Counterpoint: Question #10
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

---

Question #10: How would your side guarantee public participation in the budget process?

---

No guarantee public will participate in budget process

      One of the ironies of democracy is that the more opportunities which that system of government provides, the less inclined we sometimes are to take advantage of those opportunities. Consider for example the turn-out at the polls at election time. Brutally repressive dictatorships routinely see voter participation in the "election" of a leader at nearly 100%. Free societies, on the other hand, often have fewer than half of eligible voters exercising their franchise.

     We won't try to analyse the reasons for this phenomenon. Let's just say there is no guarantee that the public will participate in the budget process whether we restore Victoria County and our former municipalities, or whether we stick with the mega-city.

     City spending determines, in part, how much money we have left over for simple extravagances such as food, clothing and shelter after the taxman comes calling. For that reason alone, it matters that the opportunity is available to any municipal taxpayer to have input into the budget process.

      It is worth noting that for a City with 100 thousand permanent and seasonal residents, and a budget in the range of $100 million, there were only two submissions from members of the public into the budget debate. That's right, two: one by the Victoria County Taxpayers Coalition, and the other by a retired financial officer with a major corporation. Their submissions were largely ignored by Council.

      It is difficult to imagine how perpetuation of a centrist, monopoly style of municipal government like the City of Kawartha Lakes would improve upon this dismal record of public involvement. Time might be better spent in trying to determine why the public had so little input.

      One reason might be that the mega-city budget process involves global numbers on a department by department basis. Only one councillor asked to see the line items that made up the budget: the replacement photo-copier, the new desk, and so forth. The reason why most councillors didn't want to know such detail is the sheer volume of expenditures that go into a mega-city's multi-million dollar budget. Instead, they take the word of municipal staff that any given expenditure is necessary. This will not change any time soon in the mega-city system.

      With the restoration of Victoria County and the former municipalities, will the public be any more inclined to say how they want their money spent? Not necessarily, even though opportunities to do so will be available.

      Somehow, however, we believe that greater involvement in how our money is spent is a characteristic of smaller, grass-roots governments. A case in point before amalgamation was the public debate over Bobcaygeon's Forbert Pool. Although not strictly part of a budgeting process, the question of whether or not to proceed with the pool was largely dependant upon financial considerations.

      It is worth remembering that Verulam Township held a referendum on whether or not to share in a potential pool deficit. The Bobcaygeon council chamber was packed to overflowing with members of the public eager to have their say, both for and against building the pool. Proportionally, the most heated public debate at CoKL would have needed several thousand citizens at City Hall to equal the Forbert Pool debate.

     Taxpayers were more involved in guarding the purse strings in the two-tier system where the key feature was smaller, more responsive Councils, closer to the public they were elected to serve.

      No one can guarantee that the public will participate in the budget process after a successful "Yes" vote. However, that result wouldn't be surprising in our smaller, more inviting, less intimidating local town halls.