Hugh Mackenzie
Huntsville Doppler
There are two important meetings being held next week by the District of Muskoka and people should pay attention to them.
These meetings both relate to a motion proposed by the District’s Municipal Modernization Committee to reduce the size of District Council and consider other changes. The District has asked for public input in relation to these changes. You can see the notice here.
The Ontario Municipal Act requires all municipalities—Regional, District and lower tier—to review the composition of their Councils every other term.
The motion put forward by the District Municipal Modernization Committee proposes the reduction of District Councillors by four elected representatives, but it also proposes much more than that: a fundamental change in the way District Government works and a potential change in the balance of power.
Let’s look at the motion and then discuss what it really means.
The Motion reads:
THAT Muskoka District Council be reduced from 22 Members and a District Chair to 18 Members and a District Chair with equal members from each of the six lower-tier Municipalities comprised of the Mayor and two Councillors;
AND THAT a District Chair will be elected by those elected to District Council;
AND THAT the District Chair will be allowed to vote and will become a tie-break when needed;
AND THAT voting will require a majority of Council to move items forward;
AND THAT [there be] an amendment to the procedural by-law to prohibit changes to the current service delivery, financial structure or cost apportionment billing models associated with the District operations unless a “significant majority” of Council is in agreement;
AND THAT a “significant majority” of council will be defined as 12;
AND THAT staff be directed to provide wording on the requirement for significant majority at the next meeting of MMC to be held prior to the February 2021 District Council meeting.
Here are the problems with this Motion:
Under this proposal, the three urban municipalities which have the vast majority of permanent residents, along with the Township of Muskoka Lakes, each lose one elected representative and therefore one vote at District Council. The result of this on its face would be that the urban municipalities, where the majority of municipal services are required, cannot control their own agenda as it can now with 12 of the 22 seats on District Council.
Further, when you add a “significant majority”, which is really a super majority, of 12 votes out of 18 for almost all significant responsibilities of District Council, including finances, allocation of taxes, and what services the District offers, the balance of power shifts dramatically to Township municipalities who require only four votes to adjudicate or control the requirements of urban municipalities to serve their much-larger populations and, as well, those of seasonal residents who receive Town services that are not available in the Township municipalities. This is simply not in the best interests of Muskoka.
I do understand and I empathize with the fact that much of the assessment in Muskoka—and therefore many of the funds required to meet the needs of all six municipalities in the District—lies within the Township municipalities, where a large number of our seasonal residents with more expensive properties reside. But that is no reason for a calculated move to change the balance of power. While one could argue that the three Township municipalities have been treated unfairly in terms of assessment, this proposed change would simply put the shoe on the other foot, where the assessment controls the permanent population. That is no solution, and it is no step forward in modernizing or reforming District Government.
This resolution also calls for the District Chair to continue to be elected only by members of District Council. So much for giving that some more thought. The District Chair has no constituency and no mandate from anyone other than members of District Council. Yet this position commands a salary schedule cumulating next year in more than $90,000 including expenses, far higher than any of the elected mayors in Muskoka who have the grassroots and hands-on responsibilities.
To top it off, this proposed resolution and change in how District Government operates would give a full vote to the Chair. Currently the District Chair can only vote in the event of a tie. Effectively, this change means that the number of voting representatives on Council would really only be reduced by three and not four. Further, it is a real question for me whether an individual with no municipally elected constituency should have a vote with the same weight as those that do.
As well, although one District Councillor I have spoken to assures me this is not the case, a plain reading of the resolution does say, “The District Chair will be allowed to vote AND (my emphasis) will become a tie-break when needed.” In plain language that says to me that the Chair can vote to create a tie and then vote to break it. That needs to be clarified.
I have long argued that District Government in Muskoka needs serious reform. I still believe that, perhaps more than ever. But this isn’t it. There is no reform or effective modernization in this motion. District Government has been talking reform for decades and this motion comes across as a weak attempt to show that they are listening.
In its previous term, District Councillors did give consideration to some serious reforms needed in their governance structure. In the end, however, these efforts failed. Even less has been done during this term of District Council to assess the services that District Government provides, where efficiencies can be found, whether there are services that can be better delivered at the local level, and where there are bureaucrats and elected politicians that can be reduced. Suggesting a reduction of only three full members of Council is little short of tokenism.
District Government in Muskoka is now many decades old and has, in my view, grown over the years like a behemoth, without much oversight or accountability. It now manages a budget of well over $75 million and that does not include the cost of sewer and water.
It’s past time we saw thoroughly how this money—our money—is being spent. That, in my view, will never happen with an internal review by District Council. It will only happen with an arms-length, provincially mandated overview and report. Sadly, in spite of assurances by the Ford Government, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one either.
In the meantime, I hope District Council will see this latest motion from the District Municipal Modernization Committee for what it is. It is not modernizing; more importantly it is not reform. It does nothing to improve District Council.
It is just a bunch of self-serving codswallop.
Hugh Mackenzie
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
I wish to object to changing the composition of the District Council. While I can appreciate that the cottagers are major tax contributors (especially in Muskoka Lakes) and feel that that gives them a greater voice in the decisions made by district council I do not accept that rationale. The decision-making balance of power should rest with the people who have chosen Muskoka as their primary home and not with the very privileged and moneyed cottagers. There will be many decisions that need to be made that relate to the quality of life in these Muskoka communities and in which cottagers have little interest (ice-skating rinks, swimming pools, water treatment and sewage infrastructure, etc) but are critical to the quality of life for those people who make Muskoka communities their primary residence. If the cottagers hold the balance of power then it is likely that many of these projects will either be difficult to get approved or might not happen at all to the detriment of the local people. Wealth and privilege alone should not be the equated with power in this case. The balance of power must rest with those people who choose to make Muskoka their primary residence. Therefore I oppose the reduction in the number of urban representatives on the District Council.
Thanks for reporting the text of what is proposed. Regardless of our reaction, it is best to see this information and some resulting reflections which otherwise I, and probably many others, would never look up. Without an educated background about the subject, my immediate reaction is to agree this looks like useless tinkering, with too much power to the no-mandate chair.
Suggestions for real change rather than simply tinkering.
Eliminate the “local” level of government and have only Muskoka District government.
Muskoka would be one municipality. Historical names for the three major urban centers would survive as bouroughs with only minor civic organization in each and the rest would survive informally as has been the case sine 1970 across the same geographical area.
Council size to be 12. All to run at large incliding a single Mayor (or Chair, call her/him what you like).
This party votes only to break ties.
In addition term limits would apply to all including the Mayor who would be elected at large at the halfway part of council’s 4 year term. Each elected person would serve a maximum of two consecitive terms. A councillor wishing to run for Mayor would have to sit out one election.
With municipalities like Toronto managing very well with 25 elected people it is nonsense that a small population such as Muskoka’s has so many, around 50 I believe ! Over-governed comes quickly to mind.
Just some thoughts. No need to shoot the messenger !
I agree with Bob Young that 12 councillors would be more than enough for the District of Muskoka which has a population of 60,000 .
My City of Markham, with a population of 360,000 , has a Council of 13 members (1 Mayor, 4 Regional Councillors and 8 Ward Councillors) and makes decisions, sets policies, directions and budgets for local services. Those elected earn a seat on Markham Council for 4 years. The Mayor and 4 Regional Councillors are elected by the community to represent the City of Markham on the York ( population 1.2 million ) Regional Council.
Even if Muskoka had 12 councillors, I personally feel that the region would still be over represented for such a small population.
We sure do seem to have a lot of government around us here. There seems to be a lot of duplication. A roadside sign for example may be on a District road but you need a District and a Township permit for it. Just one tiny example and the rules regarding the sign are different for both the District and Township.
District was pushed on us back in the 70’s with “no choice” locally by the Provincial government. Still, as noted in one of the comments, District has some significant advantages over a Hodge Podge of small local councils. There is a bit of power in numbers when one gets to Queen’s Park it seems.
It seems a bit sad that the argument gets down to the source of power being derived from either the more populous towns or the more valuable vacation homes.
The source of power Provincially and Federally is already vested in the cottage owners as, by sheer numbers, they can currently out vote the locals at election time. This is not the case Municipally yet but I’m unsure if giving more power to absentee property owners is the solution.
The very concept of giving local votes out based on property ownership, rather than principal residence location seems questionable as is the concept of letting a person have multiple votes at the Municipal level based simply on their ownership of property in that Municipality. This is a basic issue that tinkering with the layout of District council will not fix. It requires some deeper thought.
Somehow the comments got into pensions too. We have both the Canada Pension Plan and Old age security payments here and I really see no need for there to be any different plans for politicians at any level. I mean if the political members voted to provide us with the CPP/OAS benefits we get, well they must agree with these amounts and it follows that they should be entirely satisfied to get these amounts themselves too. Special pensions for government members, be they municipal, Provincial or Federal should be simply removed in their entirety and the standard CPP/OAS used instead. We are, as they like to say, “all in this together”. It is just that at the Federal level for sure, some of us are a bit more “together” than others.
I have never been a fan of District Government and all of this infighting over power and wealth. This could easily be fixed to the benefit of all by dissolving this un-needed layer of governance and save us all a pile of cash. How many layers in the Ontario Government cake do we really need? Nobody wanted this layer so why not cut the calories and abolish it and get back to the Townships taking care of their own backyards. We are not so stupid at the local level that we need daddy District guiding our every move, time to kick the parent out of the house and take control and care of ourselves.
Let’s also get the OPP out of our towns and bring back local policing like days of ole’ and put the saving to good use, another big mistake of the past.
I agree with Hugh Mackenzie and like the proposals of Bob Young very much.
Downloading roads, sewer and water and perhaps other areas and services makes great sense. There can be cooperation in major events just like there is now in a major fire.
Allan Holt
The District was created to provide cost effective services to the vast Muskoka Region.
It boggles the mind that even during times of uncertainty excessive government is still accepted by the masses. Let’s level the playing field and offer indexed pensions to everyone who lives in Muskoka. It’s only fair if you expect Muskoka to support this massive government structure that is neither affordable or sustainable. Can you imagine being forced to pay for lavish pension plans that most of the people in Muskoka can not afford. Muskoka needs real restructuring now. If this scenario is the best solution the District can come up to alleviate the financial burden placed on all residents of Muskoka.
We’re in trouble.
Mr. Vowels; if we took your advice and got rid of District council altogether, then each town, municipality would be fighting each other with the provincial government. Can you imagine that? This is when money talks loudest and longest. There would be a smaller, divided voice for our small population needs. Sometimes there is benefit in a collective voice. Why would provincial government be interested in listening to the voice of a few thousand constituents? Just wondering.
Thanks for bringing this issue, front and centre. I remember several years ago hearing candidates from Huntsville saying if elected to District, they would work to make their job redundant. I think Huntsville must first reduce their number of councillors to 5 with one Deputy Mayor and one Mayor who are elected at large and are also the District Councillors.
Bob Young is absolutely right 12 District Councillors is more than enough. Look to Barrie who has ten councillors and a Mayor, they represent 150,000 plus constituents. Perhaps we need to right size ourselves first.
The best thing that could happen would be to get rid of district Govt altogether. It was shoved on us in the first place not one twp wanted it and if I remember right they all had partitions against it but it did no good the provincial Govt of the time said we were getting it no matter what .
So much for what the tax payers want.
Copy of letter sent to The District of Muskoka
District Chair Klinck & District Councillors
c/o District Clerk Amy Back
30 January 2021
Re: District Council Composition – Public Input
Thursday, February 4, 2021
Special Council Meeting
I wish to thank the Committee and Council for the opportunity of making comment upon the
subject of District Composition. As many of you know, I had the honour of chairing a
Committee on this subject in 2017/18. I congratulate you on the progress you have made in
wrestling with the many conflicting issues and coming to the resolution you have; especially
equal representation per Municipality and no weighted voting.
However, I would like you to consider a bolder outcome. You are currently recommending a
Council of 18 members, just 4 down from the current number; a relatively small change. You
will now embark on a complicated triple majority exercise to seek approval and each
Municipality will make the necessary changes to fit the reduced size into their electoral process.
For all of this effort, why not agree to make the ultimate step and reduce the District Council
down to 12 members; 2 from each Municipality? This would give all of the residents of the
District a very efficient Council, one which could be quickly responsive to needs and proactive
on opportunities. Respectfully, I do not see an 18-member Council being much different from a
22-member Council.
One of the immediate concerns I have heard expressed is: “How can a 12-m ember Council
possibly handle all of the work demands of the Committee system currently in place?”. This
would certainly be a challenge with every Councillor sitting on multiple committees. However,
let us think outside of the existing boxes and ask why must we retain the existing system? Can
we not reduce the number of committees by combining the responsibilities of one or two of
them to create a “super” committee? Or, and in my opinion preferably, why not move from a
committee system t o a single Committee of the Whole. This has many benefits, notably that
every member of Council is then a part of all of the discussions compared to today where most
Councillors miss the discussions of 2 or more Committees.
A second concern often expressed is that fewer Councillors will increase the work load for each
of them. Initially, this will probably be the case and Council should look at adjusting the
compensation accordingly. However, there have been discussions around downloading some
District responsib ilities to the lower Tier Municipalities; roads being a prime example. If this
were to occur, the Lower Tier Municipalities would gain more direct control on major pieces of
their Infrastructure and/or Services, and a significant load would be removed from the District
Councillors. With further thought and analysis, I am confident that many items currently
discussed at length in a committee can be delegated to Staff under strict procedural rules.
A final concern I have heard expressed is how each Municipality will handle the readjustments
required to their electoral process and how they will ensure fair representation across their
disparate regions. Again, I suggest that we must think creatively and without the albatross of
historical compromises. For example, a simple solution is to automatically nominate the Mayor
and Deputy Mayor of each Municipality as the District Councillors. These two individuals will be
the most knowledgeable about ALL of the issues facing the Municipality and can properly and
adequately represent ALL of the constituents. The Deputy Mayor would run at large in each
Municipality. I am certain there are other, excellent solutions.
In summary, I would recommend a District Council of 12 with 2 Councillors from each
Municipality. I would further recommend that District Council reorganize the manner in which
it addresses the issues facing it by using a Committee of the Whole approach rather than
individual departmental committees and that efforts be focused to download as much to the
Lower Tier Municipalities as possible and that, where, possible and prudent, tasks be delegated
to Staff. The end result will be an efficient, modern, responsive and proactive District Council.
Thank you very much.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Young
Mike Armstrong, I agree with your reasoning, thank you. Perhaps we should carry cap in hand and tug at our collective forelocks. We are grateful for tourist industry, but they also receive good service for their money while vacationing here.
Unless I’m missing something this proposal replaces representation by population with representation by wealth.
Correct me if I’m wrong but assessment is based on the value of property. The fact that my property is worth more than yours doesn’t mean that I get more votes. In a democracy.
If the district council is going to be reduced all of the municipalities, should be reduced not just the urban.
As always, I’m thankful that first, Huntsville Doppler exists and second, that Hugh M is always keeping “eyes on” to issues that will affect us in the future. I don’t always agree with Hugh’s perspective but I always agree with his vigilance. My main concern with this whole issue (and there are several concerning seemingly covert changes) is: how an “individual with no municipality elected constituency” (district chair) can have so much power? Also, what exactly was the catalyst for all of these changes and why have I not read, in mainstream media, about said changes? It smacks of more bureaucratic double-speak that further confuses the regular citizen and discourages any true understanding of what is happening.
Way to glance over the woefully unballanced actions of the council over the years. The three Towns have steamrolled over the townships, despite, as you point out, those townships supplying the lions share of their budget. The towns have been sapping development funds from the townships for far too long. With the new requirements for a super majority, it essentially forces them to work together, rather than the lip service that’s been given in the past before ignoring the needs of the townships on things like policing, infrastructure, and economic development. I speak as both a resident of Huntsville, arguably the biggest benefactor over the years, and of Muskoka Lakes where the summer population is near twice that of Huntsvilles.