To the Editor:
In a 5-2 vote, with councillors Tomlinson and Wadsworth voting for the people, Kearney Council voted to rescind the mail-in–vote for the 2010 elections.
Just when most municipalities are trying to get a larger percentage of the population to vote, the Kearney Council has decided to do the opposite. It may be that they consider this the only way to get re-elected. As the mayor has emphasized, it is really only the permanent residents who matter. This is a sad reflection on the many senior cottage residents. These are the ones who over many years have contributed to the town, either by volunteering or more importantly by their taxes. Their taxes pay for many of the things the permanent residents enjoy throughout the year.
Now, because of council’s narrow-minded thinking they are going to have to absorb another expense of $200 or more for gas, food and lodging to return to Kearney to vote since most seniors have closed the cottage on Labour Day weekend. Of Course, the clerk could establish polling stations in the south closer to the cottage owners, but then would there be the great savings council was expecting by their decision. I think not. Advance polls can also be costly. Has this been considered in those savings?
Was this a punishment decision? Was council still pouting over losing the no wards decision? Why punish so many for the democratic decision of the OMB? Obviously council did not do their homework. But whose fault is that? Certainly they are more mature than that. Or are they? I expected as much from some councillors but I was shocked by some other negative votes.
The OMB made it clear that “voter parity and effective representation are governing principles of Canada’s democratic electoral system at all levels…” How can this be achieved when Council may be excluding a large portion of the electors.
The mayor cited the following criteria for his decision: ease of access for all voters, costs, adequacy of controls. It would seem that the number of 60% mail in versus about 16% traditional polling station speaks for ease of access. As for costs, whose costs? The taxpayers have paid for this democratic right without added expense. What “controls” is Mayor Johnston talking about? Surely he is not talking about trying to control the process. The clerk is in control and should not be unduly influenced by council.
The OMB made it clear that all residents of Kearney need to find ways to work together. Council had a chance to show character and do the right thing. I know council wants to do the right thing and I sincerely hope they step back and rethink their decision. As I continue to say, Kearney deserves better.
Frank Goodman
Hamilton