Author: PEC Buzz Admin

  • Responses from Candidates for Ward 8 – North Marysburgh

    RSVPs

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    Responses from candidates for Ward 8 – North Marysburgh are here:

    Respondents

    Invitations
    Candidates for Ward 8 – North Marysburgh (1 office) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    David HARRISON
    Ben THORNTON

    Responses to Invitation 8

    Candidates received Invitation 8 on October 5, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 17, 2022. Candidates who wanted their responses to be published before advance voting started were to forward them by October 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook beginning October 13, 2022.

    Respondents

    David Harrison

    1. Please share how you would enhance Council’s approach to public engagement.

    When issues come upon the agenda, if elected, I will proactively and inclusively seek my constituents input on a one-to-one basis. This has always been my style. Once I receive the input from constituents, I would bring the issues back to Council. This type of personal engagement sometimes is missing and that is one of my strengths.

    I would like to seek broader public engagement by being available at the North Marysburgh Town Hall. This would allow for in person public engagement on current issues or issues of personal concern. This speaks to my accessibility and my genuine interest in my constituents and our community.

    As a lifetime resident of North Marysburgh and someone who is very actively involved in my community I have always been approachable and will continue to be.

    My cell phone and email will be published on the County website and I will be a responsive representative for my constituents.

    2. Please share why you’re running and why voters should support you in the municipal election.

    I am seeking office to:

    • Improve the climate for business investment and growth – without sacrificing what makes our County thrive as a community.
    • Create more opportunities for “living wage” employment.
    • Implement infrastructure improvements and efficiencies in operating costs.
    • Actively support our new hospital build and new affordable housing initiatives.
    • Ensure our tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently.

    I am also running for Council because I am unhappy with some of the decisions in the last term of Council that have detrimentally impacted the wellbeing of our community.

    Knee jerk decisions have led to a divisiveness within the community.

    I have been very active in business here and still am. I have experience in commercial fishing, fish processing, farming, vegetable processing and tourism. In addition, I am experienced in exporting County fish and produce to the United States and Europe.

    I live in North Marysburgh. My family has lived in the County for seven generations. We live, work, and relax in Prince Edward County. My family employs many people in the community, they contribute to the local economy, and pay taxes that help support all of us. They provide well needed services to the ratepayers of this County. I am very proud of their contributions.

    There has been much change in our community over the years, and I suspect there is more to come. I see my role on Council as helping by providing experienced leadership and making decisions that will best impact our County. My goal is to give back to the community where my family has lived for these past seven generations.

    Should the personal interests of myself or my family come before Council, I will respond appropriately as I have done in the past – declare any conflict and recuse myself as warranted.

    I had the honour to serve 17 years in Municipal Government representing North Marysburgh residents, in both 2 tier and single tier government. There will be no learning curve because of this experience that I bring to the table. I can hit the ground running, and I know how to get things done for you, the constituent.

    Voting for me is voting for a committed, experienced, prepared and available Councillor.

    Thank you to all my supporters.


    Ben Thornton

    1. Please share how you would enhance Council’s approach to public engagement.

    I would use social media and email to keep in touch with or inform constituents as much as possible. I would also schedule a regular “office hours” time at the North Marysburgh Hall or somewhere else appropriately convenient to allow direct face-to-face conversations with constituents. Through the course of the campaign, I’ve provided every household with my cell phone number and email address, and would hope everyone feels comfortable using it to reach me. Engagement in municipal government is a partnership between elected members and the public. I will listen, and I hope you will ask me the questions you need to ask.

    2. Please share why you’re running and why voters should support you in the municipal election.

    I’m Ben Thornton and I’m running for Council in North Marysburgh.

    My history in the County runs five generations deep. In 1912, my great-grandfather James Carter, himself descended from United Empire Loyalists, founded the Waupoos Canning Company. My grandfather Ed “Bumpy” Carter took over and ran it until his death. Their legacy of innovation and entrepreneurship at the forefront of a then-new industry is worth remembering. As you drive or bike through North Marysburgh, you’ll see my campaign sign designed to recall one of their vintage canning labels – a reminder of our history, but also that the history of the County is one of change. Every generation or so, new technologies, shifting demographics, new markets, even climate change bring new industries here.

    Fast forward to today, and my wife and I are working and raising our three kids aged 5 to 16. They go to PECI where my grandmother taught Latin for many years.

    The County is full of charms and challenges. The charms of this place are why we are here, why so many choose to come, and why so many choose to stay. The challenges are why I’m running: taking the long view, I want Prince Edward County to be a vibrant, livable, inclusive community where my children (and yours) have a fair chance to succeed, to find a career and a place to call home.

    Affordable housing remains a priority, and we must continue to encourage the creation of affordable year-round rental opportunities to give young families a place to start. More affordable housing also means a better chance to fill staff shortages and a more successful business environment. We must address childcare. The lack of accessible, affordable childcare is a barrier to young parents trying to participate in the workforce. Investment here pays off in economic growth.

    We need to do what it takes to recruit and retain doctors and nurses – to let them see the charms of living and working here as we do.

    We need to manage growth responsibly, to encourage development that meets the character and scale of our community. At the same, we need to ensure our natural environment is protected and that every major planning, zoning, or infrastructure decision is made to limit contributions to climate change and to mitigate its effect on our community.

    Roads, infrastructure, financial accountability, services for youth and seniors – these are all important challenges which speak to the same goal of a livable, successful community.

    I am committed to community service and currently serve as chair of the Regent Theatre, on the board of Glenwood Cemetery where four generations of my family rest, on a council advisory committee, and as a newscaster with 99.3 CountyFM. I coach kids’ baseball in the summer. I have run not-for-profit organizations, worked with municipal governments, and lobbied at the provincial level. Professionally, I am a real estate agent and have a background in small business.

    I am committed to bringing an informed, consultative approach to Shire Hall, and to represent North Marysburgh inclusively and passionately. I am the only candidate for this office with no conflicts of interest that would interfere with my ability to represent you at Council or committees. Vote for me and let’s preserve the charms and face the challenges together.


    Back to top

    Accountability & transparency

    Three Invitations asked candidates to rate six proposals to enhance Council’s accountability and transparency:

    We have categorized candidates’ ratings of these proposals [Not in favour | Neither | In favour] below. Candidates were also asked to explain their ratings and we encourage everyone to consider their ratings alongside their explanations.

    Table 1. Candidates’ ratings of proposals to enhance Council’s accountability and transparency.
    David HARRISON
    Proposition Not in favour
    Neither
    In favour
    1. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.
    2. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.
    3. A public register of requests for County records.
    4. The routine disclosure of County records.
    5. The active dissemination of County records.
    6. A Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.
    Ben THORNTON
    Proposition Not in favour
    Neither
    In favour
    1. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.
    2. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.
    3. A public register of requests for County records.
    4. The routine disclosure of County records.
    5. The active dissemination of County records.
    6. A Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.

    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 7

    Candidates received Invitation 7 on October 3, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 11, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on October 12, 2022.

    Respondents

    David Harrison

    1. For any one of [the nine themes covered in the 2022 VitalSigns Report], please outline a course of action that Council should consider to reinforce successes and/or address challenges identified in the 2022 VitalSigns Report.

    Good health & well-being
    Council should continue with its doctor recruitment program.

    Council should also implement a program immediately in our high school to attract “home grown” doctors and other health care professionals, for example, nurse practitioners, nurses etc. This program should include financial assistance for students enrolling in medical school in exchange for a reasonable amount of time practicing medicine in our community upon graduation. These students may wish to practice in their home community.

    A program should be developed to assist in education costs in other healthcare professions for the same reason.

    2. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following proposal: “Council should adopt a Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.”

    Agree.

    3. Please explain your rating.

    I agree in principle, however this needs to be further examined and fine tuned. Consultation with the Clerk would be required to determine the increase in workload for the Clerk as well as the extra time involved in meetings could make the Clerk’s job more onerous with very little net benefit on minor issues, particularly as the meetings are already recorded.

    4. Please share examples of how you’ve been trying to learn more about diversity, equity and inclusion. What have been the biggest changes in your thinking? How are you applying what you’ve learned in your work in the County?

    In my experience, having lived here my entire life I have always thought that various ethnic/minority groups have lived harmoniously. Having said that, I realize that may not be everyone’s experience and the diversity of the County’s population has increased over the years. I believe the County should provide equity and inclusivity training for all Council and staff, which I will happily participate in.


    Ben Thornton

    1. For any one of [the nine themes covered in the 2022 VitalSigns Report], please outline a course of action that Council should consider to reinforce successes and/or address challenges identified in the 2022 VitalSigns Report.

    Inclusive economy.
    Many of the challenges identified in the VitalSigns report are interconnected. We have an economy that is largely supported by tourism, which tends to be seasonal. We have employers who have difficulty finding and retaining staff because they cannot pay enough for their staff to afford housing, which has seen dramatic rises in cost over the last few years. The County’s efforts to build affordable rental units will help begin the long process of increasing the rental housing supply and lowering the cost, thus reducing some barriers to keeping a workforce here. An improvement in housing affordability will help keep workers here, initially filling the existing demand in unfilled jobs, but eventually allowing businesses to expand, and making the County attractive to new enterprises. The work-from-home movement that took off during the pandemic brought some new opportunities here – those kinds of jobs have the benefit of bringing paycheques from other locales into the local economy, and should be encouraged, especially if existing residents can find spots in those industries. Ongoing support of career counselling agencies in the community and participation in federal and provincial jobs grants programs should continue.

    2. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following proposal: “Council should adopt a Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.”

    Agree.

    3. Please explain your rating.

    It’s about accountability. Voters should be able to find out if they want to how their representative is serving them, and to question them if need be.

    4. Please share examples of how you’ve been trying to learn more about diversity, equity and inclusion. What have been the biggest changes in your thinking? How are you applying what you’ve learned in your work in the County?

    I try to support diversity, equity and inclusion whenever I can, but I know that as a white guy I have my own biases and blindspots. I try to let those who are working regularly in the field of diversity, equity and inclusion guide my decision-making. I have learned that it is easy to misjudge the importance of issues to members of the community from different backgrounds. In recent years, the controversy over the John A. Macdonald statue was an example – I supported the removal, as did many, but I think some on both sides were surprised by the depth of resistance by some on the opposing side.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 6

    Candidates received Invitation 6 on September 23, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 3, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on October 5, 2022.

    Respondents

    Ben Thornton

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following service categories:

    Service category Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    General government
    Protection services
    Transportation services
    Environmental services
    Health services
    Social and family services
    Social housing
    Recreation and cultural services
    Planning and development services

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    User fees and service charges for municipal services are a good way to augment property taxation revenue based on the specific needs of citizens, and every care should be taken to apply this model fairly, so access to services is not made more difficult for those who face economic need. Revenue from service charges has remained generally flat over the three quoted years, while taxation revenue has risen along with property prices. This balance needs to be reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure that the right goals are being met, that is, fair access to services for those who want or need them, especially health care, housing, transit, and children’s services, and fair taxation to allow seniors or others facing economic pressures to afford to stay in their homes.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 5

    Candidates received Invitation 5 on September 20, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 26, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 28, 2022.

    Respondents

    David Harrison

    1. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following:

    “Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to [the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s] Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.”

    Neither disagree or agree.

    2. Please explain your rating.

    I have been out campaigning and have not researched the various calls of action fully in order to respond knowledgeably.

    However, I believe at this point the Canadian Government is leading the way as this process of reconciliation continues to evolve. There are still aspects of this the Canadian Government needs to work through. It is certainly something I believe the County Council should keep its eye on going forward.

    3. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following statements:

    “The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    “The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    “The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    4. For any one of your ratings above, please describe your analysis of the different costs and benefits that lead to your conclusion (max. 500 words).

    I cannot agree or disagree as I have no way of analysing the costs.


    Ben Norton

    1. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following:

    “Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to [the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s] Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.”

    Agree.

    2. Please explain your rating.

    Thankfully, the efforts of many groups involved have brought issues of systemic racism and disadvantage against indigenous peoples into the public eye. It’s only right we begin to reshape our thinking and take stepw to create a more inclusive, equitable society.

    3. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following statements:

    “The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Agree.

    “The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Disagree.

    “The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Disagree.

    4. For any one of your ratings above, please describe your analysis of the different costs and benefits that lead to your conclusion (max. 500 words).

    [A] The goals of transparency and public accountability that a responsible Council and municipal government strives for may already be met by current practices. The County does routinely release a number of reports, agendas, and other documents as a matter of course, and actively disseminates quite a bit through the media, through social media, and its own communications channels. Nevertheless, for information that might not be routinely disclosed or disseminated, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy act requires, the FOI process requires municipal staff to release information to the public as requested for a $5.00 fee, and indeed to inform the requester whether the information is publicly available already. Five dollars is a modest and reasonable price (if the information is not already publicly available) for someone who is serious about making a request. To the point of subquestion (a), the County would already maintain records of requests, and it would be possible for the public, media, or any other interested party to make a request for the information they are looking for, and bear a small part of the cost in preparing it.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 4

    Candidates received Invitation 4 on September 14, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 19, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 20, 2022.

    Respondents

    David Harrison

    1. Please identify and describe the general nature of any conflict of pecuniary interest – real or apparent, direct or indirect – that you would foresee needing to declare, given the sort of conflicts that have been disclosed by your predecessors in 2020-2022. [We later clarified the reference to 2020-2022 here. As the preamble re: “Pecuniary Conflicts of Interest” notes, these three years are the ones reported in the County’s online Annual Registries of members’ disclosoure of conflicts of interest.]

    My wife owns a STA, a small Bunkie located on our primary residence property that we rent for 10 week per year.

    My son owns a construction company and there are times that I may need to declare a conflict, similar to what I did when I served as Councillor for NM in 2014-2018.

    2A & 3. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.” Please elaborate.

    Neither disagree or agree.

    Without diminishing the negative impact of mental anguish, pain and suffering, how this may be addressed or qualified was not revealed. Therefore, I responded neither.

    2B & 4. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.” Please elaborate.

    Strongly disagree.

    If the pecuniary conflict does not involve a close family member it is no different than any member of the public.

    5. In the voter’s own words, please identify the most difficult-to-answer question that you’ve been asked in your campaign.

    I have not been presented with a question while I have been out campaigning, that I did not feel comfortable not answering.

    6. Please explain why this question was the most difficult-to-answer.

    N/A.

    7. On October 21, 2020, Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning application from Picton Terminals to bring in container and cruise ships. If presented with a similar vote today, how would you vote (deny or approve)? Why?

    I cannot comment on which way I would vote today, as I don’t have the information that was presented, nor did I take part in the discussion that guided Council at that time to make the decision they did.


    Ben Thornton

    1. Please identify and describe the general nature of any conflict of pecuniary interest – real or apparent, direct or indirect – that you would foresee needing to declare, given the sort of conflicts that have been disclosed by your predecessors in 2020-2022. [We later clarified the reference to 2020-2022 here. As the preamble re: “Pecuniary Conflicts of Interest” notes, these three years are the ones reported in the County’s online Annual Registries of members’ disclosoure of conflicts of interest.]

    I don’t foresee any conflicts.

    2A & 3. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.” Please elaborate.

    Agree.

    Elected representatives should be beyond reproach – that is the basis of their public trust.

    2B & 4. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.” Please elaborate.

    Agree.

    Conflicts of interest can be fluid and situational. It’s quite possible that matters involving siblings, cousins, or other members of a family might cross lines of conflict.

    5. In the voter’s own words, please identify the most difficult-to-answer question that you’ve been asked in your campaign.

    How do we bring down water rates?

    6. Please explain why this question was the most difficult-to-answer.

    It’s a complicated thing to keep up a waterworks in a community with a small tax base. We either need to grow enough to spread the cost among more people (who also will need water) or pay for the upgrades and maintenance over a longer time, perhaps through borrowing. There’s no easy short term answer.

    7. On October 21, 2020, Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning application from Picton Terminals to bring in container and cruise ships. If presented with a similar vote today, how would you vote (deny or approve)? Why?

    I would deny, given the risk of disturbing the bed of the harbour and stirring up toxins that would affect the environment, and possibly the County’s drinking water.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 3

    Candidates received Invitation 3 on September 7, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 14, 2022.

    Respondents

    David Harrison

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following strategic initiatives:

    Strategic Initiative Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    By-law and policy review
    Downtown revitalization
    Healthcare initiatives
    Municipal Accommodation Tax
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    Short-Term Accommodations
    Tourism management
    Understanding Growth and Water/wastewater infrastructure

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    P.E.C. Affordable Housing Corp., should be reviewed as affordable housing in not just a County problem. It is a national and provincial problem and should be addressed as such.

    Health Initiatives
    I am satisfied with the health care initiatives that are being attempted in both Doctor recruitment and helping fund the new hospital.

    3. Please outline one County-wide strategic initiative that is missing from the above and should be adopted by Council.

    Official Plan
    The County Official Plan should be amended to include a formula for residential development on designated RU Lands.


    Ben Thornton

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following strategic initiatives:

    Strategic Initiative Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    By-law and policy review
    Downtown revitalization
    Healthcare initiatives
    Municipal Accommodation Tax
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    Short-Term Accommodations
    Tourism management
    Understanding Growth and Water/wastewater infrastructure

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    Health Initiatives
    The recruitment of doctors and nurses to the County continues to be a priority for residents. The initiatives and incentives are moving in the right direction but progress has been slow.

    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    Another critical issue for residents. The approval of zoning for affordable rental developments in Wellington and Picton is a good start, but until they are funded and built, residents won’t see the benefit. Council must continue to ensure these projects have the best chance of success.

    3. Please outline one County-wide strategic initiative that is missing from the above and should be adopted by Council.

    Commercial Accommodations
    To follow STA policy and tourism management, a strategy to increase commercial accommodations – hotels, motels, lodges – that fit the needs, character, and infrastructure of the County.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 2

    Candidates received Invitation 2 on August 31, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 6, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 7, 2022.

    Respondents

    David Harrison

    1. Please identify two internal and one external committee or board listed above whose areas of municipal responsibility would showcase your skills and interests in municipal government.

    1. Agricultural Advisory Committee
    2. Planning Committee
    3. Quinte Conservation Executive Board

    2. For these three committees or boards, please highlight your skills and experience (work, volunteer, life) in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    Agricultural Advisory Committee
    I have worked in the Agricultural Industry for 50 years.

    Planning Committee
    I have 17 years municipal experience which includes planning.

    Quinte Conservation Executive Board
    I feel my hands-on background in Agriculture and Fisheries qualify me as an effective voice on the Quinte Conservation Board.

    3. For these three committees or boards, please describe the impact you’d hope to make in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    When called upon to make a decision I would use my experience in those areas to make sound judgments that represent the best interests of all parties.

    4. How would you account for these rates of voter turnout in the County in recent municipal elections?

    Unfortunately low voter turnout in the County is representative of low voter turnout provincially and federally due to apathy.

    5. Please relate an occasion when you (nearly) decided not to vote in an election.

    Never.

    6. How would you propose to work with other candidates to increase voter turnout in the County in the upcoming municipal election?

    Work with other candidates to encourage constituents and supporters to vote.


    Ben Thornton

    1. Please identify two internal and one external committee or board listed above whose areas of municipal responsibility would showcase your skills and interests in municipal government.

    1. Community & Economic Development Commission
    2. Heritage Advisory Committee
    3. Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation

    2. For these three committees or boards, please highlight your skills and experience (work, volunteer, life) in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    3. For these three committees or boards, please describe the impact you’d hope to make in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    Community & Economic Development Commission
    Successful local businesses are at the heart of the County’s economic success. I have a background in small business, and through my professional and volunteer work here in the County have come to know business owners, and groups like the Chamber of Commerce and BIAs.

    Impact: The Council needs to support an environment where existing businesses can be successful, make it attractive for new businesses to establish themselves here, and keep in mind the broader goals of the County regarding development and growth, tourism management, and environmental stewardship.

    Heritage Advisory Committee
    The history of PEC, including its architectural heritage, is a driver for tourism and the historical character is a large part of why people stay or move here. I am involved with several organizations whose mission is in part to preserve heritage properties.

    Impact: I am pleased to see a new local branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario established here, and would like to see more co-operation among the groups with a historical or heritage focus with an aim to add value to tourism, improve scholarship, partner with local businesses, and preserve the historical flavour of the County.

    Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation
    Affordable housing remains a challenge here (and throughout Ontario). Without a properly implemented program to address it, we are bound to see more young people leave the County, and more businesses unable to retain staff for want of affordable housing. I work in real estate and intend to bring what expertise I have to the table.

    Impact: In the short term, I would like to see progress on the approved affordable housing sites in Wellington and Picton. I would also like to see more incentives for homeowners to create long-term rental options on existing properties.

    4. How would you account for these rates of voter turnout in the County in recent municipal elections?

    Low voter turnout is a problem nation-wide, and particularly at the municipal level. Usually, low voter turnout is a symptom of voter disengagement. The municipal government, the media, community leaders, and candidates all have a role to play to encourage and inform voters.

    5. Please relate an occasion when you (nearly) decided not to vote in an election.

    I’ve always voted. Nearly missed it once in a municipal election because the polls closed earlier than I realized, but I made it.

    6. How would you propose to work with other candidates to increase voter turnout in the County in the upcoming municipal election?

    I believe every candidate wants as robust a turnout at the polls as possible. To that end, I believe most are doing their part to inform voters about why, when, where, and how to vote.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 1

    Candidates received Invitation 1 on August 24, 2022 and were asked to share their thoughts by August 29, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on August 31, 2022.

    Respondents to Invitation 1

    David Harrison

    1. How long have you resided in the County?

    All my life.

    1b. (Additional question for candidates for Ward Councilor only): How long have you resided in the Ward in which you are running to be Councilor?

    All my life.

    2. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the current term of Council (Fall 2018 – present).

    PEC Agricultural Advisory Committee.

    3. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous term of Council (Fall 2014 – Fall 2018).

    Councillor North Marysburgh.

    4. Please identify your membership or volunteering in a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization associated with the County during the current term of Council (November 2018 – present).

    Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association and Lake Ontario Commercial Fish Management Liaison Committee.

    5. How do you understand talk of tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County?

    I have never separated “old” from “new” because I have always recognized all residents as equal.

    Please indicate your agreement with the following statements:

    6a. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s agenda. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    6b. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s decisions. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    7. Please identify any role you see yourself in addressing any tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County.

    Negotiator.


    Ben Thornton

    1. How long have you resided in the County?

    I have resided full time in the County since February, 2019. My mother was born in Picton, but passed away when I was 3, and I grew up in the Toronto area, but returned often to the County to visit my grandmother and other family, and spent a good deal of time here. In 2019, after years of renting cottages here, we decided to raise our family here.

    1b. (Additional question for candidates for Ward Councilor only): How long have you resided in the Ward in which you are running to be Councilor?

    I do not live in North Marysburgh, but have more than a century of family history there.

    2. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the current term of Council (Fall 2018 – present).

    I serve on the County’s Cemetery Advisory Committee.

    3. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous term of Council (Fall 2014 – Fall 2018).

    NA.

    4. Please identify your membership or volunteering in a not-for-profit, non-governmental oganization associated with the County during the current term of Council (November 2018 – present).

    I serve as the chair of the Regent Theatre, on the board of Glenwood Cemetery, as co-ordinator of PEC Minor Baseball Association’s program for 4-6 year olds, and volunteer at 99.3 County FM and PEC Community Theatre.

    5. How do you understand talk of tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County?

    Tension between old and new residents is sometimes typified as concerns about too much or too fast change on the part of the “old” and refusal to adapt on the part of the “new” residents. It’s not a particularly helpful lens through which to look at the issues of the day.

    Please indicate your agreement with the following statements:

    6a. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s agenda. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    6b. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s decisions. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    7. Please identify any role you see yourself in addressing any tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County.

    Council should be making decisions in the best interests of the community, no matter how long people have lived here. The charms of the County are why people choose to stay or move here. The challenges are faced by all of us – affordable housing, good employment, infrastructure, development and growth, fiscal responsibility. The County has always had people coming and going with different experiences, backgrounds, cultures and ambitions. I think most see the appeal of preserving our natural, historical, and architectural heritage and character, while embracing the changes that make the community better. Change is a constant – industries (cheesemaking, canning, for instance) come and go, technologies change, demographics change. Even old industries change – agriculture for instance is affected by new technology, changes in the global market, and environmental issues. Council must respect a diversity of opinion and try to craft a vision supporting the ideals that make Prince Edward County a great place to live, work, and visit.


    Back to top

  • Responses from Candidates for Ward 9 – South Marysburgh

    RSVPs

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County were invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    Responses from candidates for Ward 9 – South Marysburgh are here:

    Respondents

    Invitations
    Candidates for Ward 9 – South Marysburgh (1 office) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    John HIRSCH
    Ryan KREUTZWISER

    Responses to Invitation 8

    Candidates received Invitation 8 on October 5, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 17, 2022. Candidates who wanted their responses to be published before advance voting started were to forward them by October 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook beginning October 13, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. Please share how you would enhance Council’s approach to public engagement.

    Something I have learned over the last 4 years is that you can only engage with those who want to be engaged. Often, the loudest complainers have taken no steps whatsoever to inform themselves before letting loose on Facebook.

    The consultants we hired to assist in the rewrite of the Procedural Bylaw, said that we were the most open and accommodating municipality they have ever seen.

    We publish everything in advance of meetings – now usually at least 5 days. We only hold closed meetings under the strict provisions of the Municipal Act – legal matters, personnel matters, etc. We allow unlimited deputations and comments from the audience – either in person or by Zoom. We hold special meetings for many issues – especially planning applications of any size.

    I think the problem is that we haven’t done a good job at explaining the process to the population and how to work through the document centre, Have Your Say, etc.

    So a Civics lesson is in order and I would urge the Clerk’s office to undertake that.
    At a ward level, I am planning to have quarterly open houses to update folks and answer questions. Plus, every day through phone calls, emails, and media articles I help educate my constituents.

    2. Please share why you’re running and why voters should support you in the municipal election.

    As councillor for South Marysburgh, I’m proud to have:

    • Initiated (and will continue) a daily COVID-19 and community update to help keep people informed
    • Replied to every email, phone call and letter from constituents
    • Helped many residents navigate the County Planning process
    • Played a key role in South Marysburgh committees and boards
    • Represented the interests of South Marysburgh at Council
    • Been an active member of multiple County committees
    • Listened to and consulted with South Marysburgh residents through multiple
      communications channels
    • Continued to support the County position of saying no to industrialization of public lands
    • Advocated for a new South Shore Conservation Reserve
    • Championed requests for speed control, traffic calming and road repairs
    • Analyzed issues and worked with Councillors to find innovative solutions

    I’m running for re-election because we haven’t finished. I want to do more for the people of South Marysburgh. Many initiatives started in the last term need to be finished and many new ones need to be addressed. We have to keep working hard on solutions to the affordable housing crisis; monitor STAs and adjust policy as necessary; continue to refine tourism management; solve the shortage of medical practitioners; invigorate small business locally and throughout the County with the help of our Economic Development officer; and many more.

    Known for my thoughtful consideration, impeccable ethics and absolute love of the County, I will continue to help ensure that County government is fair, efficient and transparent.

    As your full-time councillor, you can count on me to listen to your concerns and ideas, advocate for what is best for South Marysburgh and the County as well as keep you informed.

    Protecting South Marysburgh’s natural environment, heritage and way of life are my key promises to you.

    South Marysburgh is an integral part of Prince Edward County. Home to rare and fragile public lands, dozens of new and established small businesses as well as more than 1,000 residents, it is a place that we all take pride in.

    Full details of my platform can be found on my website: www.jghirsch.com


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. Please share how you would enhance Council’s approach to public engagement.

    Public engagement has long been important in municipal decision making; indeed many forms of engagement are mandated by the Province. But I believe it’s important to go beyond what’s expected. “Have Your Say” is one useful example of this but it must be used carefully. A fundamental limitation of such platforms is that they cannot possibly provide input that is representative of the County…this kind of engagement reflects the views of only those who respond. To cite just one example, an October 2020 online survey of residents provided input into the Tourism Management Plan (1379 respondents). But it is simply incorrect to assume that, e.g. if 64.2% of respondents reported being inconvenienced by tourism that 64.2% of all County residents are inconvenienced. That can only be assumed if respondents are representative of County residents (careful survey design can minimize this bias). There are also fundamental issues with the design of some of the questions in this and other Have Your Say surveys. And for at least one of the surveys, there was no mechanism to prevent someone responding to the survey multiple times. Have some of Council’s important decisions been unduly influenced by surveys conducted on the Have Your Say platform or Councillors not understanding how to properly interpret results?

    I believe Council must make a greater effort to be strategic and proactive in seeking input from residents (and use online surveys cautiously). This is especially important for decisions that may be divisive or that disproportionately affect certain residents. Council and staff should proactively identify potentially impacted individuals and groups to help ensure “inclusive” engagement. While it costs little to simply hear from the most vocal among us, there will be costs in time and resources to more inclusive engagement. But are those costs not worth it the results are more effective, equitable, inclusive and sustainable (long term) decisions? I believe that Council, collectively, must promote inclusive engagement but that each Councillor also must commit to inclusive engagement.

    2. Please share why you’re running and why voters should support you in the municipal election.

    The reason I am running for council is because I feel county residents and small businesses are not well represented, and that biased and ill-informed outcomes have resulted from very reactionary decision making at Shire Hall. I feel the County is at a critical juncture and that the decisions made over the next four years will shape our collective future. I believe my educational and professional background, along with my small business experience give me the skill sets that would make me a good representative on council. If elected I will listen to my constituents, make thoughtful/practical decisions, and work with fellow councillors to steer the County in the right direction. The County is very special place, and if elected I will work to preserve and enhance our beautiful home!

    My education and training in environmental science at the University of Guelph and in environmental information technology at the Nova Scotia Centre for Geographic Sciences have given me an integrative (wholistic) view on the environment including the role of people in our environment, good problem-solving skills, and some understanding of decision making at all levels of government, including the importance of evidence-based decision making.

    My involvement in our family owned and operated small business (Lake on the Mountain Resort) in the County for the past two decades has prepared me well for taking on the responsibilities of a Councillor. I’ve learned important leadership skills, accountability (being responsible for my decisions), attention to detail, the importance of respect and appreciation for our staff, customers and local suppliers, and the importance of inclusiveness and the value of diversity (our customers and our staff are very diverse and appreciating that is so important to our success). In addition, running a successful business and one with longevity necessitates sound financial management, something I would bring to Shire Hall if elected.

    Perhaps most important, is who I am as a person. I enjoy interacting with people, especially one-on-one, and truly love the County. I traded a successful career in environmental consulting to start a new a business where I had to learn how to brew beer and work in a long standing, multifaceted business that employs over 45 locals. I’m extremely hard working and efficient and I look forward to working hard for the folks of South Marysburgh and the County more broadly. I believe that Council can and should be more transparent and accountable and I will make decisions based on inclusive engagement with residents and good evidence. That’s a big part of why I’m running.


    Back to top

    Accountability & transparency

    Three Invitations asked candidates to rate six proposals to enhance Council’s accountability and transparency:

    We have categorized candidates’ ratings of these proposals [Not in favour | Neither | In favour] below. Candidates were also asked to explain their ratings and we encourage everyone to consider their ratings alongside their explanations.

    Table 1. Candidates’ ratings of proposals to enhance Council’s accountability and transparency.
    John HIRSCH
    Proposition Not in favour
    Neither
    In favour
    1. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.
    2. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.
    3. A public register of requests for County records.
    4. The routine disclosure of County records.
    5. The active dissemination of County records.
    6. A Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.
    Ryan KREUTZWISER
    Proposition Not in favour
    Neither
    In favour
    1. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.
    2. A Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.
    3. A public register of requests for County records.
    4. The routine disclosure of County records.
    5. The active dissemination of County records.
    6. A Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.

    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 7

    Candidates received Invitation 7 on October 3, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 11, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on October 12, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. For any one of [the nine themes covered in the 2022 VitalSigns Report], please outline a course of action that Council should consider to reinforce successes and/or address challenges identified in the 2022 VitalSigns Report.

    Environment.
    The VitalSigns report on the environment usefully identifies many community-based organizations and County entities involved in protecting, preserving, conserving the natural environment. The report notes that Council’s declaration of climate emergency has not resulted in much concrete action so far.

    It is important to recognize, however, that the current Council reworked its strategic priorities which now include adaptation to climate change. These are activities, initiatives that can or should be taken to avoid loss form events like the 100 year floods of 2017 and 2019, drought, etc.

    I would have the next Council renew the Environmental Advisory Committee (on which I currently sit) and strengthen its mandate- providing some budget dollars so its work can be improved. The EAC was an effective voice over the last 3 years commenting on planning proposals and should continue that role. Notably, forest management is now a much more serious issue with the complete loss of the ash forest, visible to everyone driving County roads. The EAC and through it to Council needs to take action to remove and replace dead ash trees on County property and help facilitate the public’s ability to do the same.

    Additionally, Council should continue to accept the advice and recommendations of key community organizations like SSJI, PECFN, PEPtBO whose members and partners have a wealth of knowledge and experience in conservation.

    2. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following proposal: “Council should adopt a Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.”

    Strongly agree.

    3. Please explain your rating.

    For ease of transparency this would be beneficial. However, I would not extend recorded votes to every single agenda item – things like approval of the agenda, motion to adjourn, etc. should continue to be by show of hands.

    4. Please share examples of how you’ve been trying to learn more about diversity, equity and inclusion. What have been the biggest changes in your thinking? How are you applying what you’ve learned in your work in the County?

    DEII is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals, including people of different ages, races and ethnicities, abilities and disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. This also covers people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, skills and expertise.

    The aim is to encourage tolerance instead of bias, acceptance instead of rejection.
    This is critically important in building a fair society that allows all people to have equal opportunities.

    Although I have always considered myself to be completely inclusive and find racism a completely foreign concept, I have now become aware that simply being a white male (an older one at that) growing up in Canada means that I probably have an implicit bias and suffer from homophily (a preference for interacting with those with similar traits).

    So, I continue to study – and there is a lot of new material out there – so I can be a better inclusive, non-discriminatory, non-racist person.

    On Council, I have recently supported adoption of new HR policies which are a vast improvement over the previous ones. We will, however, need to monitor staff performance to ensure they are more than just policies and their intent is carried out in real life.

    Working hard to not practice white blindness.

    Following the 2020/2021 highly publicized debate over the fate of the MacDonald sculpture, as a Council member I was offered and completed a multi-part online course entitled “Canadian Indigenous Culture Training – Truth and Reconciliation Edition”. I found this an eye opener to learn much more about Canada’s indigenous history from the indigenous perspective. An important takeaway was better understanding of how and why indigenous peoples have been mistreated and misunderstood by generations of governments. Plus the course offered learning on how to approach the complex question of reconciliation.

    Putting this to use has involved supporting more inclusion of First Nations in committees – for example, I am the Council rep on the new DMO Visit the County and one of our first actions was to invite MBQ to appoint a board member which they did. Josh Hill has been a valuable addition to the Board.


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. For any one of [the nine themes covered in the 2022 VitalSigns Report], please outline a course of action that Council should consider to reinforce successes and/or address challenges identified in the 2022 VitalSigns Report.

    Inclusive economy.
    Inclusive economy means expanding opportunities for more broadly-shared prosperity especially for the most disadvantaged. Vital Signs highlights some challenges, including higher living costs especially affecting low income households and the impacts of Covid on small businesses. Vital Signs refers toThrive PEC (a community capacity building organization), which has identified many tensions and threats to building an inclusive economy, including loss of youth (lack of local opportunity), absentee investors who don’t contribute to our economy/community, and outside dollars influencing how our economy is developed. I would also add this challenge in terms of attracting manufacturing (which many municipalities rely on for good-paying year-round employment), we are in competition with communities closer to the 401 and rail service.

    I believe Council can and must do more to promote an inclusive economy. Council’s 2016 strategic plan set out five priorities including providing a business-friendly environment (including incentives for startups) and support for traditional agriculture and agri-tourism. Council’s latest 8 strategic initiatives (2020-2021) don’t seem to capture these. If Council is serious about prompting an inclusive economy, it must signal this in its decisions, not just its words. The following are some actions Council should consider if it wishes to promote a more inclusive economy:

    1. In its zoning, development approval and related decisions, Council should carefully consider implications for meaningful and compatible economic growth, be sensitive to local concerns but also to the best available evidence.
    2. Make Council more accountable for economic development. While Council has economic development professionals in its Department of Community Services, Initiatives and Programs, it chose to create the Community and Economic Development Commission in 2020. Does this make Council less accountable and how effective has this Commission been to date?
    3. In its decisions, Council should consider implications for wealth disparity. While some minor progress is being made on attainable housing, I’m disturbed by other decisions. The new water rate structure, for instance, ignores the fact that there is a minimum amount of water essential to maintaining a household (regardless of income); water use beyond that minimum is largely discretionary. There are alternative water rate structures that are proven to reduce discretionary water use, especially peak use, yet Council chose a structure that penalizes lower income households.
    4. Council should develop and promote meaningful incentives for the kinds of small businesses that are likely to be most successful in attracting young employees. Some of these businesses are “footloose” (unlike many manufacturing enterprises). While Council started some promotion via its “Build a New Life” website, important parts of this website don’t appear to have been been updated since 2020. Also, I believe Council (and businesses) can make better use Loyalist College. The County supported the opening of the Bay of Quinte Skills Centre in 2016 and the College has several programs (e.g., in culinary skills/management and digital content creation) pertinent to “footloose” businesses.

    2. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following proposal: “Council should adopt a Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.”

    Strongly agree.

    3. Please explain your rating.

    I strongly support recorded votes, moreover I would urge the Council to create an easily accessible and user-friendly online register of recorded votes as several other Ontario municipalities have already done. Such a register would be one of the most significant contributions to accountability and transparency possible. Especially with a large council, it’s too easy to hide behind the votes of other councillors. At present, as noted, any councillor can request a recorded vote. At an absolute minimum, all votes with financial implications for taxpayers and all votes on zoning changes, Official Plan amendments and development approvals should be automatically recorded. Perhaps very routine decisions (e.g., approval of agendas and minutes, except for additions to agendas) could be exempt from the mandatory requirement.

    4. Please share examples of how you’ve been trying to learn more about diversity, equity and inclusion. What have been the biggest changes in your thinking? How are you applying what you’ve learned in your work in the County?

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion are paramount in a democracy. I was brought up in a family and social setting that instilled these values. Honestly, it wasn’t even a question before I moved to the County and dipped my feet in politics. Personally, I am willing to learn and to acknowledge any of my faults/short-comings. I will embrace any training offered, and I will commit to making decisions that are both inclusive and equitable.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 6

    Candidates received Invitation 6 on September 23, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 3, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on October 5, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following service categories:

    Service category Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    General government
    Protection services
    Transportation services
    Environmental services
    Health services
    Social and family services
    Social housing
    Recreation and cultural services
    Planning and development services

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    This is a bit complicated to answer because the categories of spending used for the “Segment” disclosure to the Province are not at all the same as used in the budget documents which we review and approve line by line every year. If the reader will look at the County’s 2022 operating budget documents (available online at: https://www.thecounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-Operating-Budget-Tax-Supported.pdf for the tax supported operating budget and: https://www.thecounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-Operating-Budget-Rate-Supported.pdf for the rate supported operating budget) you will see the great discrepancy between what is in the actual budgets for which Council is held responsible and the segments reported to the province. I think this makes it unrealistic to view our numbers against the 2 comparator municipalities.

    With this background, I will address Environmental Services as well as Planning and Development Services.

    Environmental services
    From the provincial standpoint, this includes our water and wastewater systems as well as waste collection and disposal (garbage and recycling).

    At first glance it looks like user fees cover over 95% of the overall cost. Certainly, for water and wastewater services, we capture 100% of costs as the system is fully user-pay and should stay that way in my view.

    In the case of garbage and recycling, however, we recover only about 42% of the cost through bag tags and dump fees ($1,183,600 revenue over total cost of $2,840,913 – for 2022). I would like to see better cost recovery for this category but recognize that there are hardship cases which need to be considered.

    So, I would favour a means tested program for water and wastewater rates and waste rates. We trialled this last spring for water rates and it was a successful program – hopefully to be expanded in 2023.

    I should also note that with respect to water and wastewater rates, while they are undeniably high for many historical reasons, we have taken steps to soften the blow of increasing capacity of the systems by negotiating with major developers to pay their share of infrastructure improvements up front. In fact the County won an award from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario this year for this initiative.

    Planning and development services
    There is a development boom going on in the County and the volume of applications has risen dramatically, as well as their complexity. We are dealing with larger and more complex projects than ever before. Unfortunately, we have a one-size fits all approach to fees and connection charges and this needs to change in my view.

    In terms of the Planning department, we should be charging more to the large projects while at the same time giving a break to the ordinary property owner who maybe only wants to do a simple severance, lot addition, re-zoning or minor variance.

    We are currently only covering less than half the cost of planning services and developers complain that we are slow to act. Perhaps, if they paid more, we could afford to hire and provide better service.


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following service categories:

    Service category Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    General government
    Protection services
    Transportation services
    Environmental services
    Health services
    Social and family services
    Social housing
    Recreation and cultural services
    Planning and development services

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    It is widely accepted that user fees should be based on the benefits received principle (users pay most of the costs of services they receive), sometimes modified to reduce the burden on lower income users (ability to pay). In the absence of appropriately-set user fees, services will be subsidized by property taxes which can lead to inefficient provisions of public services. From 2018 to 2020 in the County, total expenditures increased 9.3%, user fees increased 7.3%, and property taxes rose 12.6%. While all user fees should be carefully scrutinized, the question asks candidates to address two categories.
    Environmental services
    This category is mostly municipal water/wastewater and is the County’s second biggest expense. Ontario expects municipalities to fully recover these expenses through user fees, not property taxes, and the County is close to achieving this. There is considerable unhappiness among residents about substantial recent increases in fees. While it is very important to encourage water conservation, I am troubled by how the County chose to do so (increasing April-September rates by 50% over winter rates). This greatly penalizes lower-income residents. An alternative would be to use an “increasing block rate”, where users pay more for larger volumes used. This encourages water conservation (particular during the summer), and shifts the burden towards higher water users (typically more affluent ones). This rate structure could be applied to residential users only, with a more conventional structure for businesses and industries.

    Planning and development services
    This category relates to approval of zoning and official plan amendments, land division (consents and plans of subdivision), cash-in-lieu of parkland, among others. While user fees as a percent of total expenditures for this category increased from 15.8% to 30.6% (2018-2020), this category is still heavily subsidized by property taxes. Yet the beneficiaries of these approvals tend to be large corporations that gain financially from the development when it is approved. This is especially unfair to taxpayers in parts of the County where there is not a lot of development occurring. I am particularly concerned about proponents of subdivisions not bearing full costs of approval. I want to qualify that with development there can be significant amount of spin-off benefits such as employment, procurement of services and supplies, etc. As well, housing development increases the tax base over time.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 5

    Candidates received Invitation 5 on September 20, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 26, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 28, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following:

    “Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to [the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s] Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.”

    Agree.

    2. Please explain your rating.

    I am not familiar enough with the legal ramifications of dealing with the Doctrine of Discovery as suggested above – but to the extent this can be legally pursued, let’s do it. It is important for Council to put its words into action, so taking a strong initiative to effectively implement these calls to action is imperative.

    3. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following statements:

    “The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    “The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Disagree.

    “The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Disagree.

    4. For any one of your ratings above, please describe your analysis of the different costs and benefits that lead to your conclusion (max. 500 words).

    For both (b) and (c) I can’t imagine why the County would not want to comply with the provisions recommended by AMCTO – this is simply required transparency. With respect to (c), I believe we already automatically actively disseminate the records recommended by AMCTO


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following:

    “Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to [the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s] Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.”

    Strongly agree.

    2. Please explain your rating.

    The governments of Ontario (in 2019) and Canada (in 2021) legislated the adoption of the UN Declaration on indigenous rights and many Ontario municipalities have also done so. While acknowledging that municipalities have no authority regarding indigenous rights (they are not the Crown), the Association of Municipalities Ontario recognizes 6 Calls to Action relevant to municipalities and offers resources in support of municipal action (see AMO “Resources on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (RTC) Calls to Action” 2021).

    3. Please rate your level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the following statements:

    “The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    “The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    “The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefits.”
    Neither disagree or agree.

    4. For any one of your ratings above, please describe your analysis of the different costs and benefits that lead to your conclusion (max. 500 words).

    It is difficult to offer a meaningful response to Q3 in the absence of knowing how many such requests are made every year and the nature of those requests. Some currently undisclosed information might be actively disseminated on the County website (to reduce the need for FOI requests) and some kinds of information might be suitable for routine disclosure (following an inquiry, no formal FOI request necessary) but County policies for both active dissemination and routine disclosure should only be adopted after very careful consideration of privacy and cost implications.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 4

    Candidates received Invitation 4 on September 14, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 19, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 21, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. Please identify and describe the general nature of any conflict of pecuniary interest – real or apparent, direct or indirect – that you would foresee needing to declare, given the sort of conflicts that have been disclosed by your predecessors in 2020-2022. [We later clarified the reference to 2020-2022 here. As the preamble re: “Pecuniary Conflicts of Interest” notes, these three years are the ones reported in the County’s online Annual Registries of members’ disclosoure of conflicts of interest.]

    The only possibility for me would be some proposal that directly affects my property. The was the conflict I declared earlier this year when a proposal to close the road allowance behind my property came up. It was potentially beneficial to me so I had to declare the conflict.

    2A & 3. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.” Please elaborate.

    Agree.

    I agree with the Ombudsman that non-pecuniary conflicts should be included in our Code of Conduct. However, I find that both he and the City of Kingston have not done a good job of defining exactly what that means. As long as we come up with a clear, understandable definition, I am all in favour.

    2B & 4. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.” Please elaborate.

    Agree.

    As the Ombudsman said, the current range of relations is too narrow and should be expanded. The example of brothers or sisters stands out as obvious.

    5. In the voter’s own words, please identify the most difficult-to-answer question that you’ve been asked in your campaign.

    Why do taxes have to keep going up?

    6. Please explain why this question was the most difficult-to-answer.

    It is difficult because everyone has different priorities as to what they think Council should be doing. And most people are truly unaware of the enormous range of services the County is required to provide as a single tier municipality. I usually suggest that people go on the County website, click the box for residents, then all services. This brings up many boxes detailing all the things we do. So the simple question is – which one of these do you not want to do? Pretty difficult to answer because all are functions we are required to do. The other part of the answer is that over the last 4 years, partly thanks to the pandemic, and partly due to changes in our economy, our staff are actually performing more functions with only tax increases in the vicinity of inflation.

    7. On October 21, 2020, Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning application from Picton Terminals to bring in container and cruise ships. If presented with a similar vote today, how would you vote (deny or approve)? Why?

    That would be a resounding DENY. Nothing has changed in terms of Picton Terminals’ operation. They continue to show a serious disregard for regulations, breaking noise bylaws on a regular basis, for example. They are operating a de facto quarry but under a loophole, don’t require a licence. Nor do they pay the normal fees. The thought of them operating a container port and cruise ship hub given their track record is not something I would want to contemplate.


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. Please identify and describe the general nature of any conflict of pecuniary interest – real or apparent, direct or indirect – that you would foresee needing to declare, given the sort of conflicts that have been disclosed by your predecessors in 2020-2022. [We later clarified the reference to 2020-2022 here. As the preamble re: “Pecuniary Conflicts of Interest” notes, these three years are the ones reported in the County’s online Annual Registries of members’ disclosoure of conflicts of interest.]

    Part-owner of a resort (Comprised of two restaurants, a brewery, special events venue, and accommodation, including STAs).

    2A & 3. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.” Please elaborate.

    Strongly agree.

    The question becomes how to apply this. One issue I perceive is that a councillor has an association with an advocacy group and presumably should recuse themselves from any decisions related.

    2B & 4. Please indicate your agreement with the following statement: “The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.” Please elaborate.

    Strongly agree.

    It’s appropriate to broaden the definition of family. For example, direct in-laws, grandparents, grandchildren. However, I think we need to limit it at these family members.

    5. In the voter’s own words, please identify the most difficult-to-answer question that you’ve been asked in your campaign.

    I haven’t had any policy questions that I would consider difficult to answer.

    6. Please explain why this question was the most difficult-to-answer.

    See above.

    7. On October 21, 2020, Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning application from Picton Terminals to bring in container and cruise ships. If presented with a similar vote today, how would you vote (deny or approve)? Why?

    I don’t think cruise ship tourism is the kind of tourism the County needs or wants. Pulses of visitors can be stressful on businesses and attractions, and the benefits of these short-term visitors are relatively small compared to tourists who use local accommodation and stay longer and visit the County.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 3

    Candidates received Invitation 3 on September 7, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 14, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following strategic initiatives:

    Strategic Initiative Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    By-law and policy review
    Downtown revitalization
    Healthcare initiatives
    Municipal Accommodation Tax
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    Short-Term Accommodations
    Tourism management
    Understanding Growth and Water/wastewater infrastructure

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    Healthcare initiatives
    While we have finally adopted a professional approach to physician recruitment, I think we waited far too long. The problem has been evident for quite some time. Furthermore, beyond recruitment for the vacancies in our 23 doctor and 4 NP quotas, we need to really get serious about lobbying the Province to change the system – allow walk-in clinics, change the ratio in favour of more NPs, fewer doctors, and other innovative ways to provide services to the many folks who don’t have them now.

    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    Similarly, we got off to a slow start but since bringing the operation in-house and with the brilliant work of ED Charles Dowdall, units have been approved and much more is in the pipeline. Charles understands well Council’s priority for affordable housing.

    3. Please outline one County-wide strategic initiative that is missing from the above and should be adopted by Council.

    Site alteration bylaw
    The county is one of very few municipalities that does not have a site alteration bylaw. That means that right now a developer can buy a piece of land, clear cut the trees off it, and then file a planning application without having to abide by our tree management policy. Likewise, a landowner can strip all the topsoil off their land and sell it. A site alteration bylaw would put sensible controls in place to prevent such environmental problems.

    Inclusionary zoning bylaw
    We currently have few tools to require developers to include an amount of affordable housing in their subdivision plans. They typically make pious statements that they will consider it, but we have little power to make it happen.

    If we enacted an inclusionary zoning bylaw we could legally require a certain percentage of new construction to be affordable. I hope we can accomplish this in the next term.


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with each of the following strategic initiatives:

    Strategic Initiative Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    By-law and policy review
    Downtown revitalization
    Healthcare initiatives
    Municipal Accommodation Tax
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp.
    Short-Term Accommodations
    Tourism management
    Understanding Growth and Water/wastewater infrastructure

    2. Please explain two of your ratings.

    Municipal Accommodation Tax
    What can be a sensible/appropriate tax, in some municipalities, requiring tourists to contribute to tourism marketing and management, I believe that it isn’t appropriate in the County. The County differs enormously from larger urban centres, like Toronto, Kingston, and even Belleville. Our accommodation sector relies on small scale accommodators, B&B, and individual providers (AKA AirBNB’s). Whereas larger urban centres have larger accommodators (hotels/large resorts/chain hotels) dominating the landscape. Auditing, collection, and enforcement of the MAT tax becomes incrementally more costly for a municipality such as ours. With half the tax going to Destination Marketing and the other half to support infrastructure, the numbers don’t add up, I see it as a zero-sum game in the best of times, we have created another bureaucracy within the municipality that will eat up all the supposed benefits (i.e., revenue) that was meant to go to infrastructure (i.e., roads). To summarize, I believe that if the municipality had not got involved in the first place that there would be more money for the essentials (i.e., roads) that are beneficial to all taxpayers.

    Tourism Management
    I believe that the tourism business operators (i.e., the small businesses) are the best positioned to decide when to market and when to manage their own business operations. The County got way too involved in tourism promotion and is now having to back-track and transition to tourism management (some might say the County is now in Tourism Mitigation mode). I believe that the County needs to remove itself from the tourism realm (they should have never been involved) and leave it to the individual businesses to promote and manage their own interests. Having said that I do not want the municipality to detrimentally impact the progress that the tourism sector has accomplished over the last couple of decades.

    3. Please outline one County-wide strategic initiative that is missing from the above and should be adopted by Council.

    Agriculture/Agri-Tourism
    Agriculture is noticeably absent from the list of initiatives, despite some attention in the new Official Plan. Agriculture has been dominant to the cultural heritage and rural character of the County and continues to be important economically. Is there sufficient recognition of this in decisions that Council has made and will make? Given the constraints facing this industry (e.g., challenges in scaling up operations, conflicts with rural residential development), what can Council do to be more supportive? Has Council adequately understood the role of agri-tourism? I believe agriculture and agri-tourism needs to be a strategic priority/initaive moving forward…as well as the small businesses that dominate this landscape and contribute to the charm and heritage of the County.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 2

    Candidates received Invitation 2 on August 31, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 6, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 7, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. Please identify two internal and one external committee or board listed above whose areas of municipal responsibility would showcase your skills and interests in municipal government.

    It is hard to choose only these as all committees and boards are important.

    1. Environmental Advisory Committee
    2. Planning Committee
    3. Quinte Conservation Executive Board

    2. For these three committees or boards, please highlight your skills and experience (work, volunteer, life) in those areas of municipal responsibility.
    3. For these three committees or boards, please describe the impact you’d hope to make in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    Environmental Advisory Committee
    I was one of the instigators to get this committee going after a 10 year hiatus. My volunteer experience over many years (most recently with the South Shore Joint Initiative, Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists and County Coalition for Safe and Affordable Green Energy positioned me to be knowledgeable in all the environmental issues facing the County. In all these organizations, advocacy is a main focus and I bring all that experience to the EAC. My research, analytical and conciliation skills have proven invaluable over the last 4 years as the EAC has effectively provided advice to council, especially with regard to planning applications and climate change.

    Impact: Given the upcoming priorities for the EAC – comprehensive zoning bylaw review, more major planning applications, site alteration bylaw, etc., I expect to bring my past experience and knowledge to bear so that quality advice can be provided to all of Council – protecting our sensitive natural heritage features from over-development.

    Planning Committee
    This is a key function of Council and not well understood by newcomers to Council – probably the steepest learning curve. My skills at research and analysis have proven invaluable navigating the Planning Act, Official Plan, comprehensive zoning bylaw, etc. as the Committee holds residents’ future in their hands.

    Impact: Now that I am quite comfortable with the planning legislation, I expect to be of assistance in designing the site alteration bylaw and complete application bylaw which are currently being worked on by staff. As well, many outstanding large development projects in the County will require careful review and consideration.

    Quinte Conservation Executive Board
    I have been a Board member for 8 years (the first 4 as a private citizen. QCA plays a big role in a regulatory sense governing what landowners can and cannot do in the floodplain and with their shoreline. I have learned a lot through the huge flood seasons of 2017 and 2019. Again here research and analytical skills are crucial as is the ability to communicate and negotiate with board members from all the different QCA municipalities.

    Impact: As a senior board member now, I am on the appeals committee and I would expect to continue to uphold the application of good conservation principles when hearing appeals. I also expect to help promote shoreline management planning at QCA – a major issue arising from climate change.

    4. How would you account for these rates of voter turnout in the County in recent municipal elections?

    The county’s voting turnout is roughly on a par with the rest of the province and is, of course disappointing given that municipal government is the level closet to people’s lives. I think many non-voters don’t believe those running have talked about or explained key issues in a clear and definitive fashion. I try to do that as evidenced by the platform pages on my website.

    5. Please relate an occasion when you (nearly) decided not to vote in an election.

    Has never happened.

    6. How would you propose to work with other candidates to increase voter turnout in the County in the upcoming municipal election?

    More multi-ward candidate debates or meetings would be desirable. There is already one scheduled for South Marysburgh and Athol, as well as Hallowell. All candidates can encourage participation in their literature, Facebook posts and websites as well.


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. Please identify two internal and one external committee or board listed above whose areas of municipal responsibility would showcase your skills and interests in municipal government.

    1. Community & Economic Development Commission
    2. Environmental Advisory Committee
    3. Quinte Conservation Executive Board

    2. For these three committees or boards, please highlight your skills and experience (work, volunteer, life) in those areas of municipal responsibility.
    I have both educational and professional qualifications in environmental science, as well entrepreneurial and small business expertise:

    • University of Guelph graduate (1998 B.Sc. Environmental Science).
    • Centre of Geographic Sciences (2000 Geographic Information Systems & Remote Sensing).
    • I have 10 years of environmental consulting experience including 6 years working remotely while a resident of the County.
    • I have 15 years of entrepreneurial experience in culinary/hospitality/tourism in the County (including ties to local agriculture/value-added agriculture).

    3. For these three committees or boards, please describe the impact you’d hope to make in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    In a nutshell:

    • I will strive to maximize employment opportunities for all age demographics.
    • I will strive to reduce the barriers to entrepreneurship, and small business.
    • I will work to protect the environment, culture, and heritage of Prince Edward County without sacrificing what makes the County a great place to live.

    4. How would you account for these rates of voter turnout in the County in recent municipal elections?

    In a word “Apathy”. I think municipal governance is an afterthought for most citizens who prioritize federal, and provincial governance and elections, however, I do believe municipal decisions impact us immensely, and I believe that voter turnout will increase in this upcoming election because of consequential decisions this current council has made. The quote from Thomas Jefferson comes to mind “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

    5. Please relate an occasion when you (nearly) decided not to vote in an election.

    I have always voted in Canada, I believe it’s a fundamental responsibility to vote. Even living abroad, in the United States early in my professional career I voted in the federal election. I know of some people recently who have questioned whether or not to vote in certain elections because they did not like any of the candidates running.

    I have 2 thoughts on this:

    • If you decide not to vote, you have little right to question the decisions elected officials have made on your behalf; and
    • You always have the best choice of bad alternatives, and that “bad alternatives” should invigorate individuals to be more involved in, and influence the priorities and direction of the government and candidates.

    6. How would you propose to work with other candidates to increase voter turnout in the County in the upcoming municipal election?

    As an aspiring councillor, I feel that door knocking is the way all candidates can try to move the needle on municipal voter turnout. In addition, I would encourage all candidates to be present and accessible at public events (e.g., fall fairs, all-candidate meetings, etc.) to interact with the public and answer questions on their platforms and their vision of the future for the county.


    Back to top

    Responses to Invitation 1

    Candidates received Invitation 1 on August 24, 2022 and were asked to share their thoughts by August 29, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on August 31, 2022.

    Respondents

    John Hirsch

    1. How long have you resided in the County?

    8 years.

    1b. (Additional question for candidates for Ward Councilor only): How long have you resided in the Ward in which you are running to be Councilor?

    0. I reside in Hallowell but run in South Marysburgh due to all my volunteer activity regarding the South Shore.

    2. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the current term of Council (Fall 2018 – present).

    Council, Nominating committee, Environmental Advisory committee, Heritage Advisory committee, Audit committee, Quinte Conservation Board, South Marysburgh Recreation Board, South Marysburgh Management committee, and Visit the County Destination Marketing and Management Board.

    3. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous term of Council (Fall 2014 – Fall 2018).

    Quinte Conservation Board member 2015-2018.

    4. Please identify your membership or volunteering in a not-for-profit, non-governmental oganization associated with the County during the current term of Council (November 2018 – present).

    South Shore Joint Initiative, Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County.

    5. How do you understand talk of tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County?

    I don’t hear talk of tension at all. It seems those who believe this is an issue are mostly Facebook posters.

    Please indicate your agreement with the following statements:

    6a. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s agenda. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    6b. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s decisions. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    7. Please identify any role you see yourself in addressing any tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County.

    I will continue to listen to and represent the interests of all residents of the County. That is the role of a Councillor.


    Ryan Kreutzwiser

    1. How long have you resided in the County?

    20 Years (2002).

    1b. (Additional question for candidates for Ward Councilor only): How long have you resided in the Ward in which you are running to be Councilor?

    My personal residence is in North Marysburgh, however my family has owned the Black River Cheese Factory property since 2017.

    2. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the current term of Council (Fall 2018 – present).

    NA.

    3. Please identify your membership on Council, committee, commission, board, or other body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous term of Council (Fall 2014 – Fall 2018).

    NA.

    4. Please identify your membership or volunteering in a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization associated with the County during the current term of Council (November 2018 – present).

    NA.

    5. How do you understand talk of tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County?

    I don’t really see the length of time living in the County as an issue. I believe that any “tension” that may exist has more to do with the values and mindset of the individual(s).

    Please indicate your agreement with the following statements:

    6a. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s agenda. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    6b. Tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County influences Council’s decisions. [Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree]

    7. Please identify any role you see yourself in addressing any tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County.

    The length of time a County resident has been here can’t be changed but mindsets can be. I think that all residents, regardless how long they’ve lived here, deserve to be listened to by council, and that all council members should be easily accessible to them. I believe that when any “tension” arises that a dialogue is the most important step to take and as a councilor; I will facilitate this dialogue for county residents.


    Back to top

  • Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 8

    Background

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County were invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Candidates received Invitation 8 on October 5, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 17, 2022.

    Responses were received from 19 candidates (57.6%).

    Public engagement

    Low voter turnout in municipal elections partly reflects voters’ sense of disconnection from their local government. Council has been trying recently to engage better with the public. Online resources, like the Have Your Say platform, have helped residents to stay informed and to share their thoughts about new and on-going municipal projects. Some Members have regularly reached out to constituents over social media or have occasionally attended town hall meetings.

    Candidates were asked how they would enhance Council’s approach to public engagement.

    Why support me

    Candidates were asked to share why they were running and why voters should support for them in the municipal election (max. 500 words).

    As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 8.

    Overall response

    Table 1 summarizes candidates’ overall response to the 8 Invitations:

    Table 1. Candidates’ overall response to 8 Invitations.
    Office Candidates Total
    Responses
    Rate of
    Response
    Median
    Response
    Mayor 4 11 34.4% 2.0
    Picton 5 5 12.5% 0.0
    Bloomfield/Hallowell 3 19 79.2% 7.0
    Wellington 3 22 91.7% 7.0
    Ameliasburgh 5 13 32.5% 0.0
    Athol 4 31 96.9% 7.5
    Sophiasburgh 2 7 43.8% 3.5
    Hillier 3 7 43.8% 3.5
    North Marysburgh 2 15 93.8% 7.5
    South Marysburgh 2 16 100.0% 8.0

    For candidate-level response data, see RSVPs at a glance.

  • Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 7

    Background

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Candidates received Invitation 7 on October 3, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 11, 2022.

    Responses were received from 18 candidates (54.5%) (see RSVPs at a glance).

    VitalSigns

    On September 22, 2022, The County Foundation released the 2022 Vital Signs Report for Prince Edward County. VitalSigns is a national program, led by community foundations, and coordinated by Community Foundations of Canada, to leverage local knowledge, measure the vitality of our communities, and support action towards improving our collective quality of life. The VitalSigns Report and VitalSigns Data Bank are organized around nine themes.

    Against this background, for of these themes, candidates were asked to choose any one of these themes and outline a course of action that Council should consider to reinforce successes and/or address challenges identified in the VitalSigns Report.

    Table 1 identifies the themes chosen by 17 candidates:

    Table 1. Candidates’ choice of themes to address from the 2022 VitalSigns Report for Prince Edward County (N=17).
    Theme N %
    Sustainable community 6 35.3%
    Environment 4 23.5%
    Good health & well-being 3 17.7%
    Inclusive economy 2 11.8%
    Quality education 1 5.8%
    Transportation & mobility 1 5.8%
    Safety & justice 0 0.0%
    Food security 0 0.0%
    COVID-19 impact 0 0.0%

    Recorded Votes

    The Municipal Act requires Council “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.” s. 224(d.1) The Act provides “If a member present at a meeting at the time of a vote requests immediately before or after the taking of the vote that the vote be recorded, each member present…shall announce his or her vote openly and the clerk shall record each vote.” s.246(1)
    As part of a Strategic Initiative to review all of its policies and by-laws, Council recently reviewed the Procedure By-law for conducting its meetings. In the course of that review, Council adopted a Transparency and Accountability Policy in June 2022. While the Policy does not require recorded votes, there has been a noticeable increase in members’ requests that votes be recorded.

    Against this background, candidates were asked to rate their level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the proposal that “Council should adopt a Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.” Candidates were also asked to explain their level of agreement with the proposal.

    Table 2 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

    Table 2. Candidates’ agreement with requiring that Council’s votes on motions be recorded (N=18).
    Proposal Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree
    Council should require that all members’ votes on motions be recorded. 1 3 4 5 5
    5.6% 16.7% 22.2% 27.8% 27.8%

    Table 3 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Not in favour, Neither, and In favour of the proposal:

    Table 3. Candidates’ agreement with requiring that Council’s votes on motions be recorded (N=18).
    Proposal Not in favour Neither In favour
    Council should require that all members’ votes on motions be recorded. 4 4 10
    22.2% 22.2% 55.6%

    Diversity, equity and inclusion

    I’d promised other voters to pass along some of their questions. So, candidates were asked to share examples of how they’ve been trying to learn more about diversity, equity and inclusion. What have been the biggest changes in their thinking? How are they applying what they’ve learned in their work in the County?

    All candidates provided some sort of response.

    As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 7.

  • Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 6

    Background

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Candidates received Invitation 6 on September 23, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 3, 2022. Candidates were allowed 10 days (instead of the usual 5) to respond.

    Responses were received from 12 candidates (36.4%) – compared to about 20 candidates (60.6%) who had been responding recently (see RSVPs at a glance).

    User fees & service charges

    User fees & service charges help fund a range of County services, including water supply, solid waste collection and disposal, protection, transportation, health, recreation, planning, etc. In general, the design of these fees & charges is based on the “benefits-received” principle, sometimes modified using “ability-to-pay” criteria. Decisions about pricing structures and the proportion of costs recovered from user fees & service charges generally depend on considerations such as local tradition, the type of service, the preferences of residents, and the willingness of local officials to substitute prices for local taxes.

    The province requires that the County submit a Financial Information Report (FIR) to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing annually. The County’s annual FIR includes statements of expenses and user fees & service charges associated with nine functional categories of service that are defined by the province. The County’s annual Consolidated Financial Statements also include a “Schedule of Segment Disclosure” for the same functional categories. Finally, for the past three years, the County’s annual Audit Findings Reports, prepared by an independent auditor, have identified two single-tier municipal comparators: Norfolk County and West Nipissing Municipality.

    Invitation 6 referred candidates to two sets of financial statements (described below):

    Against this background, candidates were asked to rate their satisfaction with the user fees & service charges associated with the nine functional categories (segments) of service in the County.

    Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

    Table 1. Candidates’ satisfaction with user fees & service charges associated with categories of service in the County (N=12).
    Service category Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither dissatisfied or satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
    General government 2 2 3 5 0
    16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 41.7% 0.0%
    Protection services 0 2 3 6 1
    0.0% 16.7% 25.0% 50.0% 8.3%
    Transportation services 0 6 4 2 0
    0.0% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%
    Environmental services 1 3 6 2 0
    8.3% 25.0% 50.0% 16.7% 0.0%
    Health services 1 2 4 4 1
    8.3% 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 8.3%
    Social and family services 0 2 6 4 0
    0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 0.0%
    Social housing 0 4 5 3 0
    0.0% 33.3% 41.7% 25.0% 0.0%
    Recreation and cultural services 0 5 4 3 0
    0.0% 41.7% 33.3% 25.0% 0.0%
    Planning and development services 3 3 2 4 0
    25.0% 25.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0%

    Table 2 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Dissatisfied, Neither, and Satisfied with user fees & service charges:

    Table 1. Candidates’ satisfaction with user fees & service charges associated with categories of service in the County (N=12).
    Service category Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied
    General government 4 3 5
    33.3% 25.0% 41.7%
    Protection services 2 3 7
    16.7% 25.0% 58.3%
    Transportation services 6 4 2
    50.0% 33.3% 16.7%
    Environmental services 4 6 2
    33.3% 50.0% 16.7%
    Health services 3 4 5
    25.0% 33.3% 41.7%
    Social and family services 2 6 4
    16.7% 50.0% 33.3%
    Social housing 4 5 3
    33.3% 41.7% 25.0%
    Recreation and cultural services 05 4 3
    41.7% 33.3% 25.0%
    Planning and development services 6 2 4
    50.0% 16.7% 33.3%

    Explanation of ratings

    Candidates were asked to explain their ratings of satisfaction with the user fees & service charges associated with two of these service categories in the County. A total of 19 explanations were provided by 10 candidates.

    Table 3 presents number and percentage of candidates who explained their ratings for a given service category.

    Table 3. Candidates’ explanations of ratings of satisfaction with user fees and service charges associated with service categories in the County (N=19).
    Service category N %
    General government 4 21.1%
    Protection services 1 5.3%
    Transporation services 3 15.8%
    Environmental services 4 21.1%
    Health services 1 5.3%
    Social and family services 1 5.3%
    Social housing 0 0.0%
    Recreation and cultural services 0 0.0%
    Planning and development services 5 26.3%

    Candidates were strongly inclined to explain their dissatisfaction (15 or 78.9% of explanations) with specific user fees or service charges. None of the candidates’ explained their satisfaction with specific user fees or service charges.

     

    As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 6.

  • Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 5

    Background

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Candidates received Invitation 5 on September 20, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 26, 2022.

    Responses were received from 20 candidates (69.6%), including 2 candidates for Mayor (50.0%) and 18 candidates for Ward Councilor (62.1%) (see RSVPs at a glance).

    Truth and Reconciliation

    The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action include calls to municipal governments that apply to County Council:

    • to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation (CTA 43)
    • to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous peoples and lands, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, and to reform those laws, government policies, and litigation strategies that continue to rely on such concepts (CTA 47)
    • to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations (CTA 57)

    Against this background, candidates largely agreed with the proposition that “Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.”

    Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

    Table 1. Candidates’ agreement with adopting a Strategic Initiative to respond to the Truth and Reconcilation Commission’s Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57 (N=20).
    Proposition Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree
    Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57. 0 0 3 11 6
    0% 0% 15% 55% 30%

    Table 2 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Not in favour, Neither, and In favour of the proposal:

    Table 2. Candidates’ agreement with adopting a Strategic Initiative to respond to the Truth and Reconcilation Commission’s Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57 (N=20).
    Proposal Not in favour Neither In favour
    Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57. 0 3 17
    0% 15% 85%

    No candidate disagreed with the proposition; the three candidates who neither disagreed or agreed explained:

    • “… I do not have an opinion on the initiatives as I find it hard to believe that they are not already in place or at least have the information available.”
    • “I feel our Indigenous People should set the framework for reconciliation as it pertains to the municipality, not the United Nations.”
    • “I have been out campaigning and have not researched the various calls of action fully in order to respond knowledgeably. …”

    Transparency and Privacy

    The Municipal Act requires Council “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality.” To this end, Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act gives everyone the right to access County records – with certain exemptions that are meant to protect privacy.

    The County Clerk has advised that there’s no public register of requests for County records, such as other municipalities (e.g. Oshawa and Newmarket) provide, and that the County may consider developing a policy for routine disclosure and/or active dissemination of County records in the future.

    Candidates were asked to rate their agreement with assessments of the likely cost-benefit of three initiatives related to requests for County records. Table 3 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

    Table 3. Candidates’ agreement with assessments of the likely cost-benefit of three initiatives related to requests for County records (N=20).
    Cost-benefit assessment Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree
    The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefit. 3 5 10 2 0
    15% 25% 50% 10% 0%
    The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefit. 3 8 8 1 0
    15% 40% 40% 5% 0%
    The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefit. 3 7 9 1 0
    15% 35% 45% 5% 0%

    Table 4 collapses candidates’ ratings into Disagreement, Neither, and Agreement categories:

    Table 4. Candidates’ agreement with assessments of the likely cost-benefit of three initiatives related to requests for County records (N=20).
    Cost-benefit assessment Disagreement Neither Agreement
    The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefit. 8 10 2
    40% 50% 10%
    The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefit. 11 8 1
    55% 40% 5%
    The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefit. 10 9 1
    50% 45% 5%

    Levels of disagreement or agreement were pretty uniform across the three initiatives. A few candidates agreed that the cost of these initiatives in general would likely outweigh its benefit. The remaining candidates were split nearly evenly between those who disagreed and those who neither disagreed or agreed that the cost of these initiatives in general would likely outweigh its benefit.

    Candidates were asked to describe their analysis of the different costs and benefits that lead to any one of their ratings (max. 500 words). Most candidates shared their perspectives on the likely cost and benefit of these initiatives taken together.

    As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 5.

  • Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 4

    Background

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Responses to Invitation 4 were received from 21 candidates (63.6%), including 2 candidates for Mayor (50.0%) and 19 candidates for Ward Councilor (65.5%) (see RSVPs at a glance).

    Candidates received Invitation 4 on September 14, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 19, 2022. Candidates’ responses were published here and on Facebook on September 21, 2022.

    Pecuniary conflicts of interest

    Against the background provided in Invitation 4, candidates were asked to identify any pecuniary conflicts of interest that they might need to declare. Twelves candidates (57.1%) anticipated having no pecuniary conflicts of interest. Five candidates identified potentail pecuniary conflicts of interest relating to their own or a family member’s business; three of these businesses involved STAs.

    Amending Council’s Code of Conduct

    Candidates were asked to rate their agreement with two amendments to Council’s Code of Conduct to address other conflicts of interest. Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

    Table 1. Candidates’ agreement with amending Council’s Code of Conduct to address other conflicts of interest (N=21).
    Amendment Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly agree
    The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests. 0 3 3 7 8
    0% 14.3% 14.3% 33.3% 38.1%
    The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child. 1 3 3 7 7
    4.8% 14.3% 14.3% 33.3% 33.3%

    Table 2 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Not in favour, Neither, and In favour of the amendments:

    Table 2. Candidates’ agreement with amending Council’s Code of Conduct to address other conflicts of interest (N=21).
    Amendment Disagreement Neither Agreement
    The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests. 3 3 15
    14.3% 14.3% 71.4%
    The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child. 4 3 14
    19.1% 14.3% 66.7%

    Difficult-to-answer questions from voters

    Candidates were asked to identify the most difficult-to-answer question that they’ve been asked in their campaign and to explain why the question was the most difficult-to-answer. Eight candidates identified no such question. Other candidates identified questions covering a wide range of voters’ concerns. Only two questions related to the same issue: water rates.

    Picton Terminals

    As promised, we posed one other voter’s question to the candidates:

    “On October 21, 2020, Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning application from Picton Terminals to bring in container and cruise ships. If presented with a similar vote today, who would you vote (deny or approve)? Why?”

    Fourteen candidates indicated that they would vote to deny the rezoning application, one candidate would vote to approve, and six candidates would need to deliberate with more information.

    As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 4.

  • Summary of candidates’ responses to Invitation 3

    Background

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Responses to Invitation 1, 2 and/or 3 have been received from 22 candidates (66.7%), including 3 candidates for Mayor (75.0%) and 19 candidates for Ward Councilor (65.5%). Responses have been received from 5 incumbents (62.5%), including the Mayor and 4 Councilors (57.1%). The 20 candidates who responded to Invitation 3 included 1 first-time respondent (see RSVPs at a glance).

    Candidates received Invitation 3 on September 7, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 14, 2022.

    Satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives

    Against the background provided in Invitation 3, candidates were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the County’s Strategic Initiatives.

    Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative.

    Table 1. Candidates’ satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives (N=20).
    Strategic Initiative Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
    By-law and policy review 0 5 7 5 3
    0% 25% 35% 25% 15%
    Downtown revitalization 0 2 8 10 0
    0% 10% 40% 50% 0%
    Healthcare initiatives 1 8 4 7 0
    5% 40% 20% 35% 0%
    Municipal Accommodation Tax 0 2 6 10 2
    0% 10% 30% 50% 10%
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp. 1 4 4 8 3
    5% 20% 20% 40% 15%
    Short-term accommodations 2 7 4 7 0
    10% 35% 20% 35% 0%
    Tourism management 0 10 5 4 1
    0% 50% 25% 20% 5%
    Growth and water/wastewater 0 8 7 5 0
    0% 40% 35% 25% 0%

    Table 2 collapses both “Very dissatisfied” and “Dissatisfied” ratings into a single “Negative” rating and both “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” ratings into a single “Positive” rating. A “Neither dissatisfied or satisfied” rating is regarded as a “Neutral” rating.

    We hesitate to go much beyond simply reporting the numbers and percentages of candidates’ negative, neutral, and positive ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative. For a moment, however, let’s disregard candidates’ neutral ratings and consider only ratings with a positive or negative valence.

    The column headed “R = Pos/Neg” presents the relative frequency of candidates’ positive vs negative ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative.  For instance, candidates gave a positive rating to the Municipal Accommodation Tax 6.0 times more frequently than a negative rating. By contrast, candidates gave a positive rating to Tourism management only half as frequently as a negative rating.

    Table 2. Candidates’ satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives (N=20).
    Strategic Initiative Negative Neutral Positive R =
    Pos/Neg
    By-law and policy review 5 7 8 1.6
    25% 35% 40%
    Downtown revitalization 2 8 10 5.0
    10% 40% 50%
    Healthcare initiatives 9 4 7 .78
    45% 20% 35%
    Municipal Accommodation Tax 2 6 12 6.0
    10% 30% 60%
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp. 5 4 11 2.2
    25% 20% 55%
    Short-term accommodations 9 4 7 .78
    45% 20% 35%
    Tourism management 10 5 5 .50
    50% 25% 25%
    Growth and water/wastewater 8 7 5 .63
    40% 35% 25%

    Table 3 presents these data for incumbents (n=4) and non-incumbents (n=16) separately.

    Incumbents offered no negative ratings for 4 Strategic Initiatives (so R is undefined). Incumbents gave a positive rating to 3 other Strategic Initiatives 3.0 times more frequently than a negative rating.

    Overall, Non-incumbents offered more of a mix of positive and negative ratings of the Strategic Initatives than Incumbents.

    Incumbents and Non-incumbents were generally aligned in their giving a positive rating more frequently than a negative rating to 3 Strategic Initiatives:

    • Downtown revitalization
    • Municipal Accommodation Tax
    • PEC Affordable Housing Corp.

    However, Non-incumbents gave a positive rating less frequently than Incumbents to 4 Strategic Initiatives:

    • Healthcare initiatives
    • Short-term accommodations
    • Tourism management
    • Growth and water/wastewater
    Table 3. Candidates’ satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives: Incumbents (n=4) and Non-incumbents (n=16).
    Strategic Initiative Respondents Negative Neutral Positive R= Pos/Neg
    By-law and policy review Incumbents 0% 0% 100% und
    Non-incumbents 31% 44% 25% 0.80
    Downtown revitalization Incumbents 25% 50% 25% 1.00
    Non-incumbents 6% 38% 56% 9.00
    Healthcare initiatives Incumbents 25% 0% 75% 3.00
    Non-incumbents 50% 25% 25% 0.50
    Municipal Accommodation Tax Incumbents 0% 0% 100% und
    Non-incumbents 13% 38% 50% 4.00
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp. Incumbents 0% 25% 75% und
    Non-incumbents 31% 19% 50% 1.60
    Short-term accommodations Incumbents 0% 25% 75% und
    Non-incumbents 56% 19% 25% 0.44
    Tourism management Incumbents 25% 0% 75% 3.00
    Non-incumbents 56% 31% 13% 0.22
    Growth and water/wastewater IncumbentsIncumbents 25% 0% 75% 3.00
    Non-incumbents 44% 44% 13% 0.29

    Explanation of ratings

    Candidates were asked to explain their ratings of satisfaction with two Strategic Initiatives. A total of 36 explanations were provided by 18 candidates. Table 4 presents number and percentage of these candidates who chose to explain their rating for a specific Strategic Initiative.

    Table 4. Candidates’ choice of ratings of satisfaction with Strategic Initiatives to explain (N=36 choices).
    Strategic Initiative N %
    By-law and policy review 1 2.8%
    Downtown revitalization 2 5.6%
    Healthcare initiatives 7 19.4%
    Municipal Accommodation Tax 2 5.6%
    PEC Affordable Housing Corp. 11 30.6%
    Short-term accommodations 5 13.9%
    Tourism management 4 11.1%
    Growth and water/wastewater 4 11.1%

    Missing Strategic Initiatives

    Candidates were asked to outline one County-wide strategic initiative that was missing in the County and should be adopted by Council. Candidates suggested a wide-range of initiatives and their arguments were thoughtful; the most common themes seemed to be:

    • Climate and environment
    • Roads and infrastructure
    • Economic stability and sustainability
    • Planning
    • Poverty reduction and homelessness

    As usual, I encourage everyone to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 3.

  • Summaries of Candidate Responses to Invitations 1 and 2

    Summaries

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    Summaries of candidates’ responses are here:

    Check back for updates.

    Summary of Responses to Invitation 2

    Respondents

    The County’s official list of certified candidates in the upcoming municipal election include 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor. Responses were received from 18 candidates (54.5%), including 2 candidates for Mayor and 16 candidates for Ward Councilor (see RSVPs at a glance).

    Skills and interests in areas of municipal responsibility

    Candidates were asked three questions related to their skills and interests in municipal government:

    1. Please identify two internal and one external committee or board listed above whose areas of municipal responsibility would showcase your skills and interests in municipal government.
    2. For these three committees or boards, please highlight your skills and experience (work, volunteer, life) in those areas of municipal responsibility.
    3. For these three committees or boards, please describe the impact you’d hope to make in those areas of municipal responsibility.

    Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the candidates’ identification of internal and external committees, respectively.

    Table 1. Candidates’ identification of two internal committees to showcase their skills and interests in areas of municipal responsibility (N=18).
    Internal Committee %
    Community & Economic Development Commission 19.4%
    Agricultural Advisory Committee 13.9%
    Heritage Advisory Committee 13.9%
    Planning Committee 13.9%
    Audit Committee 11.1%
    Environmental Advisory Committee 8.3%
    Public Library Board 8.3%
    Accessibility Advisory Committee 5.6%
    Police Services Board 2.8%
    Traffic Advisory Committee 2.8%
    Total 100.0%

     

    Table 2.2. Candidates’ identification of one external committee to showcase their skills and interests in municipal government (N=18).
    External Committee %
    Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation 38.9%
    Quinte Conservation Executive Board 22.2%
    Hastings and Prince Edward Board of Health 11.1%
    Quinte Waste Solutions 11.1%
    Hastings/Quinte Emergency Services Committee 5.6%
    Prince Edward Lennox & Addington Housing Advisory Committee 5.6%
    Prince Edward Lennox & Addington Social Services Committee 5.6%
    Quinte Region Source Protection Committee 0.0%
    Total 100.0%

    Back to top

    Summary of Responses to Invitation 1

    Respondents

    The County’s official list of certified candidates in the upcoming municipal election include 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor. Responses were received from 18 candidates (54.5%), including 2 candidates for Mayor and 16 candidates for Ward Councilor.

    County residency

    Candidates were asked, “For how many years have you resided in the County?” Their responses are summarized in Table 1.1:

    Table 1.1. Candidates’ residency in the County (N=18).
    County residency %
    Under 10 yrs 16.7%
    10 to 19 yrs 16.7%
    20 to 29 yrs 22.2%
    30+ yrs 44.4%
    Total 100.0%

    Membership on municipal bodies

    Candidates were asked to identify their memberships on any body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous and current terms of Council. We have grouped memberships into related areas of responsibility and collapsed across previous and current terms of Council. Candidates’ memberships in these groups over this period are summarized in Table 1.2:

    Table 1.2. Membership on municipal bodies (Fall 2014 to present) (N=18).
    1 “Environment” reflects membership on the Environmental Advisory Committee, Quinte Waste Solutions, and/or Quinte Conservation Executive Board. 2 “Heritage” reflects membership on the Heritage Advisory Committee, the Museum Advisory Committee, and/or the Cemetery Advisory Committee. 3 “Community & economic development” reflects membership on the Community & Economic Development Commmission and/or the Visit the County Destination Marketing and Management Board.
    Membership on municipal bodies %
    Environment 1 27.8%
    Heritage 2 27.8%
    Agriculture 22.2%
    Audit 22.2%
    Community & economic development 3 22.2%
    Recreation 22.2%
    Nominating 11.1%
    Traffic 11.1%
    Accessibility 5.6%
    Police 5.6%
    Social services 5.6%

    Volunteering in the County

    Candidates were asked to identify their memberships in not-for-profit, non-governmental organizations associated with the County during the current term of Council. Areas of volunteering most frequently identified by candidates are summarized in Table 1.3:

    Table 1.3. Candidates’ volunteering in the County (N=18).
    Areas of volunteering  %
    None 55.6%
    Children & families 22.2%
    Agriculture 16.7%
    Food insecurity 16.7%
    Arts 11.1%
    Women 11.1%

    Tension between “old” and “new” residents

    Candidates were asked “How do you understand talk of tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents in the County?” Four candidates (22.2%) found the question to be potentially divisive, a mere distraction, or had no comment. Four candidates (22.2%) hadn’t experienced this sort of tension in the County. Ten candidates (55.5%) shared their experiences and thoughts about it.

    Regardless of their responses to this question, candidates expressed nearly no concern that tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents in the County influences Council’s agenda or decisions (Table 1.4):

    Table 1.4. Candidates’ view of tension’s influence on Council’s agenda and decisions (N=18).
    Tension influences Council’s agenda %
    Strongly disagree/disagree 38.9%
    Neither disagree or agree 44.4%
    Agree/strongly agree 5.6%
    NA 11.1%
    Tension influences Council’s decisions %
    Strongly disagree/disagree 44.4%
    Neither disagree or agree 38.9%
    Agree/strongly agree 5.6%
    NA 11.1%

    Back to top

  • Summary of Candidate Responses to Invitation 1

    Invitation 1

    With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

    Candidates received Invitation 1 on August 24, 2022 and were asked to share their thoughts by August 29, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on August 31, 2022.

    Candidate Responses 1

    The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor (1 office) and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

    Responses to Invitation 1 were received from 18 candidates overall (54.5%), including 2 candidates for Mayor (50%) and 16 candidates for Councilor (55.2%). Five incumbents (62.5%), including the Mayor and 4 Councilors (57.1%), responded. Other candidates showed an interest in the process and may join later.

    See also the candidates’ unredacted responses.

    Summary 1

    County residency

    Candidates were asked, “For how many years have you resided in the County?” Their responses are summarized in Table 1:

    Table 1. County residency.
    County residency Respondents Percent
    Under 10 yrs 3 16.7%
    10 to 19 yrs 3 16.7%
    20 to 29 yrs 4 22.2%
    30+ yrs 8 44.4%
    Total 18 100.0%

    Membership on municipal bodies

    Candidates were asked to identify their memberships on any body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous and current terms of Council. We have grouped memberships into broader, related areas of responsibility and collapsed across previous and current terms of Council. Candidates’ memberships in these groups over this period are summarized in Table 2:

    Table 2. Membership on municipal bodies (Fall 2014 to present).
    1 “Environment” reflects membership on the Environmental Advisory Committee, Quinte Waste Solutions, and/or Quinte Conservation Executive Board. 2 “Heritage” reflects membership on the Heritage Advisory Committee, the Museum Advisory Committee, and/or the Cemetery Advisory Committee. 3 “Community & economic development” reflects membership on the Community & Economic Development Commmission and/or the Visit the County Destination Marketing and Management Board.
    Membership on municipal bodies Respondents Percent
    Environment 1 5 27.8%
    Heritage 2 5 27.8%
    Agriculture 4 22.2%
    Audit 4 22.2%
    Community & economic development 3 4 22.2%
    Recreation 4 22.2%
    Nominating 2 11.1%
    Traffic 2 11.1%
    Accessibility 1 5.6%
    Police 1 5.6%
    Social services 1 5.6%

    Volunteering in the County

    Candidates were asked to identify their memberships in not-for-profit, non-governmental organizations associated with the County during the current term of Council. Areas of volunteering most frequently identified by candidates are summarized in Table 3:

    Table 3. Areas of volunteering.
    Areas of volunteering  Respondents Percent
    Children & families 4 22.2%
    Agriculture 3 16.7%
    Food insecurity 3 16.7%
    Arts 2 11.1%
    Women 2 11.1%
    None 10 55.6%

    Tension between “old” and “new” residents

    Candidates were asked “How do you understand talk of tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents in the County?” Four candidates (22.2%) found the question to be potentially divisive, a mere distraction, or had no comment. Four candidates (22.2%) hadn’t experienced this sort of tension in the County. Ten candidates (55.5%) shared their experiences and thoughts about it.

    Regardless of their responses to this question, candidates expressed nearly no concern that tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents in the County influences Council’s agenda or decisions (Table 4).

    Table 4. Influence of any tension between “old” and “new” residents on Council.
    Tension influences Council’s agenda Respondents Percent
    Strongly disagree/disagree 7 38.9%
    Neither disagree or agree 8 44.4%
    Agree/strongly agree 1 5.6%
    NA 2 11.1%
    Tension influences Council’s decisions Respondents Percent
    Strongly disagree/disagree 8 44.4%
    Neither disagree or agree 7 38.9%
    Agree/strongly agree 1 5.6%
    NA 2 11.1%

    Many candidates had thoughts about the role they saw for themselves in addressing any tension between “old” and “new” residents in the County.