The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCLD-023-10CI8ITII~°'t0Il REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: July 5, 2010 Resolution#:GP~-~//7-/U By-law#: 020~~"Q9s Report#: CLD-023-10 File#: Subject: Ballot Question Re: Election of Regional Chair RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD-023-10 be received; and 2. THAT By-law 2010-040, being a by-law to submit a question to the electors at the next regular municipal election to approve Council resolution re Direct Election of Regional Chair be repealed. Submitted by: PLB/ Reviewed by: ~~~- Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 Municipal Clerk REPORT NO.: CLD-023-10 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND At the Council meeting held on April 26, 2010, Council passed By-law 2010-040, being a by-law to submit the following question to the electors at the next regular Municipal Election: Should the Council of the Municipality of Clarington approve the following resolution: THAT the Government of Ontario make a regulation requiring that the Chair of the Regional Municipality of Durham be elected by general vote. YES NO This by-law put into place the recommendations contained within Report CLD-005-10 which were adopted by Council on March 1, 2010. Prior to our by-law being passed, the Regional Municipality of Durham passed By-law 20-2010 to place the following question on the ballots for all municipalities within the Region of Durham at the 2010 municipal election: Are you in favour of the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham passing the necessary resolutions and by-laws to change the method of selecting its Chair from appointment by the members of Regional Council to election by general vote of all electors in the Region? YES NO Although the Regional by-law was passed prior to the municipal by-law, the process was proceeded with in order to ensure that the direction of Municipal Council was followed in the chance that the Regional question was appealed and found not to be clear, concise and neutral as required by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 2.0 REGIONAL APPEAL In accordance with subsection 8.1(6) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, an appeal of the question to appear on the ballot was received by the Regional Clerk. As required, a hearing was conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer on June 22, 2010. On June 25, 2010, the decision to dismiss the appeal was received. A copy of the decision is included hereto as Attachment No. 1. REPORT NO.: CLD-023-10 PAGE 3 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Given that the appeal to the Region's question on the ballot has been dismissed and the question will appear on the ballots for all municipalities during the 2010 Municipal Election, it is unnecessary for the Municipality of Clarington to proceed with the question as specified in By-law 2010-040. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that By-law 2010-040 be repealed. Attachments: Attachment 1 -Appeal Decision of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario Attachment 2 -Draft By-law to repeal By-law 2010-040. Attachment No. 1 to Report CLD-023-10 Office of the Bureau du directeur Chief Electoral Officer gAn~ral des elections of Ontario de ('Ontario June 25, 2010 Ms. P. M. Madill Regional Clerk The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department 605 Rossland Road East Box 623 Whitby, Ontario L1 N 6A3 Dear Ms. Madill: This is further to the matter of the appeal of a question enacted by By-law No. 20-2010, as passed by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham. On behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer, I am providing to you a copy of the Order of the Designate of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Hugh Christie, as well as a copy of his Reasons. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the members of the staff of the Cleric's Department for the assistance that was provided to our office in preparing fot the hearing. The room where the hearing was held was very suitable to our purposes and I would like to express our appreciation to those who set up the room. I would also be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to you, as well as on behalf of Mr. Christie and Ms. Fowlie, for the courtesy extended to us during our visit to your offices. Yours sincerely, Loren A. Wells Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Enclosures 51 ROL4RK DRNE • TORONTO, ONTARIO M1R 3B1 • VOICE(416) 3266300 TTY:1~292-2312 FAX (418) 328-6201 51, PROM. ROLARK • TORONiO (ONiARlO) M1 R 361 • V000: (416) 326&30D ATS: l$88-292-2312 Tom: (416) 326201 Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, as amended Chief Electoral Officer In The Matter Of an Appeal under subsection 8.1(6) of the above-mentioned Act to determine whether the question enacted by By-law No. 20-2010 of the Regional Municipality of Durham complies with paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection 8.1(2) of the said Act. Before Mr. Hugh Christie (Delegate of the Chief Electoral Officer) the 22°d day of June, 2010 ORDER Upon the application of Ms. Keri Davey and others and upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the parties in the matter: 1. It is ordered that the within appeal is dismissed. C~.d-~ Hugh Christie on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer TUR_LAW V403919~2 Municipal Elections Act., 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, as amended In The Matter Of an Appeal under subsection 8.1(6) of the Municipal Elections Act, S.O. 1996, a32, as amended to determine whether the question enacted by By-law No. 20- 2010 of the Regional Municipality of Durham complies with paragraph 3 of subsection 8.1(2) of the said Act. Before Mr. Hugh Christie ) (Designate of the Chief Electoral Officer) ) Hearing held the 22°d day ofJune, 2010 in Whitby, Ontario REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This is an appeal pursuant to subsection 8.1(6) of the Municipal Elections Act (the "Act" 2. Ms. Keri Davey appeals that a question proposed by the council of the Region of Durham to be put on its ballot in this year's election as a referendum question is improper. She says it fails to comply with paragraphs 8.1(2) 3 and 4 of the Act. 3. She says that the question is not clear, concise and neutral contrary to paragraph 8.1(2) 3, and is not capable of a yes or no answer, contrary to paragraph 8.1(2)4. 4. The question proposed by Durham Council in By-law 20-2010 reads as follows: Are you in favour of the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham passing the necessary resolutions and by-laws to change the method of selecting its Chair from appointment by the members of Regional Council to election by general vote of all electors in the Region? YES NO 5. All parties agree that this hearing is properly constituted and that I have jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to all limited by paragraphs 8.1(6) and (9) of the Act. 6. Ms. Davey says that following in her notice of appeal, and confirmed it in her oral submissions: If, like the previous "question to the electors" (Elections, 2006) 20% of eligible voters turn out to vote the option "Yes" isn't actually an option. "No" is still an option all the way up to 49% turn out. Yes only becomes an option if 50% of the voters turn out.... We also submit this appeal under "a) the question is neither clear, concise nor neutral" for the same reasons as above.... The discrepancy between the act of voting and the criteria for the out come, as outlined in your Notice dated Apri129th, 2010 is unethical.... 7. She disagrees with the provisions of the Act which provide as follows: 8.2(1) The results of a question authorized by a by-law under clause 8(1)(b) are binding on the municipality which passed the by-law if, (a) at least 50 per cent of the eligible electors in the municipality vote on the question; and (b) more than 50 per cent of the votes on the question aze in favour of those results 8. She would like me to order that the Region of Durham should be bound by the referendum results no matter what the voter turnout. 9. I do not have the jurisdiction to do what she asks. My jurisdiction is limited by paragraph 8.1(6) of the Act, and I may not exceed that jurisdiction. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal. Dated: June 22, 2010 ~CC-.-~ Hugh Christie on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer roa_~nw~~aovesi~ Attachment No: 2 to Report CLD-023-10 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. Being By-law to Repeal By-law 2010-040, a By-law to Submit a Question to the Electors at the Next Regular Municipal Election to Approve Council Resolution re Direct Election of Regional Chair WHEREAS at a meeting held on July 12, 2010, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington approved the recommendations contained within Report CLD-023-10; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT By-law 2010-040 is hereby repealed. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time this 12th day of July 2010. Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk