Part 2: Governance Review Votes and Divisions – 02/15/2024
- PECConnect
- Feb 14, 2024
- 3 min read
The February 15, 2024 Committee of the Whole meeting featured extended debate on whether the County should proceed with a Governance Structure Review. While Part 1 focused on what was discussed, Part 2 looks closely at who said what, how councillors voted, and how those decisions affect residents across the County.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Several residents addressed council under Item 6.1 – Governance Structure Review – Terms of Reference, each bringing a distinct perspective.
Gary Mooney, speaking as a deputant, argued against initiating a review at this time. He emphasized communities of interest, long-term population projections, and past Ontario Municipal Board decisions. Mooney stated there was no immediate population pressure requiring changes to wards or council size and warned that another review would be disruptive and unnecessary.
During questions, Councillor Roy Pennell pressed Mooney on whether the issue was urgent. Mooney responded that he did not believe there was a problem with ward structure or council size now, though he supported reviewing broader governance practices separately. Audience comments followed.
Monica Alyea cautioned that previous governance reviews had been costly and divisive. She urged council to focus attention and funding on service delivery priorities, not structural reviews, and questioned the value of spending $75,000 on consultants.
Don Wilford raised concerns about financial governance, council size, and long-term spending trends. He argued that council could address governance improvements internally, particularly by creating a finance committee, without hiring outside consultants.
John Thompson supported Mooney’s position. He walked council through the history of earlier reviews, explaining that representation imbalances had already been addressed and that communities of interest were protected under the current structure. He said nothing had changed to justify reopening the issue now.
Dennis Fox offered a contrasting view. He criticized past council processes, argued that the current model lacked voter equity, and urged council to show “credibility and courage” by confronting governance issues directly rather than avoiding them.
Council Debate: Where Councillors Stood
Council discussion revealed two clear camps. On one side, Councillor Chris Braney and Councillor Phil St-Jean strongly supported moving forward with a governance review. Braney framed it as a routine, healthy exercise that municipalities should undertake periodically. St-Jean emphasized future growth, particularly in urban centres, and argued that governance decisions should be informed by updated data rather than past outcomes.
Councillor Bill Roberts also supported the review, describing it as a way to improve performance and governance practices without pre-determining outcomes. He stressed that a third-party review would offer transparency and objectivity.
Opposition came from several councillors who questioned the need, timing, and cost.
Councillor Roy Pennell repeatedly stated that council had not first sat down internally to discuss direction and priorities. He argued that spending public money on another study was unjustified when residents were focused on roads, taxes, and services.
Councillor Janice Maynard said the staff report was effectively about electoral structure, not general governance, and warned that reopening the issue could distract from more pressing work.
Councillor John Hirsch, as Chair, acknowledged the debate but stated he had not seen public demand during the election for another representation review and emphasized the importance of community identity over population parity.
Recorded Votes: How Council Decided
Three key recorded votes determined the outcome. First, council voted on Motion CW-25-2024, an amendment brought forward by Councillor Braney to expand the review’s scope to include broader governance topics. The vote ended in a 7–7 tie, meaning the amendment failed.
Next, council voted on Motion CW-26-2024, the main motion to direct staff to undertake a governance review and issue an RFP. This motion failed 6–8, with a majority of councillors voting against proceeding.
Finally, Motion CW-27-2024, proposing a question on the 2026 municipal election ballot about a governance review, was also defeated on a 5–9 vote. With all three motions failing, council formally decided not to proceed with a governance review at this time.
What This Means for locals
For residents in rural wards such as Ameliasburgh, Sophiasburgh, Hillier, and North Marysburgh, the decision maintains existing ward boundaries and representation, preserving local identities that many speakers and councillors emphasized. In urban centres like Picton, Bloomfield, and Wellington, where some councillors cited higher growth and future pressure, the vote means concerns about representation parity will remain unresolved for now.
Tthe outcome reflects a council choosing stability over structural change, prioritizing current service delivery and avoiding a potentially divisive process. Any future reconsideration of governance structure would require either a new council initiative or direct public pressure through other means.
Comments