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:

• Summary of responses to Invitation 2
• Summary of responses to Invitation 1

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