I have read many expressions of concern about your county council, especially its size. Even plebiscite votes by many people who don’t realize what they are really supporting.

One could argue council could do just as well with a smaller size. But with fewer members to handle the same volume of business, it would simply mean more committees, more meetings, each one at a cost per meeting per member for taxpayers.

Further, the County is a large chunk of real estate. Councillors in the sprawling county are more aware of problems with roads, flooding, land conservation and development. Government is just as responsible for land stewardship as people problems, especially in these trying times of climate change, many miles of shoreline, acres of swamp and wetlands.

Finally, county residents should look at their neighbour, Quinte West, where a large council tends its sprawling boundaries of townships, city and village. If council seems to get ‘bogged down” at times, improved procedures and training in those for members can solve that without sending too few people to do a huge job.

I lived in the county for many years and was a member of Picton council when our collective municipalities explored and supported amalgamation on our own sans any provincial pressure. That effort failed by one vote ultimately, but then the province stepped in. Voters would be better served by ensuring they are getting and voting for the best candidates rather than less candidates.

As for efficiency studies by so-called experts, look at the lack of care, concern and awareness at Queen’s Park for rural communities.

Jack Evans

Belleville