Realign Ward Boundaries o Not enough rural representation o Rural Councillors responsible for too large geographic areas o Chatham to be split up into more than one Ward o Expand the Wallaceburg ward o 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 be substantiated, 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 for residents views on issues to be heard. With enhanced communication networks and concerted efforts to re-connect with residents, legitimate concerns can be addressed and hearsay fuelled misconceptions reduced.

- Inventory of Comments
A 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 the authority 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.

P a g e | 11

Unfortunately, the Task Force discovered through its research that current provincial 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 be weakened. 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 Community Councils 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 place in the City of Greater Sudbury. While the Networks do improve the ability of communities 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 the Berkeley 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 Bothwell Community Boosters Dresden.ca Shrewsbury Raglan Ridgetown Revitalization Committee 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

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 Focus Group, 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 and Administration. We would suggest that such support be offered with as few conditions as possible.

P a g e | 13

Size of Council
Berkeley Page 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 respecting Community 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 about a 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.

P a g e | 14

Representatives per Ward

Throughout all of the public meetings it was very clear to the Task Force, that there is no significant interest in having one elected Councillor per ward. What did pop out of the entire public consultation process was the disparity between wards with regards to the number of elected representatives. Wards 1, 3, 4 and 5 combined have 46,415 residents. Each of those residents has 2 elected 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 of Ward 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 Ward

50,000 40,000 Population 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1 2 3 Ward 4 5 6
Population 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Population Per Councillor

3 Ward

P a g e | 15

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that, two Councillors be

elected from each Ward. In order to implement this recommendation, a redesign of the number of Wards and their boundaries is absolutely necessary.

Ward Design
We wish to remind the reader that the October 2014 is the earliest municipal election that could possibly implement changes to the Ward boundaries. The current design of C-K Wards was established by the Restructuring Order of the Meyboom Commission. One of the most significant guidelines used by the Ontario Municipal Board to judge the 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 average population of all wards. The chart on the following page provides a rather interesting piece of information. 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.

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. 6,481 7,016 6,117 6,138 6,180 7,397 7,376 7,385 6,761 Change %

Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8 Totals

11,226 16,470 11,477 12,989 10,723 45,292 --108,177

12,962 14,032 12,233 12,276 12,360 14,794 14,751 14,769 108,177

+1,736 -2,438 +756 -713 +1,637 -30,498 +14,751 +14,769

+15% -15% +6% -5% +15% -67%

2 3 2 2 2 6 --17

5,613 5,490 5,738 6,494 5,361 7,549 --6,363

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16

+868 +1526 +379 -356 +819 -152 -173 -164

+15% +28% +7% -5% +15% -2% -2% -2%

Variance Calculation Average Population Lowest Population Difference % Variance Highest Population Difference from Average % Variance Provincial Variance Guideline

6 Wards 18,029 10,723 #5 7,126 -40.5% 45,292 #6 27,263 +151.2% 25.0%

8 Wards 13,522 12,233 #3 1,289 -9.5% 14,794 #6 1,272 +9.4% 25.0%

P a g e | 17

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that two additional wards be

created 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 1 along the Merlin Town Line. The Wallaceburg ward has been expanded to include the area north and west of existing 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

20000 Population
Population 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Population Per Councillor

15000 10000 5000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ward

Ward

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 for proposed 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 fulltime positions. How does this improve the Governance of the Municipality? Each Councillor would have an office within his or her ward, preferably in facilities owned by the Municipality. Wards 1, 3 and 4 could maintain a main and a sub-office in order to have a presence in Tilbury & Wheatley, Ridgetown & Bothwell, Dresden & Pain Court. Councillors would have more time to meet with residents, attend day-time community functions and Council committee meetings. Unlike Provincial and Federal politicians, municipal Councillors would spend the vast majority of their time doing Council work within the Municipality. Councillors and the Mayor would have time to travel outside of the Municipality to help 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.

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 before being presented formally for debate by the entire Council. Currently, when matters come to C-K Council, they are debated and Council determines how it wishes to dispose of them. If a Councillor wishes to get more information or to research an issue further before making 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 no opportunity for Councillors to seek resident input or for residents to contact their elected representatives to express their views. The Task Force is convinced that a series of Standing Committees will lead to jurisdictional 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 Committees to process the matters coming before Council.

P a g e | 20

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that Council should conduct

its 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. No Councillor 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 Council Meeting 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 the Councillors 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 the Acting Mayor in the absence of the Mayor. Over Councils term, this will provide the opportunity for all Council Members to hone their 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.

P a g e | 21

The Resident Disconnect

Own 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 of comments that demonstrated the depth of frustration across most of the municipality. Residents of Chatham-Kent need to own the podium that provides access to their elected representatives. Deputations to Council Berkeley (page 23) One of the main difficulties with the Procedural Bylaw is that there are 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: (On the 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 Council decision making process. A person wishing to make a presentation to Council must apply in writing to the Clerk seeking permission to do so. A written submission must be presented and if the matter is not on the Council Agenda, 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).

P a g e | 22

In effect, the bureaucracy controls who get to address their elected representatives and who does not. A maximum of only 48 residents in a community of over 108,000 people can address Council over the course of a year. To make matters worse, deputants are only supposed to address Council on matters on the 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 is published 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-inclusive decision 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 Deputant

Council:

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

P a g e | 23

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

With a new Committee of the Whole structure in place, opportunities for public interface 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 proceed smoothly, 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 their concerns 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 the particular meeting is to be held. This will provide everyone time to digest the material, to make enquiries of staff or Council 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 be resolved 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 podium recommendations should begin immediately.

P a g e | 24

Improving Communication During the public meeting all too often we heard comments to the effect that Administration 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 frustration expressed by those comments however did get our full attention. Councils role as the governing body for the municipality should be to provide the organisation 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 the municipality 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 Task Force members. We believe that Chatham-Kent Council should take steps to address this issue. It is an understatement to say that a number of Chatham-Kent residents were not happy with the creation of the municipality 13 years ago. They were comfortable living in their own smaller communities with their own Council and their own way of conducting municipal business. Not only was a new, more impersonal structure thrust upon them, but they were also told 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 sentiments of 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

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 the jurisdiction 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 to attend 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 never been 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 residents in 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.

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 Councillors and all Members of Council should be encouraged to attend. An update of Council initiatives in the particular community should be provided with the 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 the Mayor or members of Council? Answer: e-mail 71% However, one individual commented that finding a Councillors email address was like searching 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. Continuous updates of pertinent, current information needs to be provided. The search feature of the website needs to be much more obvious. Even though Google technology is used, search results are far from being comprehensive. The home page of the website should include a very visible large button that indicates Have your say or opinions or The podium. There should be some easily accessed method 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 its residents.

P a g e | 27

There was a distinct lack of participation in the Task Force public interaction process by 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 young people 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 they have 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 the detriment 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 can definitely 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 the significant impact that it has in the Chatham-Kent economy. They expressed the opinion that most Councillors did not understand their specific issues, needs and contributions and suggested that there should be some special representation of the sector on Council.

P a g e | 28

Pictures of turn-of-the-century Councils located in the Blenheim Municipal Service Centre 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 Force recommends that an Agricultural Liaison Committee of Council be established.

Several Councillors should be appointed as members to work with the agricultural community 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 as much 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 community are 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, the CRTC, on December 20, 2007, approved the creation of an expanded calling area for Greater Sudbury.

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 in Chatham-Kent included in the same phone book. There is a proliferation of various media serving Chatham-Kent communities. Council meetings are currently televised live on cable television, yet all residents of ChathamKent are not included in its service area. Outlying communities, as a result, feel left out of the loop if they want to keep up to date on Council deliberations. While beyond the jurisdiction of Council, it should work with cable television 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 or pod-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 the municipality. 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-Kent was 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.

P a g e | 30

If the role of Customer Service Staff is modified to allow more latitude in resolving resident 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 Service Staff should become top of the mind or the go to people for all Municipal residents who have a need to contact the Municipality.

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 with conviction 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.

P a g e | 32

P a g e | 33

P a g e | 34

P a g e | 35

Addendum
On April 12, 2010, Council adopted a series of amendments to the Procedural By-Law. The Report 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

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

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

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 that climate 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. The Clerk 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.

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 the request to appear. Comment: We disagree with the requirement that the entire presentation be submitted in writing prior to the meeting.