What is the ideal number of councillors for Millbrook Council? Here are some things to consider:

A simplified or smaller structure might allow Council to make good, timely decisions, help with efficiency to ensure continued economic growth that improves the living standards of our citizens
Staying with the current 12 councillors might allow for more robust discussion, and improves transparency and accountability
In previous consultations, some participants suggested 10 councillors would be ideal

What is the ideal length of term for Millbrook councillors? Here are some things to consider:

Some feel with the current two-year term, Chief and Council may work better/harder within the time restraint, given incentive to get voted in again at the end of their term
Elections are expensive. Slightly longer terms might benefit the community by saving costs and having more funds available for programs and services
Does two years provide enough time for Chief and Council to learn and do their jobs effectively?
Longer terms of office may provide more stability and sustainability in our community
Three years or other length of term might provide more time to focus on governance and economic development
Connected to ideal number of councillors, might a smaller council with longer terms give too few people power for longer?

What, if any, limit should there be on the number of terms served by Millbrook councillors?
Here are some things to consider:

Should councillors only be able to sit a maximum of six years to allow for new people and ideas (two three-year terms or three two-year terms)?
Should there be no cap, as it could hinder progress?
Should positions should be vacated after two years to keep things fresh and offer a diversity of people in the roles?
It is expensive to hold frequent elections, so holding them every two years can be costly to the community

What requirements, if any, should we have for Millbrook councillors around criminal convictions?
Here are some things to consider:

Under the Indian Act, the only people who are ineligible to run are those convicted of indictable (or the most serious of) offences , including murder, robbery, arson, etc.
During previous community engagement sessions, there was feedback suggesting that eligibility should apply based on specific offences, as opposed to the length of time since conviction.
Charges / convictions under fish and wildlife legislation should not make a person ineligible to run for office.
Should those who are considered eligible be those who “must have never been charged and convicted of a criminal offence unless there was a valid Aboriginal or Treaty rights defence that could have reasonably defended such charges?; or the sentence for the conviction was completed at least twenty (20) years prior to the date of the Nomination Meeting?; or a full pardon has been granted for such conviction?

What should we consider conflicts of interest for Millbrook Councillors? Here are some things to consider:

Candidacy requirements can protect the reputation of our community, and avoid conflict of interest between Administration and the Council
In previous consultations, some raised concern about possible discrimination against band members who trade tobacco and band members who do business with the band.
Others were concerned that this could prevent people with relevant experience in government-related roles from running for office.
Feedback also explained that those, or their spouses, who have tobacco quotas or contracts with the band should not be eligible to run for various reasons:
- Should be in elected governance position if doing business w/the band.
- Save a piece of the pie for others – i.e., share the economic development and governance space
There is a proposal that it be limited to those that are Tobacco Quota holders and/or those that do business with the band up to a specified monetary value; this provision does not capture family members that are quota holders or family members that have contracts with the band in excess of $25k.
Should we consider revising this provision, so that it captures contracts entered into with the band that are valued in excess of $25k? Someone who has multiple contracts in a year, which have a collective value in excess of $25k? Should spouses of candidates be included in this?

Should we have expanded voting methods, including e-voting, to make sure we have accessibility in our process? Here are some things to consider:

There are some community concerns about voter fraud or the security of non-in-person methods.
There are concerns that voting be accessible to all members.
There is a suggestion from community members that there is a need for detailed information to be shared about how the software/systems actually work.
Would a community-wide information session on electronic voting with the Inteli-Vote company help us make a better decision?