In your 7 May editorial you favoured a county warden elected by popular vote of all county residents. That would be a mistake.

Together, Orangeville and Shelburne almost dominate county decisions with their weighted votes. Their populations exceed the voting population of all other municipalities; so an elected warden would always be elected from Orangeville or Shelburne. His or her vote(s) on Council, added to those of the two towns, would decide any vote.

County decisions would always favour town interests. Rural and urban communities have different needs and attitudes and must be satisfied by local (ie, municipal) councils' decisions.

Rural voters have never in my time dictated how the towns should be run, but both Orangeville and Shelburne have tried to encroach on agricultural neighbours, sometimes successfully, and have a history of attempting to control county matters to their advantage.

The applications by East Luther-Grand Valley and East Garafraxa to accredit a second county council representative, without changing their municipalities' voting weights, are a separate issue totally unconnected with Orangeville's proposal.

The two issues must be voted on separately.

Advertising and other costs of a warden election would be much greater than the costs of campaigns for the other elected positions in Dufferin County. The influence that an elected warden could bring to the Council would attract large donations from the usual vested interests, leading to election of the person most sympathetic to the development industry, not the best person for the job.

I am confident that our councillors can choose the best person for the position.
Charles Hooker
Orangeville