Editor: We need shared basic services in society, and our municipalities administer most of those regular day-to-day services. Officially, our system of government pays for these expenses by taking money from people; we call these taxes.
Elected officials ought to never forget that they essentially demand people’s wallets, take what they “need” and leave the wallet on the floor.
As a farmer, I appreciate the value of the long-term plan. The things we use to grow food (assets) cost money, we need them for many years, and we pay for them over multiple years because they cost a lot. I must re-invest every year while operating my farm business as efficiently as possible, keeping enough to survive on personally, and hoping by the end of my farming career that I’ve done enough to create my pension.
In local government, councillors swim through a never-ending pool of demands for resources (our money), and someone is always disappointed. When Chatham-Kent was thrown together, we were told that efficiencies of scale, duplication reduction, shared expertise, etc. would benefit citizens.
Again, as a farmer, I appreciate the efficiency when a municipal drain can be serviced with one point of contact versus navigating several municipal jurisdictions. Good personnel in that department have provided proof some things can be done better.
This isn’t the case across the board, and the size of our municipality has created a bureaucratic empire that demands feeding.
When bad decisions like the recent dust control issue for rural roads, ratepayers were forced to react with far more voice than warranted for a fundamental service, while the root causes were lost in priorities of spending, so they didn’t get the air of debate deeply needed.
Our budget process misses a very important element for better transparency. Municipal government exists at the whim of the provincial government; even though we elect councillors, the minister can and does direct them and their spending through legislated standards (i.e. a fire truck must be this new), directives (i.e. speed cameras must be stopped), and outright threats for removal from office or possible removal of an entire council (code of conduct rules). In the extreme case, an entire municipality may be replaced with an administrator if the minister says so.
So much systemic challenge exists. What if we structured the budget differently? Spending is largely directed, so those mandatory “thou shall items” ought to be flagged for budget as directed expenses (green ticket items). Items of similar force but with a component of council choice and some flexibility such as budget to fix vehicles or replace we should label as a yellow ticket item on budget. Items demanded by ratepayers but not directed by legal directive or judicial precedent ought to be shown as blue ticket items. And all other items identify as orange ticket items.
The present capital-versus-operating model essentially by definition does not give enough clarity as to why we do the service in the first place.
Big-ticket items like policing costs are pretty much a rubber-stamp event for council, so ask the province, why not upload all policing to the level of government that calls all the shots but leaves the bill on our local table?
Councillors share a common goal to make things better, but ultimately, it’s still a job you’re doing, one that you interviewed for (got elected).
I hope we can get a back-to-basics approach this year in Chatham Kent that focusses on the core elements of our shared required services and re-focus our appreciation for ratepayer dollar allocation in the future. Rural residents might not feel so compelled to ask for a divorce simply to find efficient, responsive municipal partners to carry on local business.
Emery Huszka
Chatham-Kent
