Municipality of Clarington Ward Boundary Review (WBR) Dr. Robert - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• Dr. Robert Williams + Dr. Zachary Spicer

July, 2020

Municipality of Clarington Ward Boundary Review (WBR)

Introduction

Why a Ward Boundary Review? Legislative Framework & the Review Process Public Participation Phase 1 Issues

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?

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

4 www.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?

5 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

• 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

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

Review Process

Phase 1

1

Research & Data Compilation

2

Interviews With Council/Mayor & Senior Staff

4

Public Consultation

3

Prepare Discussion Paper

7 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

Review Process

Phase 2

1

Population Forecasting/ Data Modelling

2

Development of Preliminary Ward Boundary Options

4

Develop Final Ward Boundary Options & Recommendations to Council

3

Public Consultation

8 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

9 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

12 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

Populations by Ward

Population 2011 Population 2016

• Est. Population 2020

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 1 2 3 4

28,184 24,014 17,403 14,945 30,763 27,651 17,675 16,071 32,252 32,860 20,122 17,652

Ward Population 2011 Population 2016

• Est. Population 2020

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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)

14 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

Existing Ward Map

15 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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)

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

• 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?

17 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

• 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?

18 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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.217 2Municipal Act, 2001 s.222 3Municipal Act, 2001 s.223

Roles of Council

20 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

• 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?

21 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

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

www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

• 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 Engagement

Your Contribution to This Review

24 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview

Questions?

25 www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview