Wednesday 28 November 2012

Us vs. Them Politics in Newmarket

The battle lines are being drawn for the 2014 election and it's going to be an "Us vs. Them" election.  Or more precisely, "Us vs. Her".  The wagons are being circled around the Van Bynen/ Taylor camp and they are doing everything they can can to show Di Muccio as an outsider.

For months, we've been hearing certain Councillors saying they can't work with the Ward Six Councillor.  Her "behaviour" and her "antics" disqualify her from any cooperation on their part.  Yet it was a gigantic eye-opener at this week's Council meeting to see the Mayor trying to prevent her from putting a motion on the table to be voted on.  Thank goodness the Clerk was there to prevent a travesty against the democratic process. 

Let's review the events of the past 2 months:
- Taylor convinces council to hire an integrity commissioner against her because she exposed his duplicity in her Toronto Sun column
- Van Bynen/ Taylor team up to reject her offer to collaborate on a new expense policy
- Van Bynen/ Taylor embarrass themselves by stridently defending DUI convicted Councillor Emanuel's pride when Di Muccio suggested that Council help out at Operation Red Nose.
- Last night Van Bynen and Twinney take a roll call of Council members attending the Metro Bowl but forget to mention Di Muccio.  It may not seem like a big deal but to me it epitomizes the sentiment at Town Hall. 
- And how many recent Council votes have been tallied at 8-1?

I have to say that it is a very bizarre strategy on the part of Van Bynen/ Taylor.  In a democracy, "insiders" don't usually outnumber the "outsiders".  From the people I talk to, the public sentiment favours a shake up at Town Hall.  This might spell good news for a Di Muccio 2014 bid. 

Sunday 18 November 2012

A new 'Era' (because the old one is losing its readership)

When MP Dean Del Maestro suggested that all users of the Internet should be identified when posting an opinion, almost every newspaper and journalist in Canada mocked him for this viewpoint.  Ironically, Debora Kelly of the Era seems to be espousing Del Maestro's idea but this blog questions her motiviations. How much stock should we put into the Era Editor's column regarding municipal blogs and twitter accounts that are written anonymously?  I don't pretend to read them all but certainly I can't see any reasonable person subscribing to her viewpoint.  Let's place it in context.

1) Hypocritical - Newspapers publish anonymous opinion pieces with almost every edition.  They are called editorials.  Editorials are anonymous because the newspaper feels that the opinion being expressed is paramount to the identity of the writer.  The ideas are important and only the ideas should be discussed.  It forces the debate to be about the issue. 

Locally, the Era wrote an editorial in the summer of 2011 calling on Councillor Emanuel to resign when he was caught drinking and driving.  Councillor Emanuel's supporters went on line demanding to know why the editorial did not have a named writer.  At the time, Debora Kelly rightly defended the practice of anonymity.

2) Political - If the shoe was on the other foot, if my support was wholeheartedly in the Van Bynen/ Taylor camp, I would guarantee you that I would be supported and even lauded by some factions.  Anonymity wouldn't be an issue if the view point of this blog was in their camp.  It's not surprising that Councillor Di Muccio has been defending my blog since the column was published.  She likely sees the popularity of my blog as a boon for her political fortunes so its within her best interests to defend my credibility and reputation. 

If there is any doubt about this, look at how many of these same people who condemn my blog will converse with www.newmarketfreepress.ca via twitter.  Despite being anonymous as well, the Newmarket Free Press is more benign (but certainly holds many similar viewpoints as my own blog - I enjoy reading the editorials posted there).

As I said many times before I wish I didn't have to write this blog.  I wish we had a local media that covered the news stories that people like me feel are important.  The Era is supportive of the current Van Bynen/ Taylor administration (which is their right to have their own opinion), but it causes the paper to avoid issues that make the Mayor and Regional Councillor appear in a bad light.  Examples include: soaring debt loads at the York Regional government, issues with closed door meeting transparency, and racist vandalism.  Newmarket residents had to rely on the Toronto media to report these stories.  Even when these stories break in the Toronto media, the Era refuses to do a more thorough follow up.  In a nutshell, the Era's political bent has harmed it's news reporting credibility.   

3) Economical - Throughout the mainstream media these days, there are scads of stories about how newspapers are struggling to compete with social media.  Large media companies such as Torstar, Bell Globe Media, and QMI are announcing paywall subscriptions for their media websites as more and more people are flocking to the Internet for news and opinions. 

Locally, my blog is getting an audience.  Some of the same people who are advocating that the public should ignore my blog because it is anonymous are amongst my most voracious readers and supporters of the Van Bynen camp.  I appreciate their regular visits even if they don't agree with my opinions. 

Advertisers are certainly aware that printed media is waning because it is disadvantaged by social media competitors.  Therefore it should be no surprise that a newspaper is trying to suppress readership of a social media competitor.

Among the advantages of my blog versus the Era is that I comment on items that aren't being written about elsewhere.  I publish and will not rebut any comments posted by readers (as long as they are written in good taste and on topic).  Juxtapose that with the Era which oftentimes will not publish letters to the editor from the public.  My blog allows people on the twitterverse to argue for/against any of my views in realtime.

4) Agenda - Mayor Van Bynen, Regional Councillor Taylor and the Era are very closely linked.  For example, the publisher is a colleague of the Mayor and Regional Councillor on the Newmarket Economic Development Committee.  The Editor serves on the Belinda's Place board with the Mayor.  The Era is tight with the Van Bynen/ Taylor group.  The Town of Newmarket is a major advertiser of the Era.  Its no surprise that the Era supports the status quo, (even to the extent of ignoring real news to keep these men in good light).

A while back, I wrote a letter to the editor that was published by the Era that was very mildly critical of a certain municipal politician.  After it was published, I was contacted by that politician.  He wanted to argue with me about my letter.  Well if every person with an opposing opinion can expect to be harangued, is it any wonder why some of us would choose to be anonymous?    

In summary, to the main extent, her column was "inside baseball."  As much as the columnist was questioning the credibility of certain bloggers, she never provided instances.  Whereas the columnist holds the position that certain blogs "attack" municipal politicians, she never gave any examples.  My question to Ms. Kelly is if she isn't able to reference any concrete examples to support her views, then who truly has the issue with credibility?              

Tuesday 13 November 2012

A Council of Shame

Town of Milton Regional Councillor Tony Lambert pleaded guilty:  http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1256068--councillor-pleads-guilty-to-drunk-driving  He has made a statement acknowledging the criticism he has received and admits he deserves it.   

City of Toronto Councillor Ana Bailao has been charged and awaiting her day in court: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1272214--ana-bail-o-toronto-city-councillor-charged-with-impaired-driving  She has announced that she will be entering a "not guilty" plea. 

City of Cambridge Councillor Pam Wolf was charged after a two car collision on Friday night: http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/835465--cambridge-councillor-pam-wolf-charged-with-impaired-driving  Councillor Wolf is reportedly taking some time to consider her career. 

And then there's our hometown shame, Newmarket Councillor Chris Emanuel who was convicted in August 2011:  http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1040337--councillor-fined-for-driving-drunk  Councillor Emanuel seeks out speaking gigs with school kids and charity galas that promote him as a "star".  He refuses to volunteer with community groups that promote an anti-drinking and driving message.   

Sunday 11 November 2012

Who will repair this broken Council?

Two years ago, Newmarket council was elected with a lot of promise.  Newmarket Council was comprised of a good blend of new blood and experienced incumbency.  The rookie councillors were given a clear mandate from voters to push for change while the incumbent council members, including the Mayor and Regional Councillor, had the numbers of Council votes behind them to make sure these changes would be gradually implemented.

Today, it isn't hard to see that Council is deeply divided.  There are 8 Council members on one side and the Ward Six Councillor on the other.  (The rookie Councillors Hempen and Twinney wasted no time turning their backs on their campaign promises and, to put it politely, sold out.  If there is any doubt just check their web pages www.ourward.ca or www.janetwinney.ca and you'll certainly be questioning what happened to what appeared like a promising start?)

With the numbers heavily in favour of the group of 8, the ability to dominate the Council agenda, and to make every vote go their way, you would have thought that two years in, this would have been a tremendously successful council term for the Van Bynen/ Taylor two-some.  Normally, 8 to 1 wouldn't be a fair fight but Di Muccio has shown that she is a formidable opponent at almost every turn.       

When Regional Councillor Taylor sent around his October 2012 postcard, he highlighted just two accomplishments this term -- the Riverwalk Commons (which was actually a Lois Brown accomplishment), and a property tax increase.  People are wondering.  With everything going right for Van Bynen/ Taylor, why haven't they been able to accomplish more?  What happened?

So there are two years remaining.  With nowhere to go but up but no one in the group of 8 stepping up to lead.  No strategic direction, no political will to change, it seems like this Council will drift along until the voters deal with the impasse in 2014. 

If there is any reason to hope, it lies with Councillor Di Muccio continuing to reach across the table.  Of the group, she seems to be only one who realizes that this current situation doesn't need to be permanent.  In the past two Council meetings, she has made offers to bridge the gap and has been rebuffed both times by Van Bynen/ Taylor.  Hopefully she'll continue to show leadership towards fixing this broken Council and maybe Van Bynen/ Taylor will recognize the vacuum their "leadership" has created.    

Saturday 10 November 2012

Following up with Nwkt Councillors Charitable Giving

I've been writing a fair bit about a perception of insincerity with politicians using community charity events exclusively for photo ops and self promotion. Well, last night between 6:35 and 6:45 pm, Ward 3 Councillor Jane Twinney posted this message on Twitter:

Jane Twinney@JaneTwinney
Thank you to all the residents who generously donated tonight to the campaign.
 
(Notice that she included a photo of herself with a box of poppies).
 
Then at 7:00 pm, Ward 7 Councillor Chris Emanuel posted this on Twitter:
 
Chris Emanuel@_chrisemanuel
With & and our town Santa Claus Parade mtg - Santa Claus comes to on November 17th - newmarket.ca for info
 
Draw you own conclusions, Newmarket. 

Tuesday 6 November 2012

Big Spenders must accept strings attached to taxpayer funded expense accounts

The blog I wrote on November 4th, 2012 identified two groups of council members.  In the first group, who I will call the "Big Spenders", we have Tony Van Bynen, John Taylor, Tom Vegh, Jane Twinney, and Chris Emanuel.  Each member of the Big Spenders have used his/her taxpayer funded expense account to "donate" $1,000 or more to attend fancy dress galas and events.  In the second group, we have three councillors who, when we combine similar expenses, total only a few hundred dollars. The same three councillors were identified during last night's meeting as being willing to volunteer their time to a local community event.  The three in question - Councillors Hempen, Di Muccio, and Kerwin. 

Speaking during last night's televised Council meeting on behalf of the non-committal/ un-responsive Big Spenders, Regional Councillor John Taylor said that he would not feel any shame about not participating in the community event.  He argued that he and his colleagues have the benefit to choose with whom and when they will do community work. 

He's wrong of course -

When a councillor "donates" taxpayer provided funds directly from his/her expense account, then the councillor must accept there are strings attached.  Regional Councillor Taylor and the others must recognize that using taxpayer money means there are obligations of them to represent the residents of Newmarket. 

Therefore, because they are using taxpayer funds for charity donations, Regional Councillor Taylor and the others don't get to "pick and choose" who they can work with.  Voters have already decided through the last election who the Big Spenders will work with.  If the Big Spenders wanted the luxury of "picking and choosing" then Regional Councillor Taylor and the others shouldn't have dipped into the taxpayer funds from the outset.

I don't believe for a second that Hempen, Kerwin or Di Muccio are less charitable than the others based on their expense account totals.  In fact, I believe there is more than ample evidence to prove otherwise, not the least of which being their willingness to be generous with their free time at this upcoming community event.  I think they approach charitable giving very differently from the first group of Council members. 

In fact, I think there is clearly reason for raised eyebrows concerning the Big Spenders.  I have to wonder, if there wasn't a fancy dress party or a photo opportunity on hand, would any of them show up at a community event?  If you don't believe me, open up any edition of Newmarket SNAP and count the number of appearances by Taylor. Van Bynen and the other "Big Spenders".  They seem to be where SNAP shows up.  Imagine that. 

I've always believed that charitable giving, (whether it involves money or time), should always be made with humility.  The humble giver shows great strength of character.  Too bad that too many Newmarket Council members missed that lesson in Sunday school.  Perhaps they were too busy trying to be noticed instead.  Some may be too cheap to give with their money (it's better to donate taxpayer money instead), or perhaps too lazy to show up (when no photo opportunity exists).
        
Of course, Mr. Taylor and his Big Spenders gang would not be shamed.  They've given up the capacity to feel ashamed a long time ago.  Somewhere along the way, they have come to believe that they are entitled to the money in their expense account -- to buy gala tickets for themselves (and perhaps their spouses as seems to be the case with Councillor Vegh), to purchase photo ops, etc -- because they've lost sight of whose money they are spending.  It isn't theirs.  It belongs to the residents of Newmarket.

Monday 5 November 2012

In which Regional Councillor John Taylor reveals that he's not running for re-election

Was Councillor Di Muccio being cheeky when she challenged her colleagues to participate in charity work as a team?  I don't think so because earlier tonight the Mayor was commenting about a similar challenge involving Mo'vember fundraising with the Town of Aurora, ("We lost by a hair", he chortled).  We also regularly see similar challenges on the Internet for organ donations etc.  So what's wrong with a likewise challenge for Operation Red Nose?

Could it be that Regional Councillor Taylor just simply lost his temper because he wrongly inferred a slight against a DUI convicted colleague? 

It certainly seems so. 

And it's his temper that just effectively ended his political career tonight. 

Sunday 4 November 2012

Charity - Are Nwkt Council Members Sincere or Frauds?

The 2012 third quarter Councillor expense reports were released with little fanfare or promotion from either the Town or the Newmarket Era.  Thank you to Councillor Di Muccio for making us aware that this report even existed.  Here is the link:  http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/resourcelibrary/2012Q3Councilexpenses-website.pdf

As usual, there are few details to accompany the expense report.  Without these details, residents have no way of knowing if these expenses are legitimate or not.  I believe the Town could do a much better job of reporting expenses, including posting copies of invoices as some other municipalities do. 

Let's look some of the details we do have focusing specifically on money spent on galas, fundraisers, and event dinners. 

Mayor Van Bynen used up over $5,800 of tax payer funds over the first 9 months of the year.  Almost $1,500 of that was spent on galas, dinners, art shows etc. (any excuse for the Mayor to put on his tuxedo, I guess).  Like many residents, I wonder why we all have to pay for his so-called charity?  The Mayor gets two paycheques.  Financially, he's doing very well while so many Newmarket taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet.  Why can't he pay for these events out of the salary we pay him? 

Compare the Newmarket Mayor with the Mayor of Toronto.  Rob Ford is well known for being generous too.  The difference is that Rob Ford is generous with his time (giving many hours of his free time to coach high school football).  The Newmarket Mayor is generous with our money (not his).  That's a sign of a politician who wants to appear to be charitable but really he's faking it. 

Van Bynen's closest ally, Regional Councillor Taylor is equally generous spending other people's money. In the first 9 months of the year, Taylor has wined and dined at local charity and fund raising events to the tune of over $1,800 of your money.  Like the Mayor, Taylor receives a decent salary from taxpayers could easily pay this money out of his own wallet.  Yet, like the Mayor, he thinks its better that you and me pay for his wining and dining instead. 

One question that I don't know the answer to, does the Town of Newmarket purchase these charity gala tickets on behalf of the Mayor, Regional Councillor or other Council members, or does the Mayor/ Regional Councillor/ Councillor purchase the ticket themselves and then submit for reimbursement?  The reason to question this distinction is concerning who gets the tax receipt issued?  I would hate to think that these people are pocketing the tax receipt for a gala that's been paid for by the taxpayers.

Ward 1 Councillor Vegh has an item on his expense report - Southlake Hospital Fundraiser for $300.  This amount is an example of why the Town does itself no service by not providing details of expenses.  Comparing the Mayor's $150 for the Southlake Mardi Gras Gala and Regional Councillor John Taylor's $150 for the Southlake Fundraiser, one can only assume that Ward 1 Councillor Vegh purchased 2 tickets to the same event.  In other words, not only is the taxpayer on the hook for Vegh's so-called "charity", we're also paying for his wife's too?  If that's the case, his abuse of his spending account is truly scandalous.  As a taxpayer, I am outraged if this is indeed true. 

Like the others, Vegh is paid a good salary by the taxpayers.  If he feels inclined to give $1.200 to the hospital, the Alzheimer Society, or Crime Stoppers, why isn't he giving from his own money?  Why is he inflicting his "charity" on us?

Councillor Kerwin's spending on these items is just over $350.  While less than some of his colleagues, its still an outrageous amount to saddle the taxpayer with. 

Back to the big spenders (with your money that is), Ward 3 Councillor Jane Twinney spent over $1,400 to dress up fancy and get photographed by SNAP.  Maybe Councillor Twinney has a special affinity for myriad of causes she appears to "support" (with your money) but why doesn't she support them with her own money?  If the cause is so important to her, certainly Councillor Twinney could donate from her own purse.  Charity begins at home, does it not?

Councillor Hempen isn't shy about using your money for his photo op purposes either.  Item 8 listed as "Fundraising Event August 20 $160" raises concerns for me.  Surely, the Town of Newmarket didn't write a cheque to "Fundraising Event".  It seems more than probable that Councillor Hempen paid for a ticket out of pocket and then asked the Town to reimburse him and perhaps Councillor Hempen didn't provide any details of what the ticket was for.  If this was for a charity, to whom did the the charity tax receipt get issued to?  (Usually tax receipts are sent to the purchaser).  Somebody needs to look into this item with a fine tooth comb.  Again, without providing details of expenses, the Town is only causing a lot doubts and questions.  The Town of Newmarket looks really bad because of its policy not to be transparent with expenses. 

Councillor Sponga's expense report is interesting.  For some reason, he can attend the Federation of Cdn Municipalities 2012 Conference for $300 whilst Mayor Van Bynen charged the taxpayers $2,800 for his expenses to the FCM conference.  I'm assuming its the same event.  Did the Mayor live high off the taxpayer funded hog while Councillor Sponga was more frugal?  Given the money the Mayor spent on gala dinners (to which Sponga spent none), it seems clear that Sponga's expense report shows the Mayor living the "cavier dreams" lifestyle with your money. 

Councillor Di Muccio at $20 is the lowest of all Council.  Yet, reviewing photos on her twitter feed, residents know that she is charitable with her time and money.  She is rarely photographed by SNAP at the fancy galas but we see her helping at the CIBC Run for the Cure, at the Terry Fox Run, and helping out with minor sports, such as football.  I recommend that the other Council members look to Councillor Di Muccio for a good example of what the public expects. 

Lastly, Councillor Chris Emanuel is biggest spender of all.  His total expenses exceed even the Mayor's.  He has spent over $1,500 on his so-called "charity" with taxpayers footing the bill for his dinners, galas, etc.  Of particular concern is item 17 where it appears he has purchased lunch for Councillor Sponga.  Although the dollar amount is small, the taxpayer is wondering why are we paying for two councillors to lunch?  What's next?  High tea?

I don't understand why our Council seems to have so much trouble reigning in their expenses?  It seems they just don't get it.  Taxpayers are more than fed up with funding their "night out on the town".  Our charities do good work.  Newmarket is a charitable community which is why so many galas take place here.  Many of us are generous with our time and money.  These Councillors are insulting us all when they attend the same events we do, lining up for photos and asking the emcees to announce them, while sending the bill to the taxpayer.  These Councillors should be leading by example.