ONE GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL IS GAINING SUPPORT BECAUSE OF MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS
TOWN OF GRAVENHURST IS A CASE IN POINT
HOW WOULD GRAVENHURST RESIDENTS RESPOND, TO NEWS, A REGIONAL OVER-HAUL OF DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, WAS REMOVING THE TOWN COUNCIL, AND REPLACING IT WITH THE ONE GOVERNMENT MODEL? THE END TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF OUR LITTLE TOWN. REGIONAL REPRESENTATION ONLY? A LOSS, OR A GAIN? AN EMPTY "NEW" TOWN HALL. OR THE ABILITY TO PROFIT FROM SOME "FOR RENT" OFFICE SPACE. WE'D HAVE ENOUGH SPACE OVER THERE TO EXPAND THE MEDICAL CLINIC INTO A FULL HOSPITAL. JUST AN IDEA. IF COUNCIL CEASES TO EXIST, OF COURSE.
WHAT WOULD THE OBJECTIONS BE? HOW WOULD WE GET THINGS DONE AROUND HERE? WHAT ABOUT THE HISTORY? OUR INDEPENDENCE? OR WOULD IT EVEN MAKE A RIPPLE OF INCONVENIENCE TO OUR WAY OF DEALING WITH COUNCIL TODAY? THERE SURE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. BUT THE ANSWERS ARE COMING. THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN GOVERNMENT REFORM IN MUSKOKA, AND EVEN SINCE I'VE BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE ONE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE, FROM LAST FALL, MORE PEOPLE THAN I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED, ARE COFFEE-SHOP-CHATTING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS THIS MIGHT CREATE. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE DETAILS, OR HOW THIS MIGHT COME ABOUT, BUT THE TIME SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO BE LOOKING AT THIS, AND PITCHING IN SOME SUGGESTIONS, AS TO HOW IT MIGHT ONE DAY, REFORM WHAT CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS INEFFICIENT, OVER-SPENDING GOVERNANCE. I'M NOT SOLD ON THE IDEA. SOME PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO RECENTLY, ARE FED-UP WITH THE WAY COUNCILLORS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT, ARE PERFORMING, AND HOW THE TAXES HAVE NO WHERE TO GO BUT UP. THE TAX ISSUE SEEMS TO BE THE BIG CONCERN TODAY, AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH EXCESSES IN THE FUTURE. ELECTION PROMISES DON'T TRANSLATE INTO ACTION, QUITE AS WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE.
I HAVE NOT BEEN AN ACTIVE SUPPORTER OF THE ONE GOVERNMENT MODEL, OF REFORMING THE WAY MUNICIPAL BUSINESS IS DONE IN THIS REGION. I CAN TELL YOU HONESTLY, I WAS CONFUSED BY IT IN THE 1980'S, WHEN OUR NEWSPAPER COVERED DISTRICT COUNCIL. THE IDEA THAT DISTRICT GOVERNMENT CAN BE IMPROVED HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REGIONAL AMALGAMATION, BACK IN THE LATE 1960'S EARLY 1970'S. IT HAS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NEVER OPERATED WITHOUT ITS CRITICS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. AS A FORMER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORTER I'VE SEEN SOME INTERESTING SITUATIONS, AND A FEW NASTY ARGUMENTS, BUT AS TO WHETHER IT COULD EVENTUALLY BECOME A SUPER, ALL INCLUSIVE COUNCIL OR NOT, WHO CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE, EXCEPT KRESKIN. AS DISTRICT GOVERNMENT WAS AN INITIAL GAMBLE, SCULPTING IT DOWN TO THE ONE GOVERNMENT MODEL, WILL BE A MUCH GREATER GAMBLE. SOME OF THE OLDER CITIZENS OF OUR REGION ARE STILL PISSED OFF, ABOUT THE CARNAGE TO THEIR SMALL COMMUNITIES, THE LAST OVERHAUL CAUSED. THE GROUP RESEARCHING THIS OVERHAUL, WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE REASONS THERE WAS SO MUCH ANGER BACK THEN, SO AS TO HANDLE ANY FUTURE TRANSITION WITH SOME SENSITIVITY TO OLD WOUNDS.
FOR ONE OF A DOZEN REASONS, EVERY ATTEMPT AT REFORM DIED IN INFANCY, AND THOSE COUNCILLORS SITTING AROUND THE DISTRICT TABLE HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THIS ONGOING SAGA, WHETHER TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE. I'M PRETTY SURE, OVER THE YEARS, THAT STATUS QUO WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ALL. IT'S NOT THAT REFORM WASN'T NEEDED THEN, OR NOW, BUT IT'S GETTING THESE SAME COUNCILLORS, TO AGREE CHANGE IS BENEFICIAL TO ALL CONCERNED. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THERE IS A GENERAL RELUCTANCE TO JUMP ONBOARD THIS ONE-GOVERNMENT CONCEPT, IN LARGE PART, FOR THE OLDTIMERS AT LEAST, THE ORIGINAL AMALGAMATION ANGERED A LOT OF RATEPAYERS THROUGHOUT THE REGION. SOME HAVE PASSED THAT ANGER ON TO THE YOUNGER GENERATION, WHO DESPISE IT FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT WAS JAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS, BY THE PROVINCE, THE FIRST TIME. FOR CRITICS OF THE PRESENT BLOATED SYSTEM, IT WOULD THUSLY SEEM, AN EASY GO OF IT, (AS IT WAS IN THE LATE 1960'S) TO REMOVE THE GOVERNMENT MODEL, AND FIND SOMETHING MORE EFFICIENT AND COST SAVING. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ARGUMENT WAS THEN, THAT THE HAMLETS, VILLAGES AND RURAL AREAS, WERE GOING TO BE BULLIED BY THE LARGER TOWNS, AND THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR IDENTITIES. AND FUNDING. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT WEAK REPRESENTATION, REGARDING THE ISSUES THEY FELT WERE IMPORTANT. I THINK IT ALL HAPPENED, THE WAY THEY FEARED, AND I DID A FAIR NUMBER OF STORIES ABOUT THIS KIND OF HISTORIC DISASSOCIATION, YET EVENTUALLY, IT BECAME THE NEW NORMAL, AND CITIZENS FOUND CREATIVE WAYS TO CARRY-ON WITH HAMLET AND VILLAGE IDENTITY AND PRIDE. JUST DON'T ASK THESE COMMUNITY LEADERS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT DISTRICT GOVERNMENT. IT WAS SEEN AS THE URBAN POLITICAL INTRUSION, OF CITY-FOLK TELLING US HOW TO BE GOOD CITIZENS. SHUT-UP AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE. MUSKOKANS HAVE LONG MEMORIES, AND I THINK MANY FOLKS WOULD STILL LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY FELT WAS AN UNJUSTIFIED INTRUSION, ON A SYSTEM THAT WAS WORKING OKAY. IT'S WHY THERE'S STILL A LOT OF MISTRUST OUT THERE FOR COUNCILS AT BOTH LEVELS, AND THEY'LL HAPPILY SHOW YOU THE POTHOLES IN THE ROADS THAT ARE ONLY OCCASIONALLY FIXED. SUCH AS WHEN THE COTTAGERS RETURN. KNOW WHAT THE FRIDAY ROAD REPAIRS ARE CALLED? "TOURIST PATCHES."
IN THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES, WINDERMERE RESIDENTS FELT, THAT UNDER THE DISTRICT MODEL, WITH LIMITED REPRESENTATION, AND EVERYTHING CENTERED IN PORT CARLING AND BRACEBRIDGE, THEIR VILLAGE WOULD HAVE LIMITED CAPABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE……CARRY-ON WITH A RESPONSIVE LOCAL COUNCIL, TO DEAL WITH AGENDA ITEMS IMMEDIATELY. IT WAS THE PERCEPTION THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GREAT DISTANCING FROM GOVERNMENT THEY HAD ALWAYS KNOWN, AND DEPENDED ON. WINDERMERE MIGHT EVEN CEASE TO EXIST, AS IT WAS KNOWN. WELL, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. A NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS, AND GETTING THINGS DONE, DID MANIFEST. AS IT PRESUMABLY WOULD WITH A NEW GOVERNMENT MODEL.
THE ONE GOVERNMENT MODEL, THAT WOULD REDUCE TOWNSHIP COUNCILS, IN FAVOR OF A LARGER DISTRICT GOVERNANCE, WOULD BE SEEN AS EVEN GREATER DISTANCING FROM WHAT IS RELEVANT AND PRESSING, TO LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS, VILLAGES AND TOWNS. IT WOULD BE LIKE THE ORIGINAL IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT BUT TWICE AS BAD. THIS IS THE PUBLIC RELATIONS JOB AT HAND, BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL HARD FEELINGS OUT THERE, AND THE HUGE DISTRICT BOUNDARY, WITH ONE GOVERNMENT, PRETTY MUCH MEANS WORSENING ISOLATION FOR THE SMALLEST COMMUNITIES, DESPITE WHAT THE REPRESENTATION BREAKDOWN MIGHT BE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE WILL BE A LOT FEWER COUNCILLORS ELECTED, OR WE'D HAVE TO BUILD A NEW DISTRICT OFFICE. FEWER COUNCILLORS, AND A DOUBLING OR TRIPLING OF WARD RESPONSIBILITIES, WILL BE SEEN AS URBAN DOMINANCE OF THE NEW SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION. WHAT THE TOWNS WANT, IS GOING TO CARRY MORE WEIGHT, THAN WHAT HAMLETS AND VILLAGES WILL EXPECT TO GARNER FROM A NEW GOVERNMENT MODEL. THIS IS A THROW-BACK FEAR TO THE 1960'S, WHEN THESE RURAL RESIDENTS FELT THEIR WORLD WAS COLLAPSING.
I am being swayed these days, and that doesn't mean I don't have suspicions and deep concerns about those pushing for the regional government overhaul. There are some aspects to cost efficiencies gained, that are significant, and are certainly worth exploring what this might represent in tax savings. At the rate of council spending, we're all feeling a little over taxed. How much can we afford, and still remain as property owners? I have to admit, my opinion of Gravenhurst Council, has been diminished, over the past five years, and I'm not alone in feeling this way. I don't want to believe that our council isn't up to the job, but most of what we see and read about, paints them into a corner without a clear way out. I'm not sure whether our elected representatives are really in sync with public sentiment, and not simply basing that on how many folks turn up to public meetings. When I asked around, this weekend, what people thought about the Town using the Haight bequeath, of a million dollars, to pay down the municipal debt, it wasn't a scientific survey, but it was pretty clear, our councillors are disconnected from the residents they represent. I didn't survey a large group. Fifteen people isn't a very good cross-section, admittedly. Yet to not get one out of fifteen, who thought it was a good idea, to take a memorial gift, and use it to pay down the town's debt, suggests to me on the ground level, that Gravenhurst Councillors do need to execute some due diligence before the matter is called to a vote. The vote apparently, comes up a week from now……June 5th I believe. At this open meeting, councillors are likely to find out for themselves, just how unpopular they're going to be, following through on this plan. Do they care about popularity? Well, they did on election night. What they should care about, is that there is growing anger about this council generally. Not the past council. They've already decided this is a fight they can no longer win. This council! It is, in my opinion, an almost invisible council, except for those familiar faces in the grip and grin photographs, making the weekly press. Why is this a problem, and how does it relate to the One Government fact-finding?
I think Gravenhurst may become fertile ground, for those wishing to advance the concept, of a regional government over-haul. I believe ratepayers are profoundly concerned about council's ability to manage our affairs, and represent town interests at the regional level. Local councillors probably never thought their lackluster performance, in the eyes of some ratepayers, would cultivate interests in government reform. There will be councillors deeply offended, when referred to as lackluster, and all I can say, in this regards, is that I can't print the other words used during political-talks around this town. I'm shocked by the comments. It may be the case councillors don't care, but they should. Eventually the boiling pot will pass its threshold. Some ratepayers adamantly believe our town is not running efficiently, and that there are too many examples of diminished leadership on our behalf, and frankly, it's all going to play into this growing interest to support the One Government initiative. It may seem an impossibility that this would happen, even in the next ten years, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see it all happen much sooner……as the economy gets tighter. There has to be a better, more cost efficient way to run our municipalities. The duplication of services is a drain on resources, and as local and regional budgets remain tight for years to come, and the federal and provincial governments become more tight-fisted than we're accustomed, there's no question that regional government, as it stands today, will be the subject of more intense scrutiny. As our council acts more like a slightly disgruntled political party, with very few raging arguments…..or even a hale and hardy debate once in a while (in front of the media) at least in the public forum of open council, the status quo term of office, is fertilizing the seeds of discontent. If we, on the other hand, could see a council performing as a true democracy, minus the complacency, and things being addressed that we want to know about, maybe we wouldn't feel as resigned to the future. Maybe we'd see that having a Gravenhurst Council is our sure guarantee of getting things done in regional government. Even as far as debate at District Council, we read and hear very little, about our participation in new initiatives or old, except the recent discussion about garbage bag decreases in the rural climes of our district. A Gravenhurst councillor made comment about this, and the potential it will raise the ire of season residents. What about the concerns of year round rural residents. What about the garbage that will be dumped in the woods and pastures, by those who don't believe in garbage reduction or the tag system. But whatever the undertow of our Gravenhurst councillors at district, it's not exactly a force, even a mild tug on the toe, to be reckoned with, and the fact we are mute on a lot of issues these days, doesn't mean there aren't issues to discuss……or the need to get mad occasionally, about what is happening out there.
The Terrence Haight bequeath is a prime example, of what makes our residents routinely angry about their representative council. We don't expect them to bow to our every demand. We might offer some heated critiques, and some general complaints, but as far as stuffing town hall with angry delegations, I think it's a lot less of a burden than for some councils in our region. But there are times, when for the oddest reasons, and the biggest failure of protocol, they will adopt some strategy, like investing the million dollars to pay off the town debt, that stops us in our tracks……wondering, what the hell they were thinking. Did they spend five minutes to discuss the possible backlash they may experience. Were the councillors, who voted for this motion, aware of what the ramifications could be, for taking away a memorial fund that could help all citizens of this community? Did they believe they were being clever with this move, and that the public at large, would extend them untold ovations, for their proactive measure, to pay down the debt? Where did they get their confidence to vote in support of this committee motion? What would have ever made them believe, the public at large wouldn't object strenuously, to having just been bypassed, ignored and dismissed as being irrelevant. Objectors to the plan would be added to the list of town nuisances, and nuff said. As for a strategic move, it wasn't one. Whenever a politician dismisses the public in this fashion, as being irrelevant to the democratic process, the government fails itself. For those who voted against this motion, quite a few people this week were applauding. There will likely be a fair amount of negative publicity, in the near future, surrounding the issue as well, and I am one of the letter-to-the-editor writers to the local press. I don't often write mad, but this time, I made an exception. I'm hoping that Council squashes this like a bug. I'm really counting on councillors to change their support of the motion, because they have found out what I discovered of public opinion. If I can find it out, with casual questioning, so can they. As a loose, spur of the moment survey, conducted by local councillors themselves, I would find it very hard to believe, that out of several hundred citizens (residents), informally asked on the street, about the use of the bequeath fund, a majority would opt for the town to pay down the debt. Councillors are the ones who have to find this out. They won't believe my claims.
This is one of the examples, of an almost self-destructive gamble, that will create more support for a change in our local government configuration in Muskoka. Councillors might not see this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I have heard more talk recently, of folks joining the One Government initiative, than when it was first introduced as a strategy for future reforms, in 2011. It is gaining momentum from present frustration, with what is seen as a bloated, unnecessary, disconnected, disinterested council network.
In Gravenhurst, as an example, councillors had a chance to be seen as champions of community life and times. They could have done a lot for the townsfolk, by announcing a new public program for the bequeath money. What could have been a public relations coup, has become controversial…..not because of bloggers like me…..but because they made a lot of people mad as a direct result of blatant disrespect for protocol. Many more so, because they deemed serious public consultation as waste of precious time. Since when has precious time been an issue, with this council, that still hasn't had its grand opening of the new recreation centre.
I still can't fully endorse the One Government initiative, at this point. I saw what happened with the Hospital amalgamation and the Board of Education, and while cost efficiencies were the plan, I don't know how that has worked out precisely, and to the nickel. I do sense, on my own news beat around this town, that there is a lot more scrutiny, and many more people who want better representation overall. Whether the plan for a government review and overhaul will ever come to fruition, it is still going to gain strength during the next several years, and if things don't change in Gravenhurst, to the expectations of local residents, our population may soon come to represent the actual banner-waving leadership of this proposed change of government thing. This isn't the time for councillors to cower, but to start building a come-back of responsible government, that we can all trust. If they divert the Haight memorial funds, to pay off taxes, instead of setting up a public fund, or endowment of some nature, for the citizens who were ultimately afforded the kind gift, I will most certainly lose the last good faith I have, with this present council. I won't be the only one making this declaration. This council has admittedly had a rough beginning to their four year term of office. By golly, it's just a blip of inconvenience to a strong council, with sharp instincts, and great leadership capacity. This is what we want to see, and experience. So blowing-off public consultation, is the fatal sign of a seriously failing leadership. It doesn't have to be this way. There can be considerable honor, admitting to a change of heart. A lot of people are watching council's performance on this issue. It's a warning. Honest advice. There's a way to side-step debacle, and look like insightful, progressive leaders. Turn down the plan to spend the Haight bequeath, to lower the town debt.
Thank you for reading today's blog. Please join me again soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment