Introduction to the survey

Here is the third Prince Edward County All-Candidates Survey, sponsored and conducted by me (Gary Mooney) in collaboration with the Wellington Times. Comprised of 23 questions, it may well be the most comprehensive survey of candidates for municipal office anywhere in Ontario.

This year, 95% of candidates participated (35 of 37), as compared with 83% in 2014. We are grateful for this strong support. Two candidates declined to participate, despite my best efforts to change their minds.

The survey report is in two parts — profile and issues — published as six blog posts. The full profiles plus responses to the first three issues questions are being published on Sep 26, with the responses to the remaining issues questions on Oct 3 and 10, so check back on those dates.

Scroll down for the blog posts, or select from the menu on the right. N.B. Simplified nstructions for Internet voting follow the survey posts.

Fourteen questions that comprise a candidate profile, published here on Sep 26:

  • Profile A: Contact and biographical information.
  • Profile B. Employment and volunteer activities.
  • Profile C: Interests, ideas and personal appeal.

Nine questions on municipal issues / policies, published here and in the Wellington Times on the dates shown:

  • Issues Group A (Sep 26): Voting decisions, The changing County; Housing needs.
  • Issues Group B (Oct 3): Municipal taxes, Waterworks, Accommodation tax.
  • Issues Group C (Oct 10): Economic development; Road repairs; Volunteer support.

Note: Some important issues, such as healthcare and education, are not addressed as they are the responsibility of the provincial government, not the municipality.

Each of the six posts includes a link to a table showing responses for each candidate who participated. Comments are published as submitted, with no corrections of typos or spelling.

If you do not know the candidates, you can obtain sufficient information from this survey to make informed decisions on voting. You can compare answers from your ward’s candidates with those of all other candidates.

Important note: Issues questions and answer choices are, of necessity, somewhat simplistic. Candidates were offered the opportunity to add a comment to qualify / explain their answer choice, and did so 68% of the time. Any elector with questions or concerns about a candidate’s response to a particular issue should contact the candidate for a more detailed / nuanced answer.

Copyright. Media companies and others may publish excerpts from the tables, but not whole tables (except with written permission). Anyone may provide a link to this website.

Posted in Uncategorized

Profile A: Contact and biographical info

From the inf0rmation supplied by survey participants (35 of 37 candidates), the typical candidate is:

  • Male (86%)
  • Running in the Ward where he/she lives (83%);
  • Not a current Councillor (66%);
  • A PEC resident for 20+ years (63%);
  • With no experience in elected office (57%);
  • Age 45 to 64 (49%); and
  • Self-employed (46%).

For contact and biographical information on each candidate, click PEC2018ACS Profile A

Posted in Uncategorized

Profile B: Employment and volunteer activities

There is a wide range of career occupations represented, including the following: engineering 3, farming 3, sales 3.

Sixty-nine percent of candidates are currently self-employed (46%) or retired (31%).

Regarding volunteer activities, the survey allowed entry of a maximum of three volunteer activities; the average reported is 2.1 activities per candidate.

For detailed information on candidates’ career employment, current employment status and volunteer group leadership, click PEC2018ACS Profile B.docx

Posted in Uncategorized

Profile C: Interests and personal appeal

Candidates were asked:

  • Question 12: To rank their personal interests in nine municipal responsibilities, as opposed to what should be Council priorities.  Note: Candidates had difficulty in focusing on interests instead of priorities and some said that all are equally important. See candidates comments on the two pages following their responses.
  • Question 13: To contribute their best idea for improving municipal government.
  • Question 14: To provide an “elevator pitch”: Why electors should vote for them.

Here is the average ranking from Question 12, municipal responsibilities: 1 is highest, 9 is lowest:

A. Affordable housing 3.1
B. Economic development / jobs 3.9
C. Financial management / budget 3.4
D. Heritage 7.5
E. Issues in my own ward 5.4
F. Official Plan / land use / zoning 6.6
G. Residents’ enquiries / problems 4.5
H. Roads and other infrastructure 4.7
I. Social services re kids / low income / disabled / seniors 6.1

For responses to these questions, plus comments following (total 4 pages), click PEC2018ACS Profile C.docx

Posted in Uncategorized

Issues Group A (pub. Sep 26):

Note: Check back on Oct 3 and Oct 10 for responses on Issues Group B and C.

Issues / policy questions were mandatory to answer.  In addition to choosing one of the short answers provided, each candidate had the opportunity to submit a clarifying / qualifying comment, and most did so.

Click PEC2018ACS Issues Group A.docx for candidates’ responses to the first set of three issues questions:

  • Voting approach;
  • The changing County;
  • Housing needs .
Posted in Uncategorized

Issues Group B (pub. Oct 3)

Click PEC2018ACS Issues Group B.docx for candidates’ responses to the second set of issues questions:

  • Municipal taxes;
  • Waterworks management;
  • Accommodation tax.
Posted in Uncategorized

Issues Group C (pub. Oct 10):

Click PEC2018ACS Issues Group C.docx for candidates’ responses to the third set of issues questions:

  • Economic development;
  • Road maintenance;
  • Volunteer support.
Posted in Uncategorized