PEC Buzz

Author: PEC Buzz Admin

  • 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.

  • Making your voice heard

    County residents are encouraged to suggest questions to be included as part of the five invitations (Invitations 4 to 8) that will round out this series:

    • Questions should pertain to county-wide issues.
    • Questions should place incumbents and non-incumbents on an equal footing to respond.
    • Questions on related issues may be edited and posed as one question.

    Please post your questions on Facebook (https://facebook.com/allenpga) or by email (paul@hartallen.com).

    About three questions from county residents will be included in each Invitation – or about fifteen questions in all.