Political gumption absent in Muskoka

By: Robert C. Henry 

The lifeblood of Muskoka’s fiscal survival is the environment and if Muskoka’s natural ecosystem degrades significantly the local economy, as we know it, will simply collapse. 

With this stark reality in mind it is disheartening, indeed frightening, that the Federal government is pulling the plug on research that could very well help Muskoka avoid a future environmental disaster. 

Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 calls for the closure of Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a world-renowned freshwater and fisheries research facility. The ELA, located in Northwestern Ontario, consists of 58 small lakes and their watersheds set aside for research. It is, up to now, been a permanent field station with a dedicated research team. 

From a Muskoka perspective it provides key information, unattainable elsewhere, for objective, evidence based decision-making. Environmental issues studied include algal blooms, mercury pollution, greenhouse gases, acid rain and a host of other subjects. Not surprisingly, the multifaceted focus of this research ties directly to some of the problems already experienced in Muskoka. 

However, thanks to Prime Minister Harper and his colleagues such as MP Tony Clement, the ELA’s important work ends in March 2013. 

But that political decision, with its enormous negative ramifications for Muskoka, pales next to the silence from Muskoka’s 51 municipal politicians. Not so much as a whimper or a peep has been heard from this group yet now is obviously the time to set aside parochial politics join together and let the Federal government know that the ELA must continue its work. 

Locally, we hear constant political pontificating about economic growth and environmental protection but here we are at a significant crossroad affecting both and the silence is deafening. 

Let’s consider a “what if” scenario. What if all seven of Muskoka’s municipal governments passed strong resolutions demanding that the Harper government reverse its stance on the ELA? 

What if all 51 of Muskoka’s municipal politicians signed a strongly worded letter to MP Tony Clement with a similar message? 

What if District Chairman John Klinck convinced other municipalities such as Halliburton and Parry Sound to also pass resolutions and collect political signatures demanding the federal Tories re-think their position on this issue? 

Of course, all of the above would require co-operation and political courage not just from Muskoka’s 51 but from others as well. As such, there’s not much light at the tunnel’s end. 

In Muskoka we really don’t have a strong, across the board policies for environmental protection. It has been argued that Muskoka’s 60-plus municipal planners are the guardians of Muskoka’s environment but that 60-plus group works in seven separate planning departments that are subject to the whims of seven different political bodies. A cohesive approach to environmental issues is difficult, if not impossible, given these circumstances. 

Further, although many Muskoka bylaws exist under the guise of environmental protection, enforcement in many cases is anemic or non-existent. 

There is also the Muskoka Watershed Council (MWC). It’s composed of a partially political and partially non-political membership that truly does outstanding work. No one questions their motives or their sincerity. However, the organization’s primary focus is that of creating report cards on the current state of Muskoka’s environment health. If there’s an environmental train wreck in Muskoka we could expect a thorough report from the MWC after the fact. This is the exact opposite of a pro-active approach where stopping the train before the crash is more important. 

Frankly, under these circumstances, throwing municipal stones at the Federal government is somewhat hypocritical except for the fact Canadians expect their most senior level of government to assume a leadership role in environmental protection. 

But most unfortunately, from an environmental perspective, the ELA closure is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been many recent and proposed cuts to federal environmental planning. Scientists are deeply concerned that Canada’s capacity to protect and manage freshwater and marine resources has been seriously undermined. 

There is a consensus of concern about proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – all of which are rolled into 400-plus pages of the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38. 

Muskoka’s permanent and seasonal residents must stand up and be heard as cottage country as we know it needs all the pro-active environmental research and protection it can get. Snipping away at those components does not bode well for Muskoka’s economic future. 

The obvious conduit for passing this message on to Harper and Clement is our municipal leaders.  

Question: Do these 51 have the foresight and gumption required to do what is right for Muskoka?

Protecting delicate district sensibilities

 By: Robert C. Henry 

Although long suspected it’s now official: The District Municipality of Muskoka under the leadership of Chairman John Klinck has a phantom censorship board. 

Now that “board” may actually be just one person but who knows as it’s all top-secret. A recent newspaper report indicated that Klinck “has no idea” who takes responsibility for what the public is allowed or not allowed to cast their eyes on. 

Apparently this all started when former Toronto police officer Mike Ingram sent a letter to the district’s airport advisory committee. The letter had a few rough edges but nothing that would startle a grade eight student who had just finished watching a gruesome murder on a re-run of CSI Miami. 

It was reported that the original letter went to the committee with a number of redactions presumably meant to protect the sensitive eyes and minds of the committee’s members. Redactions eventually led to complete removal of the letter from the committee’s minutes. 

Backing up just a bit it’s my fuzzy impression that Klinck is top dog at the district so the question is simple. Who authorized this censorship? It also leads one to ask if Klinck functions as captain or crew. 

Ingram had taken exception to delays related to development of Muskoka Airport and was very critical of the airport advisory committee charged with trying to sort through the complexities and politics of this particular development (non-development?) issue. 

One does not have to agree or disagree with the former police officer. However, his right as a taxpayer and citizen to have his opinion included in the minutes should not have been abrogated.  

It appears that his primary sin was to refer to committee members as asses. The word ass simply means stupid person although it also can refer to a four-legged animal related to a horse.  

He didn’t threaten the committee members; he didn’t accuse any of the committee members of criminal activity nor did he suggest committee members had in any way crossed to a socially unacceptable place. No, he simply said that their decisions were stupid and by extension those who made the decisions were also stupid. 

Yes, that’s a smidgen harsh but are members of this committee, hand-picked behind closed doors by district politicians, so thin-skinned that the word ass sends them scurrying for cover and the protection of an unidentified censorship czar or board? 

But the district’s secret censorship board/person saw all this from a somewhat lofty, self-righteous perch. Imagine words like ass in a letter to such an incredibly sensitive group.  Ingram should have known that even the mildest criticism would do irreparable damage to those delicate committee flowers and general public.  

Thank our lucky stars that the secret, unnamed, district committee or individual charged with purging all things that even carry a slight whiff of turpitude or mild insult was on guard for the sake of the sensitive public. Can you imagine the scandal if this sort of blasphemous language was embedded in the district minute book. 

Of course, letters of opinion often don’t appear in the district’s minute book. Missives from the public usually get listed under “correspondence” and if someone wants a copy of those letters a request must be made to the district clerk. 

It’s interesting that even though many of these letters are listed in the electronic minutes there is no quick link for the curious to access them. This is hardly a formula for two-way dialogue between the elected and the electorate. 

Klinck is reported to have said “……..that type of thing should not be in the public record.” This is just so much self-righteous drivel. If used in a movie Ingram’s language would get no worse than a “PG” rating and would not so much as turn the head of a primary school child. 

The District Chairman apparently also passed judgement on Ingram’s presentation that he described, in so many words, as convoluted. It would appear that only those with a PhD in English literature should consider expressing his or her opinion to such a scholarly group. 

The irony is that had the self-appointed censor(s) not jumped in with eyes and minds closed the whole sorry tale would never have reached the public. 

Even an ass would conclude that censoring mildly insulting, colorful language is far more offensive than the words that are censored.  

District council fails to address duplication issue

By: Robert C. Henry 

It’s amazing how even a budget discussion can quickly expose the need for municipal governance review in Muskoka. 

District councillors met last Wednesday to have a last kick at the budget can and although not acknowledged the issue of municipal governance kept popping up. 

The normal rules of a committee of the whole were suspended allowing for some degree of public participation. 

Evelyn Brown, a member of One Muskoka, noted that she had not heard any discussion about duplication and overlap from council – despite as she added, there is only one taxpayer. 

District Chairman John Klinck spoke briefly then turned that issue over to District CAO Jim Green, thus avoiding having to fully address the question himself. It was a political question and, frankly, it deserved an expansive political answer.  

Green proceeded to hold out the ongoing services review process as the vehicle to effect change. He indicated the services review process has a number of ongoing initiates that involve working with area municipalities. He said the process will be looking for “bottom line” cost savings. 

However, he failed to mention a number of factors. 

First, his reference was to possible cooperation between the district and an unspecified number of area municipalities. Further, there was no mention of cooperative action amongst the six area municipalities. In fact, that is where it’s a governance and political issue as much of the duplication of services is between area municipalities. 

The governance structure and the absolute failure of area municipalities to consolidate services and staff is a major stumbling block when it comes to duplication and efficiencies. In addition,  issues of governance are specifically excluded from the district’s Services Review Committee’s terms of reference.  

How a service review can get to the root cause of the incredible, egregiously wasteful duplication and overlap amongst Muskoka’s area municipalities is a mystery. 

But it’s only a mystery until you consider motive. The most logical theory is that District councillors and area mayors are using service review(s) as a way to avoid a complete, independent governance review of all seven municipal governments in Muskoka. 

The mayors and their respective councils do not want to see the disintegration of, for instance, the Monarchy of Muskoka Lakes, the Kingdom of Lake of Bays or the Empire of Bracebridge. Not only would most of their jobs vanish, so too would their control. 

Councillors Phil Harding and Rosemary King inadvertently brought home this point when they introduced a motion to cut back the budget for the Muskoka Tourism and Marketing Association (MTMA) by slightly more than nine thousand dollars – a relative pittance in relation to the funds received by the organization from district coffers last year. 

Harding, in his presentation to council, said when it comes to tourism promotion in Muskoka there is “lots of overlap and duplication.”  

There are at least seven groups all striving to promote tourism in Muskoka, each with their own independent mandate with little coordination amongst the players, said Harding. “I would like to see greater efficiencies.”  

At that point in time the council had the perfect segue that would have led to a broader discussion of overlap and inefficiencies. 

But councillors sat on their respective hands and failed to address the fact there are six fire departments in Muskoka, 61 planners, six property tax departments, seven CAO’s, seven treasurers, 51 politicians and a mere 73 political positions. The list goes on and on. 

But they didn’t go there. A golden opportunity to discuss “greater efficiencies” and “duplication” was frittered away while, incidentally, not one of Muskoka’s seven municipal governments will announce a decrease in property taxes. 

And again, the issue of leadership reared its head. A target big enough to drive a truck through presented itself and District Chairman John Klinck, given the perfect opportunity, failed to initiate a discussion that had relevance far beyond that of any service review. 

But Klinck has indicted in the past that he takes his marching orders from district councillors and not the reverse. His style, to summarize, is one of followership, not leadership. 

What we are seeing at district is a perfect example of the ostrich principle. Bury your head in the sand and the most obvious problems will simply disappear, except of course, property tax increases.

Muskoka’s political egg finally cracks

By: Robert C. Henry 

Muskoka’s political egg has finally cracked and, like Humpty Dumpty, it will probably never be put together again. 

There have been ominous but welcome warning signs that the political egg was vulnerable, not the least of which was the continuing frustration the voting public feels about Muskoka’s blatantly wasteful municipal governance system. Taxes rise while duplication of services continues unabated. 

The first visible crack in the egg occurred when Lake of Bays Mayor Bob Young was reported to mumble about secession from the district fold. Apparently he even took his thesis to Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s minister of municipal affairs and housing. I’m sure she was instantly swayed.   

Imagine, Lake of Bays with its own retirement residence, engineering staff, police force and community services department. And lest we forget it would be obligated to assume its portion of the $100 million district debt. This would truly be an exercise in property tax reduction. Not!   

Muskoka Lakes Mayor Alice Murphy is also reported to have joined in the discussion, whining about the large chunk of taxes dollars her municipality pays. Her argument, of course, falls flat if one imagines a reverse scenario. 

Consider: A person lives in a lakefront house in Muskoka for 10 months of the year then spends the other two in their multi-million dollar house in Oakville. Would Oakville’s municipal leaders even consider lowering their tax assessment based on short-term occupancy? We all know the answer – a no-brainer to be sure. 

Then it’s reported that District Chairman John Klinck added his two cents worth. Apparently, what he didn’t say is that Muskoka’s municipal governance structure is fraught with problems, not the least of which (aside from blatant duplication) is far too many captains struggling to steer the ship along their own, independent, parochial course. 

But the district leader has not taken a bold stance. Either he is in favour of an independent review of governance in Muskoka or he is not. He doesn’t have to wait for others to speak up – leaders are allowed, indeed expected, to offer independent thoughts. It’s yea or nay Chairman Klinck. 

Yes, the political egg is cracked. No amount of apathy, avoidance or hollow rhetoric can repair the much-appreciated damage that’s been done. 

Perhaps, as a collective act of political courage all 51 of Muskoka’s municipal politicos should add more cracks to the egg. 

They can start now or wait for the next municipal election when they’ll be forced to explain their inaction.

Klinck, clinkers and conflagration

By: Robert C. Henry

The District Municipality of Muskoka’s political leadership is a clinker where a conflagration is desperately required. 

Ok, ok; that statement is sorely in need of explanation.  

Years ago, a great many houses were heated with coal furnaces. The by-product of the fire in those furnaces was a ring of clinkers – a form of slag no longer capable of supporting combustion. It had to be removed and placed in a metal trash can. 

On the other hand a conflagration is defined as a great, all-consuming fire. 

Clearly a conflagration is much the opposite of a clinker. The clinker is what is left when the fire has run its course. 

Indeed, as former District Chairman Hugh Mackenzie noted, the district has “passed its best before date.”  He seemed to be saying that district leadership is a clinker – a conflagration that is no more. Whatever fire that may have been is no longer. 

In fact, there is a collective failure of leadership, shared unequally and equally amongst 22 district councillors and Chairman John Klinck.  

But is the semi-circle of political clinkers actually being led by Klinck? 

Recently Klinck was asked why he has failed to talk publicly about municipal governance reform in Muskoka and, further, why he has not pushed forward in the direction of an independent review. 

He said there is a “void of concrete ground swell,” explaining that he had not heard much from the area mayors to lead him to believe governance change or even a review was needed. 

Klinck explained that he takes direction from council. There is no “grass roots” desire to proceed with an examination of the current municipal governance structure, he said. 

Is this leadership or followership? Surely, one would expect someone designated as a chairman to actually lead and not just follow. 

The malaise many taxpayers feel goes much deeper than the political. The District is a 40-year-old organization. Many of the District’s senior bureaucrats came up through the ranks and are now cruising for retirement. There is no fire within their ranks. There isn’t even a wisp of smoke and certainly not a conflagration. 

Whether the politicos have systematically snuffed out the bureaucratic fire or whether this flame suppression stems from apathy, frustration or fear of reprisal is a question that remains unanswered. 

At the political level new district councillors sit around the opulent, oversized district council chambers and look more like deer caught in the headlights than leaders prepared to take on a myriad of serious issues. 

Without question three mayors – Claude Doughty, Alice Murphy and Bob Young – appear to provide district council with some direction. Sadly, they often appear to have the same agenda. The meal is well cooked long before it’s served and it’s rarely very inspiring. 

The committee system is fraught with systemic problems, not the least of which is the fact only a handful of councillors at any given time are truly up to speed on all the issues requiring the blessing of a majority. 

There’s an old definition of “committee” that needs to be carefully considered by overburdened taxpayers and by the elected. That definition is as follows: 

 “A committee is a group of men (and women) who, individually, can do nothing but collectively meet and decide that nothing can be done.”  

And the number of district committees has grown. The newly formed Services Review Committee, for example, is the political equivalent of navel gazing.  Endless hours will be spent examining the district’s internal role while all the time pretending there is no co-relation between the district and the six area municipalities. 

But the die was cast before the Services Review Committee even began discussions. The terms of reference endorsed by council prohibit discussion about governance. But governance is the elephant in the room. Muskoka’s seven municipal governments are the exact opposite of a well oiled machine that constantly seeks to improve efficiencies. 

In effect, the Services Review Committee is trying to swim laps with its hands tied while fending off the sharks of reality. 

And the airport advisory committee certainly started with a whimper. Take, for instance, the meeting of March 05, 2012. It was chaired by Georgian Bay Township Mayor Larry Braid and had as much structure as a plate of spaghetti. 

There were side comments and casual conversations not sanctioned by the chairman along with staff input that seemed to emphasize what could not be done as opposed to what could be done. Frankly, little was accomplished. 

Most surprising were questions that had already been answered in a 2005 Environmental Impact Study for Lands East of Muskoka Airport authored by Gartner Lee Limited. Either the committee members had failed to read the report  were never provided with the report. 

Once again, serious environmental issues – and there’s a host of them connected to this airport – were not front and centre in a discussion about Muskoka’s future and the future of the airport. 

Questions regarding the structural integrity and longevity of the main runway surfaced. It turns out there are two studies on this subject that, once again, was either not distributed or not read. 

A conflagration is required. It has to sear the bottoms of the 23 district politicians who appear to believe that never rocking the boat, good attendance, a lack of originality and avoidance of controversy translates into leadership. 

And the flames of that conflagration must reach out to the area municipalities and burn into their parochial mindsets that the world is much larger than they currently believe. 

Unfortunately, sadly and pathetically the district as it now stands is a clinker. 

To convert the clinker into a conflagration requires leadership, not followership. Klinck must toss the clinkers into the trash can, search for the new, and start a blaze that burns into the future. 

One must ask if Klinck has the gumption, the desire or the ability to light a fire that becomes a true conflagration. 

Don Cherry as Muskoka’s district chairman?

By: Robert C. Henry 

It seems like a long way off but it may be the time to consider another candidate for the position of district Chairman. 

Having mulled this over I have concluded that Don Cherry, Mr. Hockey, is the perfect fit for the job. 

Consider the strengths he brings to the table. 

From a public relations perspective he would draw more attention to Muskoka than all the negative publicity generated by Tony Clement, our federal representative. 

Cherry is a man who knows all about team play. Muskoka’s current crop of municipal politicians can’t even pass the puck let alone score a winning goal. This elderly, hockey war-horse knows all about battling for the puck and working as a team. 

He’s a man who isn’t easily intimidated. His many years as an enforcer/player in the American Hockey League taught him the value of never backing down, of keeping a goal (literally) in mind and backing up his team mates. 

When you apply those attributes to Muskoka politics it’s like day and night. 

For example: The majority of Muskoka residents feel the environment is the most important consideration for Muskoka of today. But it’s not a priority with our 51 municipal politicians. Bending over backward in favour of developers, aggregate miners and other special interest groups seems to be the flavour of the day. 

But if Cherry took over as leader the backroom deals with cease. He would call it the way he sees it and accept nothing less than zero environmental impact for any and all new projects. Further, he would demand an end to the political grandstanding that accomplishes nothing and frustrates all.  

The political team? Look out! As a former NHL coach of the year and a professional player Cherry would not tolerate having a bench load of 51 players many of whom are either disinterested, lacking in the skills required for the game or more concerned about their self-perceived status than in serving the greater good of the voters who gave them their contracts. 

A man like Cherry would push for reform. Fifty-one players – that’s ridiculous, he would say. It’s time to trim the fat, get lean and mean, push ahead with some meaningful objectives and beat the crap out of the issues that have sat for so long on the back burner. 

From his perspective stopping the special interest groups from getting the upper hand would be no different from blocking shots from the point. It may be painful but preventing the self-serving from ignoring the public’s best interests would be worth it. Suck it up or get off the ice, he would say. 

Cherry may be getting old and sometimes his ideas tumble out of right (not left) field but he has more energy and drive than the vast majority of Muskoka’s municipal politicians. And that energy, combined with his fearless ability to lead is what Muskoka needs. 

And how would he handle the press? Let’s go for a “pop” he would say and then openly discuss the pressing issues facing Muskoka while sipping on a cold one. The endless back room wheeling and dealing would become a thing of the past. 

Since Chairman John Klinck created the position of deputy chairman, currently held by Bracebridge Councillor Scott Young, that position could remain, not as a carrot held out for support, but as a significant position given to the most qualified. 

The most obvious candidate would be Ron MacLean. In order to qualify he would have to run for a district seat but most observers of our 22 district councillors would readily concede there are many seats available that are barely kept warm by the inactive, the unqualified and the apathetic. 

MacLean would win in a landslide and for that matter so would Cherry. Cherry would shake up the entire team. No more slackers, no more fence-sitters, no more silent observers. Either the 22 join the fray and speak their minds in favour of their constituents and in favour of reform or they would find themselves facing a true political enforcer. 

The pathetically thin turnout at district council meetings would be no more. An arena might be needed to accommodate the crowd. Municipal politics in Muskoka would receive a shot of adrenaline that it sorely needs. 

McLean, of course, would rein Cherry in whenever he contemplated using old-school AHL methods of enforcement. 

Brawls would be kept to a minimum but politics in Muskoka would finally show some fight.  

OPP wants more and district council says yes

By: Robert C. Henry 

A majority of district councillors appear to have bought into the argument that spending money saves money. 

At the last council meeting, following a presentation by the Ontario Provincial Police, it was decided that council should authorize an expenditure of approximately $184,000 a year for the next two years on data entry clerks for the OPP. 

The OPP worked very hard to sell this plan. Their pitch was as follows: District council (taxpayers) would pay the tab for the additional civilian staffing. These four new OPP employees (civilian data entry clerks) would be responsible for transcribing officer’s reports on police occurrences. 

Current practice is for OPP officers to input their own data based on their field notes. It has been proposed that in the future officers would dictate their reports that, in turn, would be entered into the OPP computer system by these new clerks. 

The OPP sold district council on this two-year pilot project based on the premise that data entry clerks would be more efficient at recording information than officers, thus giving those officers more time for their policing duties. 

The OPP stated the net efficiency gain of their proposal is the equivalent of 10 officers.  However, the district’s Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services, Stephen Cairns, did an analysis of the OPP’s proposal. His conclusion differs. 

“The underlying assumption is that there is a requirement of an additional 6.5 constables to perform local enforcement within the District of Muskoka,” writes Cairns. He based this reduced number on the fact that police officers in Muskoka do not work entirely on Muskoka-related incidents and issues. Part of their efforts focus on broader issues. 

Cairns reduced the claimed gain of 10 equivalent officers even further. “The breakeven efficiency gain is a net increase of man hours for uniformed personnel of 2.3 officers instead of the 10 officers as stated in the proposal,” he writes in his analysis. 

This discrepancy was never challenged or discussed by councillors at their most recent council meeting. 

So why not put this proposed efficiency into the existing OPP budget, asked district councillor Shane Baker. Staff Sergeant Mike Frew of the Huntsville detachment responded to that question by saying there was no base funding in the OPP budget to add the civilian complement. 

But this is an internal OPP issue. If efficiency can be increased it doesn’t make sense for the OPP to turn to the municipality for funding. 

This two-year, $368,000 pilot project would eventually go to the Provinces Treasury Board where it would be presented for theoretical incorporation into the OPP’s operating budget. Why, in two years, would the Province cough up more money to the OPP when municipalities have demonstrated a willingness to contribute the funds? 

As it now stands the district pays for policing based on a standard time for each task. Further, there is a reasonable expectation of adequate police coverage. Inspector Ed Medved argued that gaps in coverage have been identified. 

But this has been examined, in part, through what is called the Ontario Municipal CAO’s Benchmarking Initiative. The district is a participant in this exercise. 

Statistics gathered through this process show that in 2010 Muskoka had 3949 non-traffic Criminal Code incidents per 100,000 in population. The median for all participating municipalities was 5095 per 100,000. 

In Muskoka during the same year 89 per cent of violent crimes were solved in comparison to 75 percent for the other participating municipalities. 

This limited snapshot would appear to indicate the criteria of adequacy have been met. 

Yes, police coverage could be improved. So too could fire coverage. For instance, more fire stations could be constructed so that all Muskoka residents are 15 minutes or less from a station. Limited funds and common sense prohibit this course of action. 

District councillors, with few exceptions gushed over and eventually voted for the proposal which, incidentally, would be an “over budget” expense. Councillor Fran Coleman referred to the proposal as a “re-investment opportunity.” 

Three area mayors lined up in favour of the plan. Bob Young said it would be the “cheapest way to put more bodies on the street.” Claude Doughty felt the initiative might see the return of a full-time officer to the Huntsville High School and Alice Murphy said that “it just makes a lot of sense.” 

The obvious question is whether this group will be singing the same tune two years down the road. 

District creates a smoke screen of committees

By: Robert C. Henry 

When a dog chases its tail the obvious futility is laughable. 

However, when Muskoka’s district politicians indulge in similar pointless acts it’s not the slightest bit humorous. Case in point is the services review now underway at the District. 

To fully understand this current process it would be more than reasonable to suggest this course of action stems from the persistence of the One Muskoka group. 

They have not relented in drawing the public’s attention to the duplications and excesses of Muskoka’s municipal structure. Without apology, they have pushed for an independent review of the current municipal governance system. 

Response from Muskoka’s 51 politicos has been mainly apathetic and at times mildly hostile. Their collective approach has been one of avoidance. Obviously, anything that could upset their comfy apple carts is not about to garner serious consideration. 

These politicians couldn’t fire back against the call for review as their entrenched positions would have been quickly revealed. Instead, without admitting their motives, they’ve chosen instead to create a smoke screen. 

That smoke screen, under the guise of a district service review, has come in the form of – you guessed it – more committees. There’s the Steering Committee an optional Committee of the Whole and a Citizen Advisory Committee and, of course, council’s standing committees. 

In fact, this entire exercise takes on the appearance of a scheme to avoid a truly, independent, objective and sincere review of the entire municipal governance structure of Muskoka. 

These committees are now charged with the responsibility of finding potential internal changes that could lead to savings. The final report eventually goes to the district’s 22 politicians for their yea or nay. 

But make no mistake. This is an in-house review and the district’s collective political fox will ultimately be responsible for completion of minor hen house renovations. It’s a far cry from the independent review called for by One Muskoka. 

The so-called “Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)” component will, at best, provide some window dressing – a thinly veiled attempt to demonstrate that public input is an important component of the district’s political philosophy. 

The CAC is now composed of nine community members who were chosen on January 12, 2012. It’s how they were chosen that is, at best, somewhat awkward as one of the terms of reference for this review is through a process that “is factual, analytical, transparent and open to the public. 

But the first orders of business when the Steering Committee met was to go into closed session to choose the nine members of the Citizens Advisory Committee.

Transparent and open to the public?  In fact the public will never know why nine applicants were chosen and eight rejected. There wasn’t even an interview process. Just a few pieces of paper were utilized to make this decision. 

Is it possible the politicians already knew who they wanted or didn’t want on the committee? We, the taxpayers, will never know the reason for their decisions. The doors were closed.  

But the most telling aspect of this process can again be found in the terms of reference. It states that, “the review will be conducted on the basis of the existing legislation and governance structure in Muskoka.” 

There’s a stroke of genius. Chop off the truly relevant and stick to the inconsequential, the petty and the insignificant.  

It’s blatantly obvious there are just too many municipal politicians in Muskoka. Fifty-one politicians holding 73 political positions is simply too, too many. But these committees can’t discuss that fact because it has “governance structure” written all over it. 

And what about the duplication and overlap of services and the appalling lack of coordination between Muskoka’s seven municipal governments? Sorry, can’t touch that as the existing legislation defines the roles played by upper and lower tier municipal government. Further, that issue pushes into governance territory. 

Here’s a short list of subjects off the list: Road maintenance and repair; purchasing policies; construction permitting; by-laws and by-law enforcement; fire protection; tourism marketing; economic planning; land use planning and; environmental issues. 

The reality is the district services review as it’s currently formulated is exactly what the politicians want. Indeed, to borrow from William Shakespeare’s Macbeth: It’s a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

Money may eventually be saved through this process but dollars against rescued nickels our politicians will find a way to spend the saved nickels faster than our taxes will go down. 

The status quo will remain as long as these comfy politicians are still in power. 

District and Bracebridge reviews fall short

 By: Robert C. Henry 

Instead of striding towards a district-wide review Bracebridge council has decided on a $30,000 shuffle within its own backyard. 

It’s an opportunity for leadership that Mayor Graydon Smith and his council failed to grasp when they adopted a resolution calling for a review of services within the confines of Bracebridge. 

The reality is that a growing number of permanent and seasonal residents are questioning the very essence of Muskoka’s municipal governance system. They are gaining greater familiarity with the fact that we are significantly over represented and poorly served as a consequence of duplicated services. 

Solving this problem by tinkering with the organizational structure of one of six area municipalities cannot even begin to address the existing problem and cannot bring continuity to the convoluted and confusing. 

Smith and Councillors Steve Clement, Lori-Lynn Giashi-Pacini and Scott Young represent not just Bracebridge but also, as district councillors, all of Muskoka. Why are they satisfied with an in-house services review when they have an obligation and responsibility to represent Muskoka as a whole? 

Yes, there’s a services review underway at the district level. It too is myopic in nature and will focus only on how the district undertakes its responsibilities. Will the Bracebridge review process dovetail in any way with the district’s in-house study? There is no indication that it will. 

The four district councillors from Bracebridge have considerable influence with the upper-tier government. Would their time not be better spent by standing up at the district level and calling for a complete review of Muskoka’s governance structure? This, of course, would be an act of both courage and leadership. Is that too much to ask? 

Complete governance review is an issue that needs to be shouted from the roof tops, not ignored as a trivial inconvenience. Both district councillors and Bracebridge councillors are stumbling at the starting gate, fiddling and fussing while many who voted for them see a system in crisis. 

Perhaps the person in the most awkward position is Bracebridge councillor Liam Craig. He is one of the founders of One Muskoka, a small grassroots organization dedicated to reform of Muskoka’s municipal governance system. He is surely aware that a one in six or two in seven services review exercises is little more than kicking the can further down the street. 

Craig must know that fiddling with district or Bracebridge service delivery will not begin to address the lack of coordination and cooperation pertaining to environmental issues, land use planning, economic planning, tourism marketing, road maintenance and repair, purchasing policies, storm water management, construction permitting, by-laws and by-law enforcement. 

Even if there has been a verbal commitment by staff or the mayor to look at shared services with other area municipalities the resolution of council doesn’t go there. In reality, a sharing of a select few services would be little more than a band aid on a major wound. 

Yes, Craig is caught between a rock and a very hard place. He can’t avoid the strong possibility that the $30,000 study may be used as a future excuse by all-too-comfortable Bracebridge politicians to avoid a true governance review in the future. 

I can hear it now: Governance review, who needs a review? We’ve just completed one. 

What about sharing administrative expertise? A broader review might have recommended a sharing of administrative duties.  It’s doubtful that will ever happen even though Muskoka has the example of two hospitals sharing a top administrative position while saving money to be better spent on saving patients. 

The consultant could, in theory, identify a serious deficiency in the Town administrative structure. However, this $30,000 report goes back to the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer who will polish the consultant’s report.  

The fact that the consultant’s report goes to the CAO and the town’s management team prior to it being presented to council is an obvious flaw.  

A report that goes through an administrative filter prior to consideration by council does not sound particularly independent. Ironically, it’s Craig who has diligently pushed for an independent review of Muskoka’s governance structure. 

To be truly independent the report should go directly to council without administrative edit. 

Craig should insist that the consultant’s report is given to all councillors prior to any in-house modifications. Further, he should resolutely assert that the original consultant’s report be made public so that all changes by staff can be scrutinized by both the public and the press.