The WBR Vote(s)
I don’t know if this will shed any light on what happened Monday night, but I’ve been asked repeatedly to publish the votes that occured during the infamous council meeting.
As anyone who has attended council will know, unless someone requests a recorded vote, it is difficult to know exactly when councilors raise their hands. That’s why I recorded one side of the table while Andrew recorded the other side so we could see exactly who voted for what. While we did that, I cannot 100% guarantee that this is precisely how they voted, though I’m pretty sure we got it right.
Also, towards the end of the marathon session, councilors were just throwing motions out there and voting lickedy-split, so I am afraid we didn’t catch the entirety of the last vote. But here’s what we did catch…
Motion 1: Dilkens, consultants option 2 (10 wards, single member representation)
Failed to get a seconder, so it died on the floor.
Motion 2: Valentinis, Alan Hall’s 5 ward/two member system
Seconded: Lewenza
Hatfield: Nay Marra: Nay Valentinis:Yay Jones: Nay Dilkens: Nay Brister: Yay Postma: Yay Halberstadt:Nay Lewenza: Yay Gignac:Yay
Francis declares motion as defeated
Motion 3: Brister, consultants option 1 (5 wards/two member)
Seconded: Halberstadt
Hatfield: Nay Marra: Nay Valentinis: Nay Jones: Nay Dilkens: Nay Brister: Yay Postma: Nay Halberstadt: Yay Lewenza: Nay Gignac: Nay
Francis declares motion as defeated
Motion 4: Postma, Status Quo
Seconded: Lewenza
Hatfield: Yay Marra: Nay Valentinis: Nay Jones: Nay Dilkens: Nay Brister: Yay Postma: Yay Halberstadt: Nay Lewenza: Yay Gignac:Nay
Francis declares motion as defeated
Motion 5: Dilkens, retries consultants option 2 (10 wards/single member)
Seconded: Lewenza
Hatfield: Nay Marra: Yay Valentinis: Yay Jones: Nay Dilkens: Yay Brister: Nay Postma: Nay Halberstadt: Nay Lewenza: Yay Gignac: Nay
Francis declares motion as defeated
This is when it started to get confusing. Hatfield makes the motion (#6, seconded by, yet again, Lewenza) to “Note and File” the consultants report. After another unsuccessful vote;
Hatfield: Yay Marra: Nay Valentinis: Nay Jones: Nay Dilkens: Nay Brister: Yay Postma: Yay Halberstadt: Nay Lewenza: Nay Gignac:Yay
…Francis withdraws his support for the motion (?) after Lewenza expresses a desire to move something else. This all happened so fast that I’m sure I messed something up here, but I digress..
Motion 7: Halberstadt, consultants option 3 (8 wards/single member)
Seconded: Lewenza
Hatfield: Nay Marra: Nay Valentinis: Nay Jones: Yay Dilkens: Nay Brister: Nay Postma: Nay Halberstadt: Yay Lewenza: Yay Gignac:Nay
Francis declares motion as defeated
Motion 8: Hatfield, continue to study WBR in anticipation of referendum on 2010 ballot (this is after being reminded AGAIN that for a referendum to be valid, more than 50% of the eligible voters must actually vote. In a city where voter turnout is consistently below 40%, the City Clerk said the chances of holding a binding referendum is very, VERY low, if not impossible)
Seconded: Postma
Hatfield: Yay Marra: Nay Valentinis: Nay Jones: Nay Dilkens: Nay Brister: Yay Postma: Yay Halberstadt: Nay Lewenza: Yay Gignac: Yay
Francis declares motion as defeated
Motion 9: Hatfield, Note and File consultants report
Seconded: Postma
Hatfield: Yay Marra: ? Valentinis: ? Jones: ? Dilkens: ? Brister: Yay Postma: Yay Halberstadt: Nay Lewenza: Nay Gignac:Nay
Francis declares motion as supported
As you can tell at the end there, we didn’t catch some of the votes. Everything was happening so blisteringly fast, I doubt anyone could have.
And so ends the dumbest council meeting I have ever witnessed!
It’s YOUR city, RECLAIM it!
Tags: City Council, Ward Boundary Review
Post Feedback
Chris - Just to add… Motion #2, Alan Hall’s 5 ward option, was an unsolicited set of boundaries, NOT drawn or endorsed up by the hired consultant. With a report in front of council that they hired a consultant to draft, and paid $20k to do, they were considering an option that wasn’t even in the report in front of them. I cannot believe that Valentenis moved that… He’s lost my vote for 2010 if we’re stuck with 5 wards/2 per…
Getting back to my original point - Motion # 2 was actually a tie, with Francis voting Nay to break the deadlock.
Also during motion #8, Hatifeld wanted an amendment to the motion to force the review of the ward boundaries AFTER the next election, the Clerk noted that it is not possible to make a resolution to impose an act on a future council…
Looking at my notes I can’t make heads or tails of motion #9 either.
For the readers who missed it, the elapsed time between the Mayor declaring motion #8 defeated, and the vote occurring on motion #9, was less than a minute. There wasn’t time without reviewing a tape to figure what the hell happened.
Regardless it was embarrassing. Every councilor who voted yes on motion #2 should give their head a shake.
Andrew, Paul put it best - Clowncil. An unsolicited, with no public input, maybe drawn with crayons (who is Allan Hall?) is what they favour. The only option other than doing nothing that almost passed. Clowncil indeed.
In your vote tally you have Councillor Lewenza supporting the 8 ward system which Councillor Halberstadt contradicts on his blog. Other than that it seems like Councillor Lewenza, to his credit, voted for many of the motions to change. Only bad one is the supporting of Councillor Postma’s self interested status quo
Seems like councillor Marra only would go with Councillor Dilkin’s motion which, although reasonable, does not allow compromise that may be necessary
Petition to be available at Chanoso’s by Tomorrow Morning. I’m hoping to put out a poster in the front window and a table outside out front if I can
Today I’m at the Roadhouse and have only garnered 5 signatures as most of my staff and customers live out in Tecumseh.
If I get less than 50 signatures myself, I’d be very disappointed. I should shoot for 100
Chris, sorry for the sound-bite but I can’t resist throwing this one out there.
If we took all the unemployed in the region and re-trained them to be cartoonist, our politicians could solve the regions unemployment problem. We would easily have the lowest unemployment rate in the country; they provide more than enough surreal cartoon-ish moments to keep all those idle hands busy.
But seriously, how can no one second the first motion? To my understanding, this was the favored option from the process. It’s a sad day for democracy.
If you want to compare my proposed ward maps with those recommended by Prof. Williams, just follow these links:
http://citywardmaps.googlepages.com/WardSubmission.pdf
http://www.citywindsor.ca/003200.asp
http://www.scaledown.ca/2009/06/10/ward-boundary-review-next-steps/
Allan, did you get feedback from Dr. Williams on your submission? We are not experts. We have to listen to what the consultant that we paid 20gs to produce some recommendations has to say especially on the minor details.
And that’s the thing, either council failed on the due-diligence when selecting Dr. Williams. Or they have some esssplaining to do!
VOTE CLEAN SLATE!!!!!!!
I agree with Ron Clean Slate 2010…
I didn’t see the Council meeting on Monday, so I am at a disadvantage here. If anyone knows where I can get a videotape or if it is posted on-line, I would greatly appreciate it.
First things first…
(1) I know Prof. Robert Williams and think he was an excellent choice to be the consultant on this review. He has a great track record in preparing ward boundaries in other municipalities. I think his ward recommendations are fine, and are a definite improvement on his initial options. If Council had selected any of his three maps, I don’t think they would have any trouble withstanding scrutiny by the OMB.
(2) I was stunned when I read my name in Alan Halberstadt’s blog on Tuesday morning. I have never met or spoken to Fulvio Valentinis, and had no idea that he would make his motion to accept my five-ward plan. When I e-mailed a copy of my submission to each Councillor last month, I did not receive a single response from anyone except Alan Halberstadt, who asked if I would be attending the Council meeting. Earlier, when I e-mailed them a link to my website (http://citywardmaps.googlepages.com/), only Couns. Halberstadt and Jones acknowledged it.
As for my own background, I was born and raised in Windsor, attending Northwood Public School (with Norm Probert and his little brother Bob) and Centennial Secondary School. My father was a firefighter for 25 years in Sandwich West and Windsor — Ron Jones knew my father well — and my mother was an nurse at Grace Hospital and later Hiram Walkers. They said they had a “mixed marriage”; he was from Walkerville, she was from Sandwich.
After university (Mathematics and Geographical Information Systems), I was a researcher for Elections Ontario for six years. I also worked for provincial electoral boundaries commissions in Nova Scotia and Alberta, helping to prepare riding boundary proposals. In 2005, I appeared before a committee at Queen’s Park studying changes to provincial riding boundaries (Bill 214), and later served as an agent at a
OMB hearing challenging ward boundaries in Oshawa.. Over the years, I have made numerous submissions to federal boundaries commissions and submitted ward boundary proposals in several Ontario cities. Now I work in GIS in Guelph, but with my background as a Windsor native and experience with electoral boundaries, I think my credentials are pretty firm.
But in another sense, it shouldn’t matter what your credentials are. A map is a map. If someone comes up with a ward map that has a good population balance and respects neighbourhood boundaries and communities of interest, it shouldn’t matter whether it was prepared by a PoliSci PhD, “a ward map fanatic from Guelph”, or by “a 12-year-old in his parents basement”. I like Prof. Williams’ recommendations, but I still think mine are better; it’s a difference of opinion.
His proposals make allowances for population growth that I don’t think will materialize anytime soon - just talk to any real estate agent in the city. Also, I believe his plans divide Riverside unnecessarily, and in our 10-ward options, I think I do a better job of splitting South Windsor (my old neighbourhood). Others may disagree, and that’s fine. It is the job of City Council to do what’s best for the city and choose the ward system that is best suited for Windsor. A job that by all accounts it failed to do on Monday night.
If this mess is going to be cleaned up, it will come either by the new petition (to accept Prof. Williams ten-ward option), or by the Councillors themselves. If some councillors have legitimate concerns about population disparities or how he drew the boundaries on the east side of Windsor, then they should prepare a motion to send the report back to him with instructions to re-consider his proposals in those areas. This is precisely how federal electoral boundaries commissions work. Otherwise, they will be facing an expensive OMB hearing on top of all their other issues. But then again, Windsor City Council puts the “fun” in “dysfunctional”.
Cheers.
Alan:
Do you know anyone in Windsor who can help with research on putting together a presentation to Councial to re them putting together a ten year plan for affordable/social housing in Windsor?
Linda McLean
253-3438
I would suggest you contact the School of Social Work at the University of Windsor:
Room 2164 Chrysler Hall North
401 Sunset Ave
Windsor ON N9B 3P4
Phone: 519-253-3000 ext. 3064
They might be able to tell you what resources are available locally to do that kind of work.
Alan, I just finally got a chance to check out your maps. They are outstanding. I have no issue at all with your 5/2 scenario. I think the 8/1 would also work, although it would require some thought from our school board (WECDSB - we have 5 trustees from the city and 4 from the county - 8/1 would give us a tie including the Chair) but we could work it out. And the 10/1 is also great. I think your boundaries make sense. In terms of our schools - they’re better balanced with your proposals and natural links between proposed wards are really easy to identify. I think that city services are generally balanced, as are GECDSB schools, in your proposals. Thank you SO much for doing them. You’re awesome.
Alan, thanks for the explanation and background, just hope that people read into these things more.
Spent the day in Tecumseh but still got 13 signatures from Windsor Residents. Will have it at Chanoso’s by 10am tomorrow morning.
Where’s Windsorites accelerated awareness when you really need it
Is reform needed? No doubt! Is this the needed reform? Not so sure. I can’t believe Dr. Williams report cost $50k taxpayer dollars. We could have had that put together by a couple of undergrads and had it more relevant to the local community. I know I keep kicking this dead horse, but boundary reform should be about MORE than just pop data. Any trained monkey can balance the numbers. The skill is in the nuances. For example, at least one of Dr. Williams maps has the ward 3 annex (that little area between oullette and janette, the tracks and Ellis) split in two using tec as the hard boundary, putting the northside with ward 2 (which makes some sense) and keeping the area south of tec (just north of the Jackson park playground) with ward 3. Well how does that make any sense at all? Who does that benefit except maybe Fulvio? Seriously, why did we spend 50 large outside our community when we have more than enough skill to do it and do it right right here in Windsor?
10 is good, but don’t just take Dr. Williams’ word for it. Let’s make 10 that make sense.
Shannon, I think you are making the same mistake our councillors made and judging the options based on political gain or loss.
The criteria for judging the options should be:
-Effective representation
-Communities of interest
-Physical boundaries and coherence
I would add encouraging greater voter participation to the criteria list. But to be fair that’s a personal agenda which I feel is important considering the apathetic voter turnout. What criteria did councillors use?
Edwin, I think equitable distribution of taxpayer assets across political boundaries is important. As a school board trustee I begged the consultant to take a look at balancing community centers, schools, libraries, etc. In his review. His answer was that council only asked him to look at population data, yada yada. I think, as a responsible consultant, he should have advised his client that they don’t exist in a vacuum and that there IS more to consider than just pops and communities of interest.
Value for money, I don’t think we got 50K of work,
The consultation with other affected agencies like school boards consisted of our being invited to meet with the consultant and then our advice being completely discounted. School boards and other agencies don’t raise their own tax dollars, school boards are not funded for independent elections. What we would probably end up with us at large elections which decrease representation and democracy.
I’m not saying don’t make it 10. Just don’t do it in a vacuum. Final point: political boundaries become community boundaries, identifiers, they are more than just numbers of residents.
Shannon, good point about the costs of re-jigging the political boundaries. Why was this not part of the criteria though?
Also, one might argue that it is best to bite the bullet now and optimize the boundaries based on the non-political criteria and re-jig the less important political boundaries. If the councilors voted the way they did thinking about the affected agencies like school boards, I would sleep much easier. But I doubt it. They were likely only looking out for numero uno.
Shannon:
If the equitable distribution of taxpayer assets across political boundaries is important, then why do the school boards insist on closing inner-city schools? OLPH is the size of some small high schools. How is that equitable?
Ward boundaries should be based on the equitable distribution of population. Anything else is a distraction.
I agree Vincent, and I’m trying to figure out a way to rebalance the enrollment between st. Angela which has loads of space and OLPH which is very overcrowded, without someone getting the bright idea to close St. A’s. The ministry regs now require an accommodation review committee be formed if you want a boundary change. I’m not a big fan of arcs because closure can result.
Andrew why should the councillors give their heads a shake for Motion #2? Is that motion for the re-drawn boundaries or it is a different review? It is unclear above which one that is?
Regardless, as indicated they paid $20,000 to have an expert give options and the councillors tried to maek up their own. Why bother paying someone that $$$ if they think they could do better. Which of course (and typical) they couldn’t.
Mark, I would say Lewenza was just playing “the game” by seconding anything that came along. Whether he was doing it for the debate or merits of each or whether he even understood what was going on we will never know.
Why is the amount for the consultant keep ballooning up? The original post, and my understanding, is that it was 20k. However Shannon keeps quoting 50k. There is a large difference between the two numbers… am I missing something here? Anyways, I support change in the system as it is, but I think I would favour the 8-Ward system as it will reduce the amount of councilors, and therefore the immediate tax burden. It can always be put back to 10, if there are ever significant population increases that would support it.
According to City of Windsor website, the “projected cost not to exceed $35,000 plus GST”:
http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=12841
http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=13148
JP, it wouldn’t save any money. In fact it might cost more because there would need to be more administration to handle what the other councillors were doing.
With councillors having more on their plates they would be asking admin. to do a lot more work. It would be a re-distribution of funds elsewhere within the corp. and it would be harder to get a response from your councillor. I would favour the 10 wards over the 8.
Great point Vincent Clement. Closing of schools in the inner city is also another reason as to why people are leaving. No schools=no families to move there.
Dave, never thought of it like that. Good point. I’ll re-examine the 10-ward boundary. (More managers = more pensions = more $$)