Nine ward plan chosen to reduce council size
Administrator | Nov 11, 2015 | Comments 52
Just as it looked like County council was destined to do nothing, the least favourite electoral ward and boundary proposal to reduce council’s size of 15 councillors and mayor was chosen.
In the third recorded vote on the subject, at 9 to 7, council Tuesday night approved changing to a nine ward system (13 councillors and mayor. See chart below).
Mayor Robert Quaiff said the decision is a sure trip to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.
“I am 100 per cent certain this now will be challenged to the OMB and will go through the lengthy, costly process of challenging a plan that does not meet any of the criteria that was set out by any of the reports or plans – even with the Citizens’ Assembly,” he said. “The two-ward and three-ward plans that were submitted met that criteria and now for this plan to be on the table and considered and now approved, is in my opinion, appalling.”
Some councillors expressed the nine-ward plan was a good compromise; others, throughout the evening said they felt “boxed in” or there was “trickery” at play. Others asked repeatedly for clarification of the motions.
“I think the rationale for the drastic change with the two ward (10 councillors and mayor) was unacceptable because it was too quick, too swift, and I can accept that,” said the mayor, who authored the two-ward plan. “At least now I can defend my position when I go out to the public. The three ward, (12 councillors and mayor) we know that met the criteria. The nine-ward and status quo they just don’t meet the criteria.”
First, a 7-9 vote defeated the motion that the two ward proposal and three ward proposal be accepted as the top two preferred options.
Voting in favour:
Bill Roberts
Jim Dunlop
Lenny Epstein
Gord Fox
Kevin Gale
Treat Hull
Robert Quaiff
Opposed:
Barry Turpin
Steve Ferguson
Jamie Forrester
Steve Graham
David Harrison
Janice Maynard
Brad Nieman
Dianne O’Brien
Roy Pennell
Second, a vote on amendeding a motion for further investigation on the three ward and the nine-ward plans (amended from 10-ward plan) resulted in a tie.
Voting in favour:
Fox
Gale
Hull
Roberts
Turpin
Dunlop
Epstein
Quaiff
Voting opposed:
Forrester
Graham
Harrison
Maynard
Nieman
O’Brien
Pennell
Ferguson
Councillor Bill Roberts said the nine ward system didn’t feel like a compromise since it was the last choice in public surveys, the Citizens’ Committee, the last choice of the Committee of the Whole and against staff recommendation.
“We are going to ignore our own criteria that we established. It’s stranger than fiction. Kind of like an electoral twilight zone.”
“There is no plan that will avoid an OMB hearing,” said councillor Treat Hull. “There is a perception by proponents for significant change and by proponents for status quo, in the community… Our community is profoundly divided on this issue… Feelings are running strong so there is no solution we can come up with that will avoid an OMB hearing. My preference all along is the three-ward system, but having said that… I think we ought to find a compromise we can agree on here.”
The decision, said Mayor Quaiff, “doesn’t come anywhere close to what council was setting out to accomplish.
“At the end of the day it’s a recorded vote, so those that voted in favour will have to answer to members of the public and their constitutents.
In favour of the nine-ward:
Forrester
Graham
Harrison
Hull
Maynard
Nieman
O’Brien
Pennell
Epstein
Against the nine-ward plan
Fox
Gale
Roberts
Turpin,
Dunlop
Ferguson
Quaiff
“Issues such as this that are very passionate… and at the end of the day democratic process was followed and right course or not remains to be seen,” said Quaiff. “Members of council, and myself, need to receive our packages of information, recommended staff reports, recommended motions, read that material, study that material and come to a conclusion on our own and not have to be worried about the lobbying efforts of certain committees or certain self-interest groups to entertain their opinions. It doesn’t represent the majority of citizens.
“So now, rather than remaining as status quo, a petition would have to come in with signatures of a percentage of the residents in order to challenge. With the clear, defining acceptance of the nine ward plan, now you are open to an OMB appeal once you sign that into bylaw.
The issue cannot be re-visited before four more meetings of council have passed.
“We saw with the last term of council how many times we went down that road that argument was used and we need to move on,” said Quaiff. “I’m going to do my best to move on, tackle the budget, and some of the other issues that we have like our water, our sewer rates, our transporation needs and infrastructure needs knowing in the background that there will be that knock on the door and it will be someone going to the OMB. Then we’ll have to cover that when we get there.”
An appeal may be made within 45 days after the bylaw is passed.
John Thompson, author of the nine ward plan, said he was not surprised, noting “common sense prevailed” though it took a while.
“They thought what I thought. It’s the common sense solution,” he said. “I think odd-number, even-number is not a criteria of the OMB and it’s quite good in the representation by population; there’s one high and one low but the rest are within 15 per cent so the average overall is quite good.”
The criteria included:
a) Odd number of council members;
b) Voter parity;
c) Equitable distribution of population;
d) Respect identifiable communities of interest;
e) Utilize natural physical boundaries;
f) Serve the larger public interest.
Results of voting in the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole, October 29/15:
Filed Under: Local News
I did! Next. As for reduction, reduction is what reduction does! It does not provide voter parity. Want to take bets on an OMB?
Chuck if you attended the meeting in Shire Hall on either night when this was on the agenda, I can only say you might have a different perspective than you have now and be saying something different.
Council worked the best they could, and they did bring about a reduction in council size.
OMB . . . ? (shrugs)
I think when the OMB look at the process, staff recommendations, accepted criteria, citizens assembly, open survey results and how the 9 Ward plan was risen from the dead that we the constituents will see change. There is no doubt in my mind that the “Status Quo 8” who were stuck out in the swamp struck a deal to reincarnate the 9 Ward Plan so they could be rescued but still provide no real change or address voter parity. Politics at it’s worse and at the expense of the public who had bought in.
Emily, thanks, I will take another look at all the documented voting recorded. Will take note of who are the often voters who vote together, speak the same on issues. And other trios formed. This IS politics: hidden agendas, alliances behind closed doors and parking lot deals.
My big question of the process for reducing council is: why in the heck were plans even put before the public if they did not pass the OMB criteria test. This has proved to be a fatal flaw! There were I believe 15 plans entered and put before council to review. All looked at, taken or tossed down to 5. Away we go.
There was one plan that in each ward the councillor’s votes would be weighted to give a fair, equal value to wards with 2 or more. What happened to this one?
Bill Roberts >> “tactic a bit of an ambush?”
I must say, each councilor had input into this venture long before the public was aware in the form of a survey. As an elected member your duty is in part, as a gate-keeper for the people. The survey was not created with a fail safe in place that would have regard for margin of error.
The only real way to find out the slant or the truth about motivations and mishaps in council is to ATTEND meetings! Trying to find the info after the fact is a daunting task, at times impossible to find on the county website. The newspapers offer grains of what was actually said by who. The website does not have any references to notes of opinions stated, the whys stated or the what fores.
In defense of the “no” vote (from the gang) on the million dollar firetruck is this, the price was the issue. Another firetruck with a different price (lower) was asked to be presented. The vote turned this option down. There was no doubt about a new firetruck. It was which one.
Sandra, I’m only referring to your own oft-repeated words.
And all I’m encouraging is for citizens to be properly informed on the facts of the process and outcome, to understand what actually was tabulated by Shire Hall professional staff and the actual results, and to make their own informed ratepayers’ decisions.
And to appreciate the long-term consequences.
So, if nothing else, then remember which Councillors said what & did what & when for voting in our next, 2018, municipal elections.
But, regardless, perhaps we’ve reached the end for any helpful or constructive conversation between us online.
Yes, I could dwell on other irksome matters.
For example, why was the surprise 9-ward motion never placed on Council’s official agenda?
Might some consider that kind of tactic a bit of an ambush?
Or why, when an Ameliasburgh Councillor openly acknowledged that the 9-ward option would not measure up to Council’s own agreed criteria and litmus yes, did it even proceed?
Let’s just leave this for now; enough online stuff.
Everyone have a good weekend. Cheers!
Sandra, you might want to look at the documented voting record. Take particular notice of the Ameliasburgh trio.
Bill Roberts, I still do not believe that you are the same person as councilor Bill Roberts. As he would not take up a public forum for debate to instill the adverse affects of other county’s representatives in council. Very unbecoming.
YOUR QUOTE:
“However, there may be 3 Ameliasburgh seats ready for change in 3 years, so that is always a possibility.”
Councilor Gale will take your seat in the next election, as he always has. Time will tell if you run against Mr. Gale or not. You seem to have your eye on running for an Ameliasburgh seat in the 3yrs. time. You are creating your credibility as we speak in this forum. Good luck to you, truly. It’s a job knocking on every door and introducing yourself from Sophiasburgh. And if you were the real Roberts (councilor) you would think twice about what mark you make here!
The urban vs rural is a well known phenomena in the county. This forum bears it out. imo. Not sure where you are getting “civil war” ref. or an oppositional force from and giving me the credit?
The counties in the rural south, east, west and north need a strong voice for their constituents farmers, wine growers, market gardeners, etc.) to blend a meaningful presence benefiting ALL in the county.
“Live streaming” of council meetings to go online has been talked about; this will replace hearsay after the fact of what really happened. We will all witness the gangs for and the gangs against plus the negotiators, middlemen and middlewomen. When will that happen?
Sandra, my apologies — I didn’t respond to your references to “urban pack” ganging up on Ameliasburgh.
Again, the factual voting record of Council should debunk that notion.
As to another reference on your part to “war” I think readers can assess for themselves the wisdom of your vocabulary choice.
Finally, on Sophiasburgh losing a Council seat — well I have every respect for my colleague Kevin Gale and would never run against him.
However, there may be 3 Ameliasburgh seats ready for change in 3 years, so that is always a possibility.
Again, all I can encourage is for County ratepayers and citizens to read the actual Shire Hall documents for themselves.
Please inform yourselves on the facts.
And then form their own opinions with regard to the carefully tabulated 2 and 3 Ward public preferences, whether Council adhered or not to its own agreed criteria in a close vote to pursue the 9 Ward option, whether Ameliasburgh and its 3 Council members generally vote as a block and would have more control at the Horsehoe than ever, whether Council even observed its own agreed procedures size-of-Concil!
And if I may be allowed a modest comment Sandra, I was not myself convinced by your pro-status quo references at size-of-Council public meetings to slavery, the American Civil War, the Mason-Dixon Line and the apparent benefit of isolating The County from outside influences.
It would seem to me that the Internet, television, indeed even the telephone, have made your last point irrelevant.
And your American citations were and are, frankly, in my view, a bit absurd.
Bill Roberts thx for the history lesson. However, you say nothing about rep by population division of Ameliasburgh. Were there at the time of amalgamation?
YOUR QUOTE:
“The deal on that table back then was 2 Councillors for Ameliasburgh but [THEY*] insisted on 3, or PEC would have folded …”
* Who are the “THEY” you refer to in your quote? I can nly guess that it was the OMB at time of amalgamation. If so it is mute.
There is an Urban pack in council, namely made up of Picton, Hallowell, Bloomfield councilors that all vote as a gang to gang up on Ameliasburgh’s vote.
I see the urban / rural war is alive and well. Just what the brain heads thought are trying to avoid.
Bill are you in fear of losing your councilor seat in Sophiasburgh with the 9 ward, as the favorite there has held his seat over many elections.
Emily, from what I witnessed in Shire Hall, Picton councilors voted for change as the issue they campaigned on. Either that 9 ward or the status quo. I do not view it as “caved”. Even the status quo had to compromise. A compromise is what the mayor called it.
Either way this ended up, OMB hearings on what to expect going forward another > $110,000 of our tax dollars spent. And that money could be spent toward hospital.
2 Picton Councilors need to explain why they caved for no good!
With an even # of votes, tie votes and stalemate are still on the agenda in the future.Ameliasburgh gains power at council while Bloomfield loses it’s vote. No improvement in decision making or representation.I must be missing something here.
Maybe the best solution is to blow up all the Ward boundries , call it Prince Edward County( oh yah…. we did that already) and elect the top 8 candidates and Mayor at large. That way, if I don’t like a decision one of the councilors make I can vote against them next time around. Under the 9 ward plan my “democratic” choice is a Mayor and one councilor, while the other 12 are immune.
The mindset of former townships is the issue. We have Councilors trading off votes so they can run back to their “township” and say look what I got for you! The electoral system and many who are elected have not moved on to County governance. Each decision should be for the betterment of the County as a whole. That’s why the 2 Ward & 3 Ward Plans were progress. But we know what happened once again. Selfish, narrow minds over the County good.
At the time of amalgamation Ameliasburgh played hard ball to their advantage and won the day, receiving 3 councilors. They historically have resisted progress to the south and have attempted at most opportunities to benefit themselves. Look no farther than all 3 councilors voting against the new aerial fire truck this past Council meeting. That is the problem with this methodology of maintaining former townships as wards. Townships are gone, we have County governance and each and every resident should have voter parity.
Ameliasburgh;
Currently- 15 councilors x 20% = 3
9 Ward – 13 councilors x 23% = 3
The 9 Ward plan provides Ameliasburgh even stronger representation.
They consistently vote as a pack and for the life of me I do not understand why single councilor wards would have fallen into their web!
The history of Ameliasburgh having 3 Councillors is perhaps best addressed by those who were present at amalgamation.
I’m told that Ameliasburgh was the last township to sign onto becoming part of Prince Edward County as an integrated municipality.
The deal on that table back then was 2 Councillors for Ameliasburgh but they insisted on 3, or PEC would have folded and the other 9 townships would have been in a pickle.
That’s also what former Mayor James Taylor shared with me last October.
Currently Ameliasburgh “controls” a little over 18% of Council; if the 9-ward option is confirmed that will rise to over 21%.
This Council decision has denied residents their democratic right to voter parity. I do not understand the thought process. If they refuse to provide residents equality they have to have a hidden agenda. This matter was so easy to get done and the public told them how. They have told the public to “stick it”!
Bill Roberts ( I still believe that you are not the same person as Councillor Roberts)however,
YOUR QUOTE:
“My best advice to readers and ratepayers is to read the materials for themselves.
You can contact Kim White at kwhite@pecounty.on.ca for assistance if need be.”
Please provide the web link that will take us directly to this info. you spoke of earlier and this material. Instead of us all bothering our Clerk and her working us through the maze of the county website.
Also, would you please tell the forum exactly why Ameliasburgh has 3 councilors.
thx
It seems that some people can’t believe that one of their councilors would actually spend the time and effort to try and inform and educate citizens on a topic that affects their democratic right to equal and fair representation and will no doubt affect their pocketbooks when council has to defend itself at an OMB. I am not surprised because from what I saw at the last council meeting most of the councilors don’t even understand or appreciate the gravity of the issue. To suggest that this councillor does not have the best interest of PEC at heart or has a personal agenda on an issue of such importance is beyond ignorant and arrogant.
Councilors are paid to form opinions. Hopefully those opinions are based upon public input and staff recommendations. I find it refreshing that a Councilor wants to ensure the public is provided accurate information.
Bill, thank you for your comment. However, my only hope is that folks will simply read the actual materials, understand the true results first-hand, and come to their own well-informed decisions.
I’m unaware of any other agenda to be perfectly honest.
Mr. Roberts,
As we all appreciate the updated information we have to wonder as well if it is not a conflict for you to be forming opinions since you are a council member? One could assume that you have your own agenda due to your vote not being considered
My best advice to readers and ratepayers is to read the materials for themselves.
You can contact Kim White at kwhite@pecounty.on.ca for assistance if need be.
Review the survey results for yourself: 2 electoral Ward was the first choice, 3 electoral Ward was the second choice, and 9 electoral Ward was the third and last choice for change. The status quo was the majority, dead last, 4the choice overall by most. You will also find on page 8 clear statements by Shire Hall staff which include: “The two preferred options selected… are the 2 Ward Electoral Ward Proposal (5 Councillors representing each Electoral Ward and a Mayor elected at Large) and the 3 Electoral Wars Proposal (4 Councillors representing each Electoral Ward and a Mayor elected at Large”. You will further find that the criteria discussed below (e.g. odd number of Council members, voter parity, equitable distribution of population, etc., were derived from a comprehensive legal opinion reviewing OMB, Supreme Court and other relevant legal precedents. The 9 Ward option does not meet these criteria – which is why, at Council and in public, the “Status Quo 8” refused to subject that option to evaluation by staff. Finally, you will read that the cost of this review of size of Council was roughly $16,000.
Smells fishy. How did a plan that was dismissed at Committee of Whole, was the least desired option of change by the public and meets none of the rating criteria ever rise from the dead? How will the County be able to defend this at the OMB?
Isn’t it a conflict of interest for councilors to vote on this issue? Shouldn’t there be a vote of the public…a real vote not a survey where we are given councils proposals. As a life long resident of PEC I know I have never votes or even been asked what my preferance would be. Life was so much easier for all wards before almagamation… much easier
What would be wrong with 10 wards and one councilors per ward plus mayor?
This would be fine if Ameliasburgh had been reduced to 2 and preferably 1 councillor. No wonder all Ameliasburgh councillors voted in favour of this restructuring! Totally a conflict of interest for all councillors to be voting on preserving their own jobs! This should simply have been added onto the last municipal election ballot for the electorate to decide once and for all!
John; there lies the problem. This is a County Council. It’s not presently representation by population. Apologizing for boring you but let me lay out a hypothetical situation.
Corporate Services recommends to Council prior to an election to purchase a new aerial fire truck at 1.2 million dollars. As a taxpaying resident in North Marysburgh, I support that and vote for a candidate that supports my view. My vote is successful and I have 1 person at the horseshoe supporting my view.In Ameliasburgh we have a taxpayer that does not support that purchase and supports 3 candidates that oppose it. They are successful in electing 3 councilors who will oppose at the horseshoe. Please tell me how I have voter parity?
Susan, rep by pop requires that Ameiliasburgh gets 3 votes at Council and Athol gets 1. That is the main issue. Subdividing wards into sections so that each section gets 1 vote could be possible in the future. For now, I think it is complicated enough.
That is absolutely correct. I am not Gary Mooney, in fact have never met the man. Having said that, being respectful of his opinion I certainly would like to hear his take on the outcome last night.
A reminder once again that “Gary” is not me. I always show my full name.
How was Bloomfield this morning? They woke up and found out they were singled out alone as no longer being a Ward. They are now Hallowell. That’s right, Bloomfield is gone, no more.
I for one hopes this goes to the OMB. Voter parity is worse now than with status Quo! Ameliasburgh take away the biggest % increase in Council representation at the expense of others. They are a trio that always vote the same and somehow they drew others into their trap. As was stated the Status Quo 8 were out in the swamp and needed saving. Epstein,Hull and Neiman threw them the life jacket.
John; ok but Council accepted the criteria to use in evaluating plans. I feel the voter parity is diluted. Voters should have the right to elect an equal number of representatives. An Ameliasburg resident gets to elect 3 that could represent their views at Council while in Athol as an example a resident gets to elect 1. Do you not see the inequity in that?
Susan, the Council did not get to set the criteria. They came down from on high and not all were relevant. Bloomfield was not a scapegoat as the plan was developed to bring the rep by pop issue to an acceptable standard.
Mayor Quaiff and Councilor Roberts can hold their heads high and walk down the street knowing they were correct in their principles. Kudos to these two leaders.
Oh Sandra don’t be silly, moving people out of Ameliasburgh is absurd! I am talking about each person’s vote carrying the same weight. The 2 Ward Plan and 3 Ward Plan did that and would stand up to challenge. Last night was a farce and unprofessional. The County deserves better.
Bill
would you please post a link to that info. The County website is a nightmare to find anything, even with a search tool its dysfunctional and very user friendly.
Bill Roberts,
I don’t believe you are a PEC Councilor because if you were you definitely would not be saying the things you are saying to instill discontent within the public.
If folks here in this forum attended last nights meeting all that’s left is sour grapes, regardless of how I feel about the 9 Ward system, it is what is left for us all. Until a by-law is created and sanctioned, so be it. Besides what are you prepared to do about it?
I don’t like the fact that: these 4 plans went out into the public survey and they did not meet the criteria set down before hand. This is my opinion is a major flaw created by a hasty approach and urgency to get this issue behind council and on with the real life and death issues of the county.
Gary:
first of all you will have to move much of the population out of the Ameliasburgh Ward to effect less rep by pop. As it stands today, it requires 3 reps for pop. Grumble if you must over this fact.
Klein had a plan that came into late. It was to divide Ameliasburgh Ward into 2, and might have been a sane option.
The only indication of things to come I see is an OMB appeal. This plan does not meet voter parity to an OMB standard. It doesn’t even meet the criteria Council devised! How do you vote for a plan that does not meet your own criteria? Wonder how Bloomfield feels today, being the scapegoat.
I am looking at the (non randomized) survey chart again to check my eyesight, and even of the 3 change plans, 9 ward is not last in any category. As a first choice, 3 ward is the lowest, even below status quo. As a reminder, there was a 12-4 vote for 9 ward over 2 ward on the 29th, an indication of things to come.
Don’t play politics with numbers John. The nine ward plan was the least desired choice of the public among the three that represented change. And it does not by any stretch meet a representation by population requirement. A voter in Athol elects 1 to County Council while a voter in Ameliasburgh elects 3. Do you sell that as voter parity? And calling it a “win” is distasteful.
I would encourage members of the public to read page 9 of the staff report for themselves (Review of Public Consultation on Size of Council and Proposed Electoral Ward Boundary Plan Options, Oct. 29/15.) Indeed, if time permits, one should also read the first few pages of the staff’s actual recommendations to Council — which the “Status Quo 8” ignored. These included the staff tabulation that the 2 and 3 electoral Ward options “are the top two preferred”. Page 9 further indicates that almost 60% of the public survey respondents ranked the 9 Ward option as their last choice for change or last choice overall. The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole, October 29/15, page 4, indicate that in the 2nd round of voting results, change options scored as follows: 3 Ward, 8 votes; 9 Ward, 1 vote. Again I encourage folks to read these documents for themselves. They are online.
On page 9 of the Special Committee of the Whole report of Oct 29, one can see that the 9 ward plan was not last in any category of the non randomized survey. As first choice, the 3 ward plan which was the alternative change actually placed last. As the second choice, the 9 ward plan was second. As third choice, the 9 ward plan was first. Status quo was last overall.
On Oct 29, the 9 ward plan won a vote by 12-4 over the 2 ward plan, so the win last night should not have been a huge surprise.
This small change could be considered huge as acceptable rep by pop is achieved without changing or combining any township boundaries so the less populated areas will elect someone. The rural/urban balance is maintained which is not guaranteed in any large ward system.
Any plan can expect to be appealed and this one should survive as it meets key criteria for effective representation.
Unbelievable and beyond reasonable comprehension is all that presently comes to mind. This is selfish, personal politics and throwing it into the face of the public.
As if Status Quo was unfair and denied voter equity this plan is even worse as it creates even more diluted representation. The only winner here if that phrase should be used is Ameliasburgh as their percentage of representation on Council increases the most.
For those that voted in favour of this plan, they have shown disrespect to the public. Two of them from Picton Ward have lost my trust in their capabilities and intentions. They have also lost my support in the next election.
You really had to be there at Shire Hall . . .
… to see and feel the workings of how council navigated to a compromise the way they did. Mayor Quaif has brought honour to our councilors through his leadership and handling of the process in a ruled fashion. How he admonished one councilor (who goes on about the status quo “8” and shall not be named) for snide remarking in the circle. I was impressed.
Truly, OMB threatens from all sides, that’s a fact but, until that happens it remains a fiction. Paying court costs should be part of the appeal process in the end. imo.
In 5 yrs. who knows PEC could be amalgamated with Quinte West, by some higher level Gov’t. Then we’d have some real problems and no identity.
There are many sour grapes today.
In my view, the “Status Quo 8” group of Councillors realized that their position would not be supported by the OMB. So they lobbied and revived the least popular, minimal change 9-ward plan. The 9-ward plan had been rejected by Committee of The Whole as recently as October 29th. And was last among change options according to the PEC public survey. The 2-ward and 3-ward plans were favoured by the public. In sum, Council voted for a plan that ignored every public process on size of Council since 2008, that ignored Council’s own agreed criteria, that ignored the legal opinion received by The County, and that rebuffed every recommendation by our professional staff on how best to proceed. Stranger than fiction, in my view.
Yes we will remember when the election time comes who not to vote back in. Sad there are so many selfies! Agree totally with Kawartha Dave
And the total cost of this long, long debate!!!
For the “status quo” gang this was an easy option to support because it is practically status quo. For those elected on a promise of change and who supported this, you caved. This is the least popular option, will not stand up to scrutiny by the OMB and does not address the inequity of voter parity within the County. There is no courage or vision in this solution. It is NOT worthy of the years of time and effort spent by council, staff and the good people of PEC. What a waste! Kudos to Councillor Roberts and Mayor Quaiff who had the brains to see this as a sham and the courage to say so.
This council has got to be the biggest bunch of misfits we have had at Shire Hall and it’s not going to get much smaller. No thought at all about what is good for The County, just take care of self. Residents, please take note of who voted for what and remember the details for the next election.