Task force suggestions left for incoming Council
Splitting up Chatham into three Wards, implementing community focus groups, and investigating a possible name change for Chatham-Kent – were all recommendations by the Chatham-Kent Community Governance Task Force.
However, C-K Council decided to leave it to the new, incoming Council to decide if the recommendations should be implemented.
Chatham Counc. Don Clarke entered a successful motion at Monday nights’s (June 28) Council meeting to have all recommendations made by the Task Force, 16 in total, referred to the next term.
“I’m not in favour of all these recommendations,” he said. “I’m not comfortable with moving them along… it should be the next Council.”
The Task Force was comprised of six volunteer individuals, one from each Ward, including:
- Robert Adamson – Wheatley – Ward 1
- Daryl Dawson – Blenheim – Ward 2
- Jacqueline Van Eerd Beatty – Bothwell – Ward 3
- Paul J. Haslip – Pain Court – Ward 4
- Donald ‘Chip” Gordon – Wallaceburg – Ward 5
- Marie Cadotte – Chatham – Ward 6
The group was facilitated by David Weldon, of CivicSolutions Inc.
Each member of the Task Force took turns reading off the recommendations, providing some additional insight into each recommendation during the presentation of their final report.
For a look at all the suggestions by the group, check out this CKDP story: Chatham-Kent Governance Task Force providing recommendations to Council
Several members of Council has varying opinions on the recommendations, with suggestions of dividing up the city of Chatham, possibly looking into a name change for Chatham-Kent, and possibly including all the groups recommendations on the 2014 election card as a referendum, being the most highly debated items.
South Kent Counc. Frank Vercouteren said he was in favour of letting the public decide on the recommendations.
“There are a lot of good points in there,” he said. “12 years ago (amalgamation) was rammed down our throat… I think this should be a public vote on the next election.”
Vercouteren failed to get a seconder, when he moved to include the recommendations as a public vote for the 2014 election.
Regarding the name change of Chatham-Kent, East Kent Counc. Steve Pinsonneault said he would want the public to have its say.
“That should be out to the residents,” he said.
South Kent Counc. Art Stirling said he hasn’t quite wrapped his head around a possible name change.
“Sometime the ship has just left the port,” he said. “It’s just time to move on.”
North Kent Counc. Bill Weaver said if a name change is considered, a plan to engage the community effectively must be put in place. Weaver also had moved the recommendations by the group, before Clarke’s successful motion.
“A good section of the community are not offended” by the name, Weaver said.
North Kent Counc. Joe Faas said he had concerns over a possible name change as well.
“Finding a name to suit everyone is going to be hard pressed,” Faas said.
Wallaceburg Counc. Sheldon Parsons said despite being named Chatham-Kent, individual communities don’t lose their identity.
“I think we need to get over it,” he said.
West Kent Counc. Bryon Fluker echoed similar comments.
“How did we get into a name change debate anyway?” he said.
Regarding the the proposed division of the city of Chatham, Counc. Doug Sulman said he would want administration to report back to Council with their thoughts.
“Making a decision to implement something when you don’t even know what you’re implementing would be foolish,” he said. “You’re about the break up a former city… we need a report back.
Chatham Counc. Anne Gilbert said dividing up Chatham is not a good option.
“Chatham is Chatham,” she said. “Not North Chatham, or South Chatham or West Chatham… no, Chatham is Chatham. Let the next Council decide on that.”
Clarke’s motion to refer the recommendations to the next Council was carried by a vote of 11-6.
Councillors Brown, Clarke, Crew, Herman, King, Pinsonneault, Robbins, Stirling, Sulman, Vercouteren and Mayor Hope voted in favour of the motion, while councillors Faas, Fluker, Gilbert, McGregor, Parsons and Weaver were opposed. Counc. Steve Pickard was absent.
J
July 3, 2010 at 6:58 am
This is what we pay good tax money for… Screwing around with the NAME?? Grow up folks and deal with it… We could be called PooPooopulus or Crappycrapola… who realy cares.. its a name.. leave it alone and deal with somethings that matter… like catching the pot farmers or the cocain dealers and the people still using their cell phones driving…
Realitycheck
July 3, 2010 at 7:19 am
Municipality has spent a lot of money to date on branding and logos all around the CK name. Your right, get over it and move on.
David Lebrocq
July 3, 2010 at 7:43 am
We just got our name on the Monopoly Board – how could anyone seriously be talking name change at this point in time?
Chris Lozon
July 3, 2010 at 9:37 am
I don’t think that the monopoly issue is of any importance when considering a name change since it is of little value or consequence anyhow.
Ladies and gents, the more important issue here is the ward structure and council representation issue. Clearly CK is dramatically over-represented at the Council level….1 councillor for every 6,500 residents. That’s ridiculous when comparing to neighbouring jurisdictions. I’d suggest going to a 4 x 2 ward/councillor system, using the Thames River and 40 HWY/Queen Street intersection as rough partitions. I would then recommend we reallocate the money saved by councillor reduction on a) bumping up councillor compensation slightly in order to ensure we attract high quality candidates, and b) funding an auditor general/integrity commissioner role within administration to provide greater oversight over financial/operational/relationship issues within council and administration.
Hello
July 4, 2010 at 7:33 am
I can see 12 yrs ago that some people would have made a fuss about the name “Chatham-Kent” but now that this much time has past why would anyone even think about it. And who is going to pay for all the new signage that will need to be changed around the community, roads signs, buildings, emergency vehicles, all the stationary. There are a lot of more important worthy causes and issues to address that are more important than the name the community. This is just something else that someone with to much time on their hands brain stormed. Find something better to do and stop wasting tax money on useless gibber..
William
July 4, 2010 at 7:49 am
“Splitting up Chatham into three Wards, implementing community focus groups, and investigating a possible name change for Chatham-Kent – were all recommendations by the Chatham-Kent Community Governance Task Force.”
Who is on this task force? YOUR FIRED!!!
Realitycheck
July 4, 2010 at 11:50 am
Can’t fire someone who was never
hired. “The Task Force was comprised of six volunteer individuals, one from each Ward, including:”
Wallace Burger
July 5, 2010 at 10:17 am
I agree the name thing is a joke and should never come up again. But if you look at the current boundaries, they are also a joke. Splitting up Chatham would be no different than how Wallaeburg is currently already split up. The ward boundaries are not a good representation of the ward voting concerns. They are right to suggest changing the ward structure and that option was the best of all the option they had.
vote4hooper
July 5, 2010 at 10:11 am
The real issue as Chris indicated is boundary issues and the lack of representation in the ward system, but I do not agree less is more in this scenerio. The name change is a flaw in the report along with one or two other issues that are not issues at all. We cannot let those little things overshadow the bigger issues that the report does touch on. We need equal and fair representation through-out the Municipality and all voters should have the same equal voting right when it comes to Council Chambers. No more game playing by our current councillors. Change has to happen!
Realitycheck
July 5, 2010 at 11:13 am
Conclusions from Task Force indicate that a simple solution like, “4 x 2 ward/councilor system” would not be fair at election time. Candidates from larger urban areas like Chatham would captivate the vote.
On the size of Council.
Let’s see 46000 people represented by six Chatham Councilors and 36000 people represented by 11 Councilors outside Chatham.
At first glance one could say Chatham is under represented. Or maybe not.
Chris Lozon
July 5, 2010 at 11:31 am
“Conclusions from Task Force indicate that a simple solution like, “4 x 2 ward/councilor system” would not be fair at election time.”
The task force also concluded that we should investigate a name change.
4 wards split as approx. 60/40 non-chatham/chatham population would tend not to favour chatham-based candidates. Perhaps once. But over the long-term non-chatham residents/voters would actually carry more leverage.
At any rate, last time I checked we now pay into the same pot and feed from the same trough. Many of us work in one ward, live in another, or vice versa. We are all neighbours, not competitors. Let’s get past these fabricated paradigms that continue to impede progress and move CK forward.
Realitycheck
July 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Okay looks like we all agree. No simple solution, CK is very different than other jurisdictions and we should accept that fact.
Thackeray
July 5, 2010 at 10:15 pm
did anyone notice that the councillors who wanted to have a task force originally – are most of the councillors who now do not want to enact any of the recommendations – to have to listen to some of the rationalization for effectively putting off any decision about ward changes until 2018 – is laughable. The most honest thing would have been to at least begin the discussion immediately- as well as considering other recommendations – the refusal to discuss is juvenile at best – again look at who voted each way . I notice that once again the mayor does not want the discussion – another example of excellent leadership.