Does Prince Edward County Have Too Many Councillors - or Are We Asking the Wrong Question?

Before residents are asked whether Council should be smaller, they deserve to know what councillors are responsible for, why the current structure exists, how other municipalities operate and what would actually improve representation.

Local issues. Ontario-wide lessons. Follow County First on Facebook.

Executive Summary

Prince Edward County has 13 councillors and a mayor, elected through nine wards. That structure was adopted following a lengthy review in 2015 and implemented for the 2018 municipal election. It replaced a 16-member Council that had its roots in the County’s 1998 amalgamation.[1]

The debate over Council’s size is legitimate, but simply asking residents whether they want fewer politicians misses several important questions. What work are councillors legally responsible for? How much time do they spend on that work? How effectively do they oversee municipal spending and administration? Would fewer councillors improve decision-making, or reduce residents’ access to elected representatives?

Ontario’s Municipal Act assigns Council responsibility not only for representing residents and establishing policy, but also for financial integrity, administrative accountability and transparency, including oversight of senior management.[2]

Before asking residents to choose a number, the County should publish a clear description of councillors’ responsibilities, comparative information from similar municipalities, the financial consequences of alternative structures and evidence from current and former councillors and senior staff.

The objective should not simply be a smaller Council. It should be a Council that provides effective representation, sound decisions and meaningful accountability at a reasonable cost.

Why does Prince Edward County have 14 elected officials?

Prince Edward County’s council structure is not an accident. When the County amalgamated in 1998, it inherited a system designed partly around its former towns, villages and townships. The original arrangement had ten wards, 15 councillors and a mayor. The ward boundaries reflected the ten former municipalities, and representation was shaped by both geography and population.[1]

The County subsequently examined Council size on several occasions, including a review in 2008, a citizens’ assembly process in 2013 and a more extensive review in 2015. During the 2015 process, alternatives included councils with ten, twelve, thirteen or fifteen councillors, each with a mayor elected at large. Public meetings, submissions and surveys formed part of that exercise.[1]

Council ultimately chose nine wards, thirteen councillors and a mayor. The necessary bylaws were adopted in January 2016, and an appeal concerning the electoral ward boundaries was dismissed by the Ontario Municipal Board in November 2017.[1][3]

This history matters because the present structure represents an earlier attempt to balance population, geography, local identities and political representation. Residents considering another change should first understand which assumptions remain valid, which have changed and what shortcomings the previous reform was intended to correct.

What are councillors actually paid to do?

A common misconception is that councillors are primarily responsible for responding to complaints, attending meetings and voting on staff recommendations. Those activities are visible, but Ontario law assigns Council a considerably broader governing role.

Section 224 of the Municipal Act sets out responsibilities that include representing the public, developing and evaluating policies and programs, deciding which municipal services should be provided, ensuring appropriate administrative and financial controls, maintaining financial integrity, and ensuring accountability and transparency throughout municipal operations, including senior management.[2]

In practical terms, these responsibilities fall into several important areas.

Representation and public accountability. Councillors are expected to understand the concerns of residents and businesses, communicate with constituents, participate in public decisions and consider the interests of the municipality as a whole. Representing a ward does not mean simply supporting every request from that ward; councillors must weigh local concerns against County-wide consequences.

Policy and strategic direction. Council establishes municipal priorities, evaluates policies, decides which services should be provided and determines the broad direction of the municipality. That includes making difficult choices about growth, housing, infrastructure, environmental protection and service levels.

Financial stewardship. Councillors approve budgets, taxation and major expenditures, consider long-term financial sustainability and hold the administration accountable for the use of public resources. Their responsibility is not limited to approving the annual budget; it also includes understanding financial risks and evaluating whether municipal spending is producing the intended results.

Oversight of senior management. Council must ensure that appropriate accountability, transparency and administrative-control arrangements exist. The chief administrative officer and senior staff manage operations within their delegated authority, but Council retains responsibility for the municipality’s overall governance and financial integrity.

Planning, infrastructure and municipal services. Council makes decisions affecting land use, roads, water and wastewater, emergency services, community facilities and other responsibilities within the County’s jurisdiction. Councillors must evaluate competing priorities and the long-term consequences of major investments.

Committee work and external representation. Councillors may serve on committees, boards and other bodies, review substantial meeting materials, attend public consultations and participate in intergovernmental discussions. The workload can extend well beyond formal Council meetings.

The distinction between governance and administration is particularly important. Section 227 of the Municipal Act assigns municipal officers and employees responsibility for implementing Council decisions, conducting research and advising Council on policies and programs.[2]

Councillors therefore should not ordinarily be directing individual employees or managing daily operations. Their responsibility is to establish direction, evaluate the information presented, make decisions and ensure the systems of accountability are functioning.

This raises a question that deserves more attention than Council size alone: how effectively is the existing Council performing these statutory responsibilities?

Does the number of councillors tell us whether representation is effective?

Population is an obvious starting point, but it is an incomplete measure.

A municipality with a compact urban population may be able to operate effectively with fewer elected representatives than a geographically dispersed rural municipality of similar size. Travel distances, settlement patterns, seasonal populations, the number of distinct communities and the complexity of municipal services can all influence the workload.

Prince Edward County combines rural communities, agricultural areas, waterfront settlements, tourism destinations and growing urban centres. Its councillors must consider both localized concerns and County-wide infrastructure and financial decisions.

The appropriate question is therefore not simply how many residents are represented by each councillor. It is whether the elected structure provides residents with reasonable access, fair representation and effective collective decision-making.

A smaller Council might reduce meeting complexity and some direct costs. It might also increase the workload of each councillor, make constituency access more difficult or reduce representation for smaller communities. A larger Council may provide more local voices but can also introduce additional coordination costs and make decision-making more cumbersome.

Neither outcome should be assumed without evidence.

How does Prince Edward County compare with other municipalities?

A credible review should compare Prince Edward County with municipalities that share relevant characteristics, rather than selecting a few examples simply because their populations are similar.

Quinte West, Norfolk County, Northumberland County, Grey County and other Ontario municipalities could provide useful comparisons, but their governing structures and service responsibilities are not identical. Some are single-tier municipalities, while others operate within two-tier systems where responsibilities are divided between upper-tier and lower-tier councils.

Any comparison should therefore identify the number of elected officials, population per representative, geographic area, ward arrangements, municipal responsibilities, annual council costs and committee workloads. Where an upper-tier municipality is being compared with a single-tier municipality, the analysis should account for the elected representation and responsibilities at both levels.

The County’s earlier review recognized the importance of these variables. Its 2008 process examined other municipalities using criteria that included population, non-resident population, geography, council budgets, municipal budgets, committee structures, representation and service considerations.[1]

Rather than beginning another consultation from scratch, the County should revisit that earlier comparative work, update the figures and publish the results in a format residents can understand.

Would fewer councillors actually save taxpayers money?

Reducing the number of elected officials could reduce remuneration, benefits, allowances and certain administrative expenses. But those gross savings are not necessarily the net financial benefit of restructuring Council.

The County would need to account for the costs associated with remaining councillors, changes to committee arrangements, potential support requirements and any transition expenses. It should also explain whether a smaller Council would change the speed or quality of decision-making, although such effects are more difficult to measure reliably.

Most importantly, the analysis should distinguish the cost of elected representation from the cost of municipal administration.

Councillors establish policy and provide oversight; staff manage and deliver municipal services. Eliminating elected positions does not automatically eliminate corresponding staff costs or municipal responsibilities.

A proper financial comparison should show the annual cost of each proposed Council structure, the likely net savings, the cost per resident and the assumptions underlying those estimates. Residents could then judge whether the financial difference is material enough to justify a change in representation.

Why current and former councillors should be consulted

One of the most useful sources of evidence may be the people who have actually performed the role.

Current councillors can describe the volume of constituent inquiries, preparation time, committee obligations, meeting workloads and practical challenges of representing geographically dispersed communities. Former councillors can explain how those responsibilities have changed and whether previous reforms improved governance.

Senior municipal employees can provide a different perspective on the administrative relationship with Council, including the quality and timeliness of decisions, clarity of direction, committee demands and whether governance arrangements create unnecessary duplication.

These perspectives should be gathered systematically, preferably through a consistent set of questions, rather than relying only on selected testimonials.

The resulting evidence would not necessarily produce consensus. Indeed, disagreements between councillors, former councillors and staff could help reveal which aspects of the current structure work well and which require reform.

What residents should be told before being asked to choose

Before launching a public survey, the County should publish a concise governance review addressing the following questions:

What are councillors’ statutory responsibilities, and how are those responsibilities carried out in Prince Edward County?
Why was the current nine-ward, fourteen-member structure selected, and what did the previous reviews conclude?
How much time do councillors spend on Council, committees, constituent matters and other official duties?
How does PEC compare with appropriately selected Ontario municipalities after accounting for population, geography, service responsibilities and governance structure?
What are the full costs, expected savings and representation implications of alternative Council sizes?
What do current and former councillors, senior staff and residents identify as the strengths and weaknesses of the present system?

The County should also explain how it intends to evaluate the success of any reform. Fewer councillors may be an easily measured result, but better governance requires more meaningful indicators, including the quality of decisions, financial oversight, resident access, transparency and accountability.

The bigger question is whether Council is working

Residents have every right to question the number and cost of their elected representatives. But reducing Council size should not become a substitute for evaluating Council’s actual performance.

A municipality can have too many councillors and still provide inadequate oversight. It can also have relatively few councillors who are overwhelmed by constituency demands and complex decisions. The number of seats is only one part of the governance system.

Prince Edward County has already spent years examining its electoral structure. Before asking residents to revisit that decision, it should explain what has changed since the last review, what problem it is trying to solve and how the proposed alternatives would improve the way the municipality is governed.

The objective should be neither to protect the existing structure nor to reduce the number of politicians simply because doing so is popular. It should be to establish the number and arrangement of councillors most likely to deliver effective representation, informed decisions, financial stewardship and accountability.

Residents deserve the evidence necessary to make that judgment before being asked for their opinion.

Footnotes

[1] County of Prince Edward, “Size of Council Review.” Official municipal history covering the 1998 amalgamation, 2008 review, 2013 citizens’ assembly, 2015 public consultation, alternative Council structures and the 2016 bylaws.
https://www.thecounty.ca/government/council/size-of-council-review/

[2] Government of Ontario, Municipal Act, 2001, sections 224–229. Statutory responsibilities of Council, the head of Council, municipal employees, the clerk and the chief administrative officer.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25

[3] Ontario Municipal Board, Decision MM160019, November 30, 2017. Decision concerning the appeal of Prince Edward County’s electoral ward boundary bylaw and the preceding review process.
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/mm160019-Nov-30-2017.pdf

[4] Government of Ontario, The Ontario Municipal Councillor’s Guide, Chapter 1: Role of Council, Councillor and Staff. Provincial guidance on the respective functions of elected councillors and municipal administration.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/ontario-municipal-councillors-guide/1-role-council-councillor-and-staff

Editorial note: This article examines the principles and documented history of Council composition. It does not conclude that the current Council is too large or too small. Comparative cost and workload data, and the views of current and former councillors and senior municipal staff, should be obtained before drawing such a conclusion.

Does Prince Edward County Have Too Many Councillors – or Are We Asking the Wrong Question?