Roger Varley has been in the news business almost 40 years with The Canadian Press/Broadcast News, Uxbnridge Times-Journal, Richmond Hill Liberal and Uxbridge Cosmos. Co-winner with two others of CCNA national feature writing award. In Scout movement over 30 years, almost 25 as a leader. Took Uxbridge youths to World Jamboree in Holland. Involved in community theatre for 20 years as actor, director, playwright, stage manager etc. Born in England, came to Canada at 16, lived most of life north and east of Toronto with a five-year period in B.C.
Nonsense spouted by elected chair apponents
Regional Chair Roger Anderson, his chain of office glinting under the lights, sat high above the gathered regional council last week, overseeing a debate that could affect his future. After leading the assemblage in The Lord's Prayer - (which I found strange, given that the first order of business was a report on diversity and immigration in the region) - Mr. Anderson opened the floor to the public to comment on the question of an elected regional chair, as opposed to an appointed chair, which we now have.
Few of the deputants spoke for more than a couple of minutes. Indeed, many of them restricted themselves to pointing out the holes in the arguments put forth by those in opposition to an elected chair. Those on council who are in opposition are few: the six councillors representing Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock. In Uxbridge's case, of course, that means Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor and Regional Councillor Jack Ballinger.
Let's take a look at the some of opponents' arguments and see how little water they hold.
Argument No. 1: Despite the final tally showing 79.70 per cent voting in favour of an elected chair, the opponents say that, in fact, only 22 per cent of Durham's eligible voters were in favour. They come to this figure by stating that a large proportion of voters stayed away from the polls altogether and many of those who did vote didn't bother to check off the box beside the referendum question. Therefore, presumably, the majority don't want an elected chair.
Using the same argument, one could say a majority of voters in the same election didn't want many of these councillors to be elected and yet none of them refused to take their seats once the results were announced.
But Scugog Mayor Chuck Mercier took the argument to ridiculous lengths by saying he's upset by the idea that if you don't vote you don't count. Excuse me, Mr. Mercier, but that is what an election is all about: you cast your ballot and it is counted. If you don't vote, how on Earth can you be counted? Just what would Mr. Mercier propose? Should all those eligible voters who didn't cast a ballot be contacted to find out how they might have voted had they shown up at the polls?
Argument No. 2: The voters didn't have enough information to cast an informed vote. I don't know about other municipalities, but in Uxbridge there were adequate opportunities for mayoral and regional council candidates to address the question at all-candidates meetings in the lead-up to the election. I may be wrong, but I don't recall any of them raising the issue of regional chair. If it wasn't important enough for them to "inform" the public then, why now?
Argument No. 3: The public doesn't vote for prime minister or premier, so why should they vote for regional chair? What a silly argument! When voting in a federal or provincial election, the public is most assuredly aware of just who is likely to be prime minister or premier. But with an appointed regional chair, we have no idea who could hold the post: only the 28 regional councillors are privy to that information.
The proponents of an appointed chair claim that since regional councillors are elected by the voters to make decisions, the democratic process is upheld when those councillors appoint a chair. If that is true, then surely they must agree that municipal councillors should likewise appoint a mayor once the election is over. Somehow, I can't imagine the populace going along with that idea.
Argument No. 4: If regional chair is an elected position, no one from the three northern municipalities will ever be chair again because we have a much smaller population than the southern communities and the northern municipalities will suffer as a result. Personally, I don't care which municipality the regional chair comes from as long as he or she does a good job. And if the opponents truly believe the north will suffer under such a format, please explain how and why. Anything else is simply fear-mongering.
Fear-mongering was noticeable in the few public deputations opposed to an elected chair. One claimed it would lead to a "dictatorship". He didn't explain how or why. Others said an elected chair would surely lead to amalgamation of the eight municipalities into one large City of Durham. Once again, no explanation of how or why that should be a result of an elected chair.
It seems to me that on this particular issue, the opponents have failed to come up with any logical reason why the electorate shouldn't have a voice when it comes to determining who will hold the highest position in the region. And if they don't come up with one before municipal councils vote on the question later this year, then they should respect the wishes of the electorate and vote in favour.
Tell me, am I wrong?
