The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"_â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"-â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"-â€"r 7 â€" WAl‘ERlLK) CHRONICLE °Wednesday December 10.200803 0 Am amatlon two-ste l O O O 0 O i Counczl representatives meet to discuss If they should go forward with talks i BYBOBVRMNAC Johnston suggested a process ‘ ChmnicleStafi , , ' \. based on game theory for looking ! M . ’ 5-124 \\ at those variables should the lpcal 0 thin were missin from g ‘~ . 7. g 355,3er municipalities choose to go or- I last M3335 first tentatitge step , ~ ' I wf - ward with the discussions. Game taken by local politicians to A. ‘ ; ff; '§"‘-‘f"lfgf}ff' 33 theory was created by NO“! PM?“ determine whether there was any _ " a .- ‘ . j , "2g; flit} ; mm)“ 10h" Nash, whose life was political will to start talks about , , a ' \ \ fit": “ff single-7g} made famous "1 the movre A Beau- municipal govemment reform / K f Y f§~¥fi“ * ‘ , tiful Mlnd; . First, participants asked if there 4 Tow . y ., 3‘s“ A, we?” , a; , - 4 , t“ ' He inVited former UWet‘lgtnefl- is true public support behind a pro , " , f” , Q “5. P3; any; A, 5&- f? cs, ‘\,V ing professor Gerry Sullivan to posal that could lead to the poten- , «V “as a a ”i" r, . _ .,, .. {‘ a" -. explain game “WOW and how “ tial amalgamation of eight local ‘ , . Ix ’ . g‘éfi ' {W as," if takes disparate interests and tries municipalities into a one~tier gov- in .. ' " ' ‘ "£1. fit ‘ A ~ to organize them in accordance eminent? < ‘ \ , [ 30% ~. - ,- - . with the participants' preferences. Second. some wondered why \ ._ Mi- ‘ “a "’ 1“? ‘ “A t ; He said the parties would be sur- the status quo of two-tier govern , \ .>‘ . .. m?%\ if i 7, (QM \ prised at some of the outcomes ment was not considered a viable » ' " f “3 a?" 3; ' ; 1; “ . r, g _ (if and perhaps one could lead (0 fur- option. They questioned what's so \. 7m Qwé‘tflj’f ‘ J‘ a?“ if : ‘. ther discussion: wrong with local governance that it ‘~ .‘ » ' 1-5" if _: iiiâ€"fl ‘}:,f77‘355!‘;.3s151 \ I?!“ Cambridge MayorDoug needs tobe fixed. ‘ J? 4 "ti"; ? l b , r v - N Craig, who said that Qambrtdge is The whole exercise was kicked ‘ ‘ _ Q. ' \ ‘1' «Y'- ' not interested m pamcrpatmg and off with the fall release of a report . "(a he ' ‘ w ' '» thinks local councils'. time_would produced by a group called Citi- ' . . - h; ‘- I 1 . be better spent d?alm.8.W“h (hf? wens For Better Government. which , , _., . .7' fl ‘ ; be, /f‘ ‘ 09801718 economic CT'S‘S- d'dm held a series of community forums 26 4- .‘ ' i \ . _ an: mince any words ‘ ' starting in 2007 arguing that there ‘ K ' ’ - -â€"J I (10er wag! to git mm "1b; manna a n loo . , , . 1 , ‘_ ame W ere m 011 num Regionwgs {ligt-étr’f‘tflâ€"a _ 7_ \\ $ é. I“ 2‘@W . §he players,” he said. governance model was in need of ' " w” - ' ‘ .. ""~\ ' » law... . . lohnston asked for a straw poll an overhaul. The group released an “ ' ‘ -, my?“ a A about how many of the partici- initial report called Finding a Better w a ‘i 5 “it ‘* ‘ ._ ._ ' l _ pants would like to go forward but Way that proposed a single-city ., T” _ - . \ ”I. i 7 Waterloo Regional Chair Ken Seil. model of government and after a A f“ ‘ o k at . ing said that no one‘anhnnblohad year of public meetings it remained ‘ flog'l’, fl “ . - - w 5 been given the mandate to make their preferred option that a one- ‘ tea” a . ‘ 41 that decision by their respective tier government model would ‘ . ‘ ‘ T - 4A 5, 7M -_ 7m? councils. replace all the lower-tier municiâ€" ' ~ â€" V ' 24 He said he still has scars from palities This is the proposed ward map put forward by Citizens for Better Government of a new onetier municipality that the last debate over amalgamation ButWaterloo Mayor Brenda Hal~ features 26 wards. «ammo and that this latest push isn't even loran questioned how representa- on the radar for the province. If the tive those findings were, She said reform. tinue to innovate to meet the chal- stiruents will ask him is how much process continues it has to be done she understood there was very little And all the options, including lenges of our times. He said that will it cost. “They want to see how in a respectful manner. with una- puhlic turnout to the forums held the present two-tier system. should Waterloo and Kitchener have the moneywill bespent," he said. nimity from those involved. 3 by (IFBG. and wondered whether be fairly portrayed. already entered in a combined Waterloo Coun. Ian d’Ailly said “The only unanimity is in (arm there was much citizen support for “The option of the status quo is services agreement that has found whenever he engages in these types bridge,” said Craig. “And we don't the process. not on the table and that's a major cost sharing in more than 45 areas of discussions he asks what's the want to be involved in the process" “How many people have been deficiency.” said Miller. More discussions could lead to problem and what are you trying to Selling was supported by Hallo- engaged in this process?" she Kitchener Mayor Cari 7ehr, who other savings and other efficiencies fix? He said there is some real dis- ran, who tried to ratchet down the asked. "lf you've only spoken to a called the meeting and asked Uni- between other municipalities with connect between the report and rhetoric. few hundred people and there are versity of Waterloo president David in the Won. what's going on in local cities. "Hie last thing we want to show 500,600 in the region. where are lohnston to moderate it. said he “What we are is groan but what “Some of the things being purâ€" the business community is that they anti what kind of discussions just wanted to start a public dia- we can be we don't even know,” he ported as problem areas I don't we're squabbling" she said. are we having to include them?" logue and investigate whether said. "We're only going to know if really see as problem of err-opera» So Selling proposed a question Regional (bun Claudette Millar there were any next steps to be we have a proper dialogue and tion or of a systemic breakdown in that everyone could take back to was even more critical. asking why taken, resist those people who want to how the two local levels of govem- their respective councils. "Do you the current two-tier model of “We've been down this road keep us in the 20th century. incnt aren't workinginconjunction see any potential to effect change regional government was excluded before,“ acknowledged Zehr. “I'm because the let century will blow with each other," said d'Ailly that is meaningful arid does not from the discussion. The former hoping that we get the chance to us over." Waterloo Regional Coun. lane hurt our working together?" he mayor of (“ambridge said she was start a process where we can diar But Woolwich Mayor Bill Strauss Mitchell said a true financial analy» said. part of the acrimonious process of ltigtlt‘ a little bit about what it said he‘s received no push from his sis was missing in the report put The group agreed to take the amalgamating llespeler. (ialt and would look like if we went forward constituents about municipal together hy(IFBG. There was a sug~ question and minutes of the meet? Preston 35 years ago and the hard and who the participants would reform. And those he's talked to say, gestion that amalgamation could mg back to their councils anti have feelings from that merger still exist he " “lf it ain‘t broke. what are we going save $10 million a year. but she said some direction by the end of lanur She, along with others. argued llt‘ was supported by Waterloo to fix?" the municipalities would have to ary, That's when they'll decide if that a referendum was necessary to (Ioun. Mark Whalt-y, who argued Welleslcy Mayor Ross Kelter- do their own analysis to prove the there is enough support to go for- truly iudge the public appetite for that the community needs to (on? born said the first question his oon- numbers ward with the process l TIII’ \\ "KID'S ll\|\ . l illWElfilEHSlREETN l’vi’li'flll.f.f.ifiA"? 515 12537 HOW WE“ ill Tim. fi‘i‘iifih 'i “it ”1 ‘lilli SH ‘H , iii Milli M“ Illi but. ViilliiillfiiHili‘WIlllli‘t iii}! ‘ . . ‘ , . _ , - . ,. ' , ,. .. a i , p , . , . ,, n . gt. , v v 1 r- a mmmvcxuvaxxuxufi to: 13am. - ‘ l 7 . _. _ _________._ _ . l