Municipality of Clarington Ward Boundary Review (WBR) · Review Process Phase 2 1 Population...

Dr. Robert Williams + Dr. Zachary SpicerJuly, 2020

Municipality of ClaringtonWard Boundary Review (WBR)

Introduction

Why a Ward Boundary Review?

Legislative Framework &the Review

Process

Public Participation

Phase 1Issues

2

What Will Be Covered in This PIC?

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

Introduction

3

How well does the present electoral structure serve the citizens of Clarington?

Does the present electoral structure provide fair and effective representation?

Would an alternative system provide better representation for the citizens of Clarington?


Context

1996

Town of Newcastle created

Mayor (elected at-large)

3 Regional Councillors (1 per ward)

3 Local Councillors (1 per ward)

Town of Newcastle renamed Clarington

Mayor (elected at-large)

2 Regional Councillors (each elected into pair of wards)

4 Local Councillors (1 per ward)

1973 1993

COUNCIL

4www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

To prepare Clarington Council to make decisions on whether to maintain the existing ward structure or

to adopt an alternative arrangement

WHY A WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW?


Re. municipal system of representation, Ontario’s Municipal

Act, 2001 authorizes a lower-tier municipality to:

Legislative Framework

6

• define the size of the Council

• determine how Council (other than the Mayor) will be elected

• “divide or re-divide the municipality into wards or dissolve the existing wards”

No stipulated schedule, standardized process or established criteria exist for

electoral reviews in Ontario

• Each municipality must set its own terms, parameters, guiding principles, etc.

• A review is typically framed by established procedures and principles applied in several Ontario municipalities (and by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)) and judicial rulings on representation


Review ProcessPhase 1

1Research &

Data Compilation

2Interviews With Council/Mayor &

Senior Staff

4Public

Consultation

3Prepare

Discussion Paper


Review ProcessPhase 2

1Population

Forecasting/Data Modelling

2Development of

Preliminary Ward Boundary Options

4Develop Final

Ward Boundary Options &

Recommendations to Council

3Public

Consultation


What is the rationale for electing four Local Councillors in a municipality with a population of approximately 100,000?

Does the size and make-up of the present wards allow Councillors to provide effective political management and effective representation of the diversity of the

municipality, and be “close to the people”?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of having a ward system in Clarington?

Phase 1 Issues


A ward-based electoral system should meet these core principles/guidelines:

Guiding Principles to Design Wards

10

Representation by Population

Community or Diversity of Interests

Effective Representation

Population Trends

Community Access and Connections

Geographic or Topographical Features

1

2

3

4

5

6


The WBR begins with an assessment of the present ward system to determine whether it constitutes an equitable and effective electoral arrangement (i.e. “effective representation”) to the residents of the municipality

• If there are shortcomings, the Consultants will present alternatives for consideration.

Phase 1 Decisions


Preliminary assessment of the present ward system suggests:

• Present wards fail to adhere to the representation by population principle

• Population disparities throughout the wards expected to worsen through the next three election cycles

Phase 1 Assessment


Populations by Ward

Population 2011

Population 2016

Est. Population 2020

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000

1 2 3 4

28,18424,014

17,403 14,945

30,76327,651

17,675 16,071

32,252 32,860

20,12217,652

Ward

Population 2011 Population 2016 Est. Population 2020


Preliminary assessment of the present ward system suggests:

• Present wards fail to adhere to the representation by population principle

• Population disparities throughout the wards expected to worsen through the next three election cycles

• Three major communities in separate wards but northern hamlets seem to have more in common with one another than the southern communities

• Bowmanville divided into two wards

• Existing ward boundaries straightforward and easy to comprehend

• Rural Clarington distributed across the four wards

Phase 1 Assessment (cont’d)


Existing Ward Map


Effective Representation?

16

Overarching principle of ‘’effective representation’’ means:

• each resident ideally should have comparable access to their elected representative

• each local Councillor ideally should speak on behalf of an equal number of residents

Current population disparities between wards are too great to achieve effective representation (especially on Regional Council)


• Regional Councillors in Clarington are elected in a grouping of wards; the number of local wards is tied to the number of Regional Councillors.

• Should Regional Councillors continue to be elected in wards?

• Local Councillors are elected in single-member wards. The number of wards = the number of Local Councillors.

• If there are to be wards, should they each elect one Councillor or more?

Other Considerations?


• If the wards do not provide “effective representation” based on the core principles, possible alternatives to “re-divide” the municipality will be developed taking into account quantitative and qualitative data and subjected to the same principles

• No ward system design can uniformly meet all the core principles

• Which principles have the highest priority in Clarington? (survey)

• Alternatives will be filtered through the set of core principles, case law and successful models adopted in other municipalities

Do the Wards Need to Be Changed?


A municipal electoral system should be subject to a public consultation process to ensure the legitimacy of the recommendations placed before Council

A Consultation Process

19

Public engagement activities will be conducted

Aimed at both informing residents about the review and gathering informed evaluations about the existing system and (later) alternative designs

Several outlets have been designed for residents to safely participate in the review process under public health guidelines


The Consultant Team works at arm’s length from Council & staff

• All members of Council were invited to participate in an interview as part of information gathering about the municipality, its communities and the present political representation arrangements in the municipality.

• Council has the authority to:

• establish the number of councillors and to determine whether they “shall be elected by general vote or wards or by any combination of general vote and wards.”1

• pass a by-law to “redivide” the wards2 that may be appealed to LPAT3

1Municipal Act, 2001 s.2172Municipal Act, 2001 s.2223Municipal Act, 2001 s.223

Roles of Council


• To be successful, the review should operate with a high degree of independence from political involvement and include effective engagement with residents

• An open review process requires:

• transparency and consistency in the review process and its outcomes

• clear and workable core principles to evaluate alternative electoral systems and ward designs that fit the unique requirements of a municipality

What Does a Successful Review Look Like?


The Discussion Paper Report and PICs will contribute to:

From Phase 1 to Phase 2

22

An opportunity for the Consultant team to better understand Clarington

An understanding of the preferences of members of the public who choose to participate in the Review

The development of alternative preliminary ward options

1

2

3


Based on feedback from this public consultation, next steps will include:

Project Next Steps

23

Preparing alternative ward designs that will be brought to a public consultation

Making recommendations to Council for a change to the present ward configuration

(If existing ward configuration is determined to not meet the core principles)

A by-law to enact the new boundaries would be brought to a later Council meeting for adoption

1

2

3


• Be willing to ask questions at the PICs and through the Municipality’s website

• Read the Discussion Paper and other materials on the Municipality’s website to better understand the issues under consideration

• Complete the survey on the Municipality’s website

• Public input provides valuable insight into the Review. It is used along with professional expertise, guided by best practices to develop recommended options.

Public EngagementYour Contribution to This Review


Questions?


Date post:	22-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Municipality of Clarington Ward Boundary Review (WBR) · Review Process Phase 2 1 Population...

Documents