Home › How the City Will Operate › Chapter 5

How the City Will Operate

Chapter 5Resident Government

3,500 words · Mike Seiler · Owen Sound, Ontario

In this chapter

• 5.1 Residents Between Elections
• 5.2 Resident Pulse
• 5.3 Verified Community Votes
• 5.4 The Strong Vote Standard
• 5.5 Formal Municipal Ballot Questions
• 5.6 Questions That Should Not Be Decided by Popular Vote
• 5.7 The Both-Sides Standard
• 5.8 Neighbourhood Consultation
• 5.9 Petitions and Resident Motions
• 5.10 Resident Motions
• 5.11 Public Delegations
• 5.12 Annual Mayor's Community Assembly
• 5.13 Participation Must Be Accessible
• 5.14 Participation Must Be Private
• 5.15 Participation Must Be Civil
• 5.16 The Resident Government Ladder
• 5.17 The Resident Government Guarantee

An election should not be the last meaningful conversation residents have with their City for four years.

Representative government matters.

We elect a Mayor and Council because somebody must study complicated issues, hear professional advice, balance competing interests, make decisions and remain accountable for those decisions.

But representative government does not require residents to become spectators between elections.

Owen Sound should build a system in which public participation continues throughout the term of Council and becomes part of ordinary municipal decision-making.

The objective is not government by constant referendum.

It is something more practical:

Representative government strengthened by informed resident participation.

Residents should be able to raise issues, see the evidence, understand the cost, hear competing arguments, express a view and then see how that public input affected the final decision.

At the same time, participation must respect Canadian constitutional principles.

A majority cannot vote away another person's legal rights.

A public vote cannot give the City authority it does not possess.

An online poll cannot replace a statutory decision where Ontario law requires Council, a municipal official, a court or another public body to make that decision.

Those boundaries strengthen resident participation because everyone understands what the process can and cannot accomplish.

5.1Residents Between Elections

Municipal democracy should operate on two tracks.

Representative Democracy

Residents elect:

• a Mayor;
• councillors;
• other elected municipal representatives where applicable.

Those representatives are expected to:

• study issues;
• receive staff advice;
• hear residents;
• consider legal obligations;
• understand financial consequences;
• deliberate publicly;
• make decisions;
• accept accountability for those decisions.

That responsibility should not be abandoned.

Participatory Democracy

Residents should also have continuing opportunities to:

• identify problems;
• propose ideas;
• participate in consultations;
• comment on major projects;
• sign petitions;
• attend meetings;
• submit delegations;
• participate in advisory votes;
• examine public evidence;
• challenge assumptions;
• help measure results.

The two systems should strengthen one another.

A resident vote can reveal community preference.

Council can provide deliberation.

Professional staff can provide technical advice.

The law establishes the boundary.

The final public record should show how each contributed to the decision.

5.2Resident Pulse

Not every question requires a formal vote.

Sometimes the City simply needs to ask.

Create a permanent Resident Pulse system for quick, non-binding community consultation.

Examples could include:

• preferred park improvements;
• recreation programming;
• event times;
• trail priorities;
• downtown pilot ideas;
• transit experience;
• neighbourhood concerns;
• budget priorities;
• proposed service changes.

The purpose is to make asking residents inexpensive enough that the City does it regularly.

Resident Pulse Results Should Show

• the question asked;
• the dates consultation was open;
• how many responses were received;
• whether respondents were verified residents;
• relevant demographic information only where voluntarily provided and genuinely useful;
• results;
• written comments where appropriate;
• limitations of the consultation;
• what the City intends to do next.

A Poll Is Not a Vote

This distinction should always be clear.

An open survey can be useful without being scientifically representative.

A thousand online responses do not automatically mean a thousand unique Owen Sound residents participated.

A voluntary poll may attract people with especially strong views.

Different neighbourhoods may participate at different rates.

Residents without internet access may be underrepresented.

These limitations do not make public consultation worthless.

They mean we should describe the results honestly.

The City should never present an informal poll as though it were a municipal election.

5.3Verified Community Votes

Some issues deserve a higher level of public participation.

For significant municipal questions, Owen Sound should develop a Verified Community Vote process.

The purpose would be to create a reliable advisory measure of resident opinion without pretending that the process has statutory authority it does not possess.

Verification

Where voting eligibility is based on municipal electors, the system should verify eligibility without creating a permanent political profile of the resident.

The design should aim for:

• one eligible voter, one vote;
• secret choice;
• protection from duplicate voting;
• strong privacy;
• an accessible process;
• telephone or in-person alternatives where practical;
• independent verification of results;
• published voting rules;
• published opening and closing dates.

A person's voting history should never become a municipal marketing profile.

The system may need to know that an eligible person voted.

It should not unnecessarily preserve how that person voted.

Before the Vote

A verified community vote should not begin with a slogan.

Residents should receive a plain-language information package covering:

1. the question;
2. municipal authority;
3. the strongest reasonable argument in favour;
4. the strongest reasonable argument against;
5. estimated cost;
6. estimated continuing cost;
7. funding source;
8. known risks;
9. alternatives;
10. consequences of doing nothing;
11. significant legal limitations;
12. relevant staff advice.

Whenever possible, residents should be given time to consider the information before voting begins.

After the Vote

Publish:

• total eligible electorate used for the process;
• participation;
• yes votes;
• no votes;
• spoiled or invalid submissions if applicable;
• independent verification;
• geographic participation where privacy can be protected;
• next municipal step.

The result should not disappear because it is politically inconvenient.

5.4The Strong Vote Standard

Owen Sound was designated by Ontario as a strong-mayor municipality effective May 1, 2025. The City reports that these powers include additional authority concerning the municipal budget, senior administration, committees, certain provincial-priority matters, staff direction and specified by-laws. Council also formally asked Ontario to reverse Owen Sound's designation, and the sitting Mayor delegated a number of powers back to Council or administration.

The strong-mayor framework remains part of Ontario law. Some powers relate specifically to prescribed provincial priorities, currently including housing and infrastructure supporting housing.

My existing commitment is that these extraordinary powers should not be used simply because a Mayor personally has the ability to use them.

The Strong Vote pledge states that where a majority of registered voters clearly supports a municipal direction and the Mayor personally disagrees, strong-mayor authority should not be used against that expressed community decision. Where the community and Mayor agree but Council does not, the pledge contemplates using lawful mayoral authority where available to advance the community's decision.

That principle will be developed into the Strong Vote Standard.

The Purpose

Strong powers should require strong accountability.

The greater the authority concentrated in one office, the stronger the obligation to demonstrate that the authority is being exercised for a legitimate public purpose.

The Standard

Before exercising a significant discretionary strong-mayor power, the Mayor should ask:

1. Is the action lawful?
2. Does it fall within the statutory authority of the Mayor?
3. Is the power being used for the purpose for which Ontario provided it?
4. Has Council had a reasonable opportunity to consider the matter where appropriate?
5. Has the public been heard where time and law permit?
6. Is there clear evidence of community support or opposition?
7. Is the action necessary?
8. Could the same objective be achieved through an ordinary Council process?
9. Have conflicts of interest been disclosed?
10. Will the Mayor publish the reasons for the decision?

Strong Vote Does Not Rewrite Ontario Law

The Strong Vote Standard is a public commitment governing how I would approach the discretionary authority entrusted to the Mayor.

It does not turn an advisory digital vote into legislation.

It does not give the Mayor authority that the Municipal Act does not provide.

It does not remove Council's statutory responsibilities.

It does not override provincial priorities or other legal obligations attached to a particular mayoral power.

Where Ontario law imposes a duty on the head of council, the Mayor must comply with that law. Ontario's current strong-mayor framework, for example, places responsibility on the head of council to prepare and propose the municipal budget, subject to the statutory amendment, veto and override process.

The commitment is therefore one of restraint within lawful authority.

Having a power does not mean it must be used.

5.5Formal Municipal Ballot Questions

Ontario law already provides a formal process through which a municipal council may place certain questions on a municipal election ballot.

That process is different from the Resident Pulse and Verified Community Vote systems proposed in this plan.

Under Ontario's 2026 municipal election rules, a council ballot question must concern something within municipal jurisdiction that the municipality can implement. It cannot concern a matter of provincial interest, and the wording must be clear, concise, neutral and answerable with yes or no.

Formal ballot questions can also have a legal consequence that an ordinary municipal survey does not.

If more than 50 per cent of eligible municipal voters vote on a qualifying municipal ballot question, Ontario's rules provide that the result is binding on Council. A successful yes result must be implemented in a timely manner, while a successful no result prevents the municipality from implementing the matter for four years. If participation does not exceed the statutory threshold, the result is not binding.

This creates three clearly different tools.

Level One: Resident Pulse

Informal consultation.

Useful information.

Not binding.

Level Two: Verified Community Vote

A more rigorous advisory vote among verified participants.

Politically significant.

Not automatically legally binding.

Level Three: Statutory Ballot Question

A formal election question conducted under Ontario law.

Potentially legally binding when the statutory requirements are met.

Residents should always know which process they are participating in.

5.6Questions That Should Not Be Decided by Popular Vote

Resident government still requires boundaries.

Not every question properly belongs to the majority.

A community vote should not be used to determine:

• whether a particular person has a constitutional or statutory right;
• guilt or innocence;
• individual employee discipline;
• confidential personnel matters;
• a person's entitlement to due process;
• confidential legal matters;
• private medical information;
• individual social-service eligibility;
• matters outside municipal jurisdiction;
• whether a protected group receives equal municipal service;
• decisions requiring an independent statutory official to exercise professional judgment;
• questions that cannot lawfully be implemented by the municipality.

A majority vote can resolve many public-policy choices.

It should not become a mechanism for removing the legal protections of the minority.

The Rights Screen

Before any significant community vote is held, the question should receive a review addressing:

• municipal jurisdiction;
• Charter considerations where applicable;
• Ontario human rights obligations;
• privacy;
• accessibility;
• procedural fairness;
• financial implications;
• Indigenous and treaty considerations where relevant;
• other statutory obligations.

This is not intended to stop controversial questions from being asked.

It is intended to ensure the City does not ask residents to authorize something that the City would have no lawful ability to deliver.

5.7The Both-Sides Standard

Owen Sound will face controversial issues.

Housing.

Development.

Taxes.

Policing.

Downtown policy.

Transportation.

Environmental questions.

Public-space rules.

Technology.

Major capital projects.

Provincial policy.

The answer cannot be to pretend disagreement does not exist.

It should be to make disagreement more useful.

For major controversial decisions, the City should use a Both-Sides Standard.

Every Significant Public Question Should Identify

What We Agree On

Start with facts that are reasonably established.

This reduces unnecessary argument.

The Strongest Case in Favour

Not a weak summary written by the opponents.

The strongest reasonable version of the argument.

The Strongest Case Against

Again, not a caricature.

The strongest reasonable opposing argument.

What Is Disputed

Identify disagreement honestly.

Sometimes two sides disagree about values.

Sometimes they disagree about facts.

Sometimes they agree about the problem but disagree about the solution.

Those are different disagreements.

What We Do Not Yet Know

Government should be willing to say when evidence is incomplete.

What It Costs

Show the range where estimates remain uncertain.

Who Carries the Risk

Financial risk.

Environmental risk.

Property risk.

Operational risk.

Community risk.

What Alternatives Exist

A debate should not always be reduced to:

Do this or do nothing.

There may be a smaller option.

A temporary option.

A different location.

A different funding model.

A partnership.

A pilot.

What Cannot Be Changed

Identify legal obligations and jurisdictional limitations.

The Steelman Principle

Where an organized group is significantly affected by a proposal, give that group a reasonable opportunity to confirm that its own argument has been described fairly.

The City does not need to endorse that argument.

It should be able to state it honestly.

Before disagreeing with someone, we should first be able to demonstrate that we understood them.

5.8Neighbourhood Consultation

Not every municipal issue requires a city-wide vote.

Sometimes the people most affected live on one street.

A proposed road redesign may directly affect one neighbourhood.

A park change may primarily affect nearby residents.

A downtown closure may have a particular effect on downtown businesses and residents.

A traffic change may move congestion from one street to another.

A trail connection may affect neighbouring properties.

Community engagement should recognize those differences.

Three Circles of Consultation

For significant local projects, identify:

Circle One: Directly Affected

People, properties or businesses experiencing the most immediate effect.

Circle Two: Nearby Community

Neighbourhood residents and organizations experiencing secondary effects.

Circle Three: City-Wide Public

Residents who fund, use or otherwise have an interest in the public asset.

Each group may legitimately see the issue differently.

The City should report those views separately rather than blending them into one number.

Local Consultation Does Not Create a Private Veto

Being directly affected should provide a stronger voice.

It should not automatically mean private ownership of a public decision.

A street belongs to the community.

A park serves more than the houses beside it.

A downtown belongs to the people who live and work there while also serving the wider city.

The purpose is therefore not to give any group absolute control.

It is to ensure that the people carrying the greatest practical consequences are heard before the decision is made.

5.9Petitions and Resident Motions

Residents should have a clear way to bring an issue to Council without needing personal access to an elected official.

Create a formal Resident Petition Standard.

A municipal petition should be able to request:

• a staff response;
• a public report;
• reconsideration of a policy where legally permitted;
• study of a local problem;
• public consultation;
• a Council debate;
• consideration of a community vote.

Every Petition Should Receive

• confirmation of receipt;
• verification of the request;
• identification of municipal jurisdiction;
• a public tracking number for significant petitions;
• an expected response date;
• a written response.

A Petition Should Not Disappear

Where a petition reaches an established participation threshold, it should trigger a defined municipal response.

The exact thresholds should be established through public consultation and legal review before adoption.

Possible levels could include:

Community Request

A smaller number of verified residents triggers a written administrative response.

Council Petition

A higher threshold guarantees a public staff report or Council agenda item.

Community Vote Request

A substantially higher threshold requires Council to publicly consider whether the matter should proceed to a Verified Community Vote or, where legally available, a future statutory ballot question.

These thresholds should be high enough to discourage abuse but low enough that ordinary residents can realistically use them.

No Paywall on Civic Participation

Submitting a petition should not require:

• payment;
• membership in an organization;
• political affiliation;
• campaign involvement;
• use of a particular commercial platform.

Paper and accessible alternatives should remain available.

5.10Resident Motions

A petition asks government to consider something.

A Resident Motion would go one step further by allowing residents to submit a structured proposal for consideration.

The submission should answer:

1. What is the problem?
2. What action is requested?
3. Does the proposal concern municipal responsibility?
4. What is the expected public benefit?
5. Is there an estimated cost?
6. Who may be affected?
7. Who supports bringing the matter forward?

The City should not require residents to write legal language.

Staff can help turn a reasonable public proposal into a form Council can consider.

Good ideas should not depend on knowing how government writes reports.

5.11Public Delegations

Speaking at City Hall should not feel like appearing in court.

Reasonable meeting rules are necessary.

Time limits are necessary.

Respectful conduct is necessary.

Council also needs enough time to complete its business.

Within those boundaries, public delegations should be encouraged rather than treated as interruptions.

Residents should receive simple instructions explaining:

• how to request delegation status;
• relevant deadlines;
• time available;
• how to submit supporting material;
• accessibility accommodations;
• what Council can and cannot decide;
• what happens after the delegation.

Where possible, a resident should receive a response or next step rather than speaking into a process and never knowing what happened.

5.12Annual Mayor's Community Assembly

Once each year, hold an open community gathering focused on listening rather than announcing.

The Mayor's Community Assembly would be separate from the Annual State of Owen Sound accountability meeting.

The State of Owen Sound meeting asks:

What did government do?

The Community Assembly asks:

What should we understand next?

The Format

The meeting should include:

• Mayor and Council;
• senior City staff;
• youth representation;
• neighbourhood representation;
• business;
• labour;
• community organizations;
• seniors;
• accessibility voices;
• cultural and faith communities;
• residents attending independently.

The Questions

Ask residents:

What is getting better?

What is getting worse?

What are we missing?

What is City Hall making unnecessarily difficult?

What does the City currently do that somebody else could do better?

What is nobody doing that needs to be done?

What should Owen Sound stop doing?

What should Owen Sound protect at all costs?

What should our young people inherit from us?

The answers should be summarized publicly and carried into the following year's business planning.

5.13Participation Must Be Accessible

Resident government cannot mean only government by people with:

• smartphones;
• free evenings;
• reliable transportation;
• strong written English;
• confidence speaking at a microphone;
• time to attend lengthy meetings.

Every major public consultation should consider:

• online participation;
• telephone participation;
• paper;
• in-person opportunities;
• accessible formats;
• physical accessibility;
• plain language;
• appropriate translation or language assistance;
• scheduling;
• transportation where relevant;
• participation by parents and caregivers;
• participation by seniors;
• participation by people with disabilities.

A digital system should expand participation, not quietly become the price of admission.

5.14Participation Must Be Private

A resident should not have to surrender unnecessary personal information to express an opinion to local government.

The City may need enough information to determine:

• whether a participant is an Owen Sound resident;
• whether the person is eligible for a particular verified vote;
• whether duplicate participation occurred.

That does not create a reason to build a permanent record of a person's political opinions.

The resident participation system should therefore follow a simple rule:

Verify the person. Protect the opinion.

Where aggregate information is useful, publish aggregates.

Where identity is unnecessary after verification, do not preserve it simply because storage is inexpensive.

Public participation should create civic knowledge, not political dossiers.

5.15Participation Must Be Civil

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to criticize the City and its elected representatives.

Criticism should not be confused with misconduct merely because it is uncomfortable.

At the same time, participation does not require accepting:

• threats;
• intimidation;
• violence;
• deliberate disruption that prevents others from participating;
• unlawful harassment.

The rules should govern behaviour rather than viewpoint.

A resident who strongly opposes the Mayor should receive the same opportunity to speak as a resident who strongly supports the Mayor.

The Goodwill principle developed during this campaign is that candidates can compete on leadership while remaining united in the purpose of serving Owen Sound.

That idea belongs after election day too.

5.16The Resident Government Ladder

Owen Sound should make the level of public participation obvious.

Level 1: Inform

The City publishes information.

Level 2: Ask

Resident Pulse, surveys and open comments.

Level 3: Consult

Structured public meetings, neighbourhood meetings and stakeholder discussions.

Level 4: Deliberate

Both-Sides material, public workshops and facilitated discussion.

Level 5: Advise

Verified Community Vote.

Level 6: Decide Where Law Permits

Formal statutory ballot question or another legally authorized decision process.

This prevents the City from inviting people to "have their say" when the decision has effectively already been made.

Before consultation begins, residents should know what influence their participation can actually have.

5.17The Resident Government Guarantee

For every major consultation, the City should publish five things before asking residents to participate:

1. What is being decided?

Be specific.

2. Who has legal authority to decide it?

Mayor, Council, staff, Grey County, Ontario, Canada or another body.

3. What part is still open to change?

Do not ask residents for input on something they cannot influence.

4. When will the decision be made?

Give a timeline.

5. How will we report back?

Residents deserve to know what happened to their input.

After the decision, publish:

What We Heard

What We Decided

Why

That should become standard municipal practice.

The Commitment

Representative democracy remains the foundation of municipal government.

Council must govern.

The Mayor must lead.

Professional staff must provide independent advice.

The law must be respected.

But residents should never be reduced to choosing their government once every four years and watching from the sidelines until the next election.

The objective of Resident Government is to build a continuous relationship between the community and City Hall.

Ask people before assuming.

Give them the information required to make an informed judgment.

Present opposing views fairly.

Protect the rights of people who find themselves in the minority.

Make participation possible without surrendering unnecessary personal information.

Distinguish public advice from legally binding decisions.

Use extraordinary mayoral authority with extraordinary restraint.

And after the decision is made, show residents what happened.

Vote every four years. Participate every year. Be heard every day.

That is Resident Government.