This is going to be the most damning blog that I have ever written. I have read through Councillor Di Muccio's articles, her recent blog, and the Integrity Commissioner's report and can only come to one conclusion. Councillor Di Muccio is right!
In Newmarket, we have a government that is careening towards despotism and I don't use that word as an exaggeration. What else, other than despotic, can it be when the laws of the government are used exclusively for political purposes.
Here are the facts:
Di Muccio breaches her oath and her articles and blog never deny her actions. Is she the first to have done it? No, because apparently she has made a complaint against other Council members. Here is a quote from her blog:
At that time, Councillors Hempen and Vegh sent out a media release, signatures attached, blatantly discussing the details of the Library Board in camera meeting I was kicked out of. As I understood the Municipal Act, this conduct was illegal, and so I immediately advised the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket via an email and demanded an investigation.
Not only was it not investigated, it was never acted upon. But a year later, these two men were among the rest who demanded Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig to investigate me for the exact same and alleged breach.
Is she the only person to have breached her oath with regards to the Sunday Sun article published in the paper? No, because as she points out, here are two Era stories that mention Regional Councillor John Taylor's name:
http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1456246-newmarket-delays-field-naming-decision
and
http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion-story/1416369-reserve-our-field-names-for-our-heroes/
Councillor Di Muccio says she gave these documents to the Integrity Commissioner and I have read the Integrity Commissioner's report with a fine tooth comb, but there is no mention of Councillors Vegh, Hempen and Regional Councillor Taylor in that report.
What is mentioned is this:
[67] In explaining her actions subject to the investigation, the Respondent has stated that in the past, Council allowed other councillors to publicly speak about in camera discussions and that she perceives the apparent arbitrary enforcement of the rules against her now to be unfair ....
[70] I have carefully reviewed the responses of the Respondent and find that while she appears to demonstrate a desire to be part of a transparent governance structure at the Town of Newmarket, she has not established either that she was unaware of how to raise her disagreement ...
[71] In making my decision, I took into consideration that the Town has in place a Procedure By-Law that contains rules regarding in camera meetings, in addition to the fact that the Town's senior officials provided information sessions to newly elected Members of Council on rules pertaining to the exercise of their duties, including the rules that relate to confidentiality.
Here is the crux of the matter.
Sure you can have rules and procedures etc., but when the Mayor of Newmarket refuses to recognize them by refusing to investigate the serious allegations Councillor Di Muccio has made against Councillor Vegh, Councillor Hempen and Regional Councillor Taylor, and by all indications has unfairly and arbitrarily applied them exclusively to his political opponents while shielding his political allies, then the Mayor and his admistration have crossed the line. Credibility has been lost.
Tuesday 26 February 2013
Wednesday 13 February 2013
Slessor Square Vote is a Game Changer for Newmaket
Subject to various still-yet-to-be-defined holding provisions, the Slessor Square project received the green light at Council this week. Being the first of what has been promised as many skyline altering developments, residents got a preview of how future decisions will be dealt with.
This week we learned about holding provisions, (the blogger Gordon Prentice writes about them here: www.shrinkslessorsquare.com). With this new arrow in their quiver, expect more holding provision clauses to find their way into future approvals of developments.
We also learned about spin. For example, Gordon Prentice went from calling Councillor Di Muccio a straight talker to then labelling her mercurial. Certainly during this entire process, Councillor Di Muccio has been the most plain spoken in supporting re-development of the Yonge-Davis corridor. As she pointed out on Monday, she was alone in campaigning in favour of it in 2010. It isn't clear why Gordon Prentice would accuse Councillor Di Muccio of being fickle, flighty or changeable but from my viewpoint the "mercurial" label doesn't fit her voting record based on what she campaigned for. In fact, no other Councillor has been as clear and transparent as she has been.
As I tweeted on Monday night, Regional Councillor Taylor, with his previous push to limit the towers to 15 storeys seems to be the one who has lost face in this vote. He admitted as much when he declared he would have liked to see the project shrunk by another 25%. The question Newmarket residents must be wondering is: "If you don't think this is a good deal for Newmarket, then why did you vote in favour of it?"
The Mayor of Newmarket bought a 1/3 page ad in the Era in which he took aim at Regional Councillor Taylor's 15-storey plan so no surprise that he voted in favour of Slessor Square. While Gordon Prentice was slamming the Mayor for reading a speech he obviously wrote prior to Council (which is clear evidence that the various members of the public who spoke to Council during the meeting were just wasting their efforts), anyone who follows Newmarket Council meetings is very familiar that the Mayor makes up his mind on issues before the meetings and won't let anything the public has to say to influence his vote. The fact is, the Mayor doesn't have the best track record when it comes to listening to the public. Just ask the Glenway presenters from January's Newmarket Theatre meeting.
Councillor Emanuel threw the Slessor Square neighbours under the bus when he wrote his blog arguing that the Glenway development wasn't needed. His justification for not developing Glenway was projects like Slessor Square. Councillor Emanuel gives us a clear example why Ward systems fail and open representation, such as what Aurora has, has certain advantages. Councillor Emanuel is voting based on what is best for his neighbourhood and he doesn't give a damn what happens elsewhere in Newmarket. That's not leadership but it certainly makes him popular with the hundred or so home owners neighbouring the golf course.
Some people might have been surprised that Councillor Hempen voted in favour of the Slessor Square development. I suggested before that he was almost invisible on Council and this vote signals that he won't be seeking re-election in 2014.
As for the remaining Councillors, they vote as the Taylor/ Van Bynen two-some whips them. The puppet masters pull the strings.
What does this vote mean for other developments before Council?
1) John Taylor will vote in favour of projects that he is outspoken against. This fact should be worrisome to the folks at Glenway.
2) Van Bynen and Taylor give every indication that they are closely aligned. They seem to be firmly capable of whipping the way Councillors Vegh, Kerwin, Twinney and Sponga will vote.
3) Councillor Emanuel will vote with blinders on. He doesn't care what is best for Newmarket as much as he cares about what his chances for re-election are in Ward 7.
4) Councillor Di Muccio will continue to be plain spoken about her position and will be consistent throughout.
5) Councillor Hempen is not seeking re-election in 2014 but don't expect him to be a wild card on Council. He still has a business to run in Newmarket though so I think he will continue to vote with the Taylor/ Van Bynen two-some.
This week we learned about holding provisions, (the blogger Gordon Prentice writes about them here: www.shrinkslessorsquare.com). With this new arrow in their quiver, expect more holding provision clauses to find their way into future approvals of developments.
We also learned about spin. For example, Gordon Prentice went from calling Councillor Di Muccio a straight talker to then labelling her mercurial. Certainly during this entire process, Councillor Di Muccio has been the most plain spoken in supporting re-development of the Yonge-Davis corridor. As she pointed out on Monday, she was alone in campaigning in favour of it in 2010. It isn't clear why Gordon Prentice would accuse Councillor Di Muccio of being fickle, flighty or changeable but from my viewpoint the "mercurial" label doesn't fit her voting record based on what she campaigned for. In fact, no other Councillor has been as clear and transparent as she has been.
As I tweeted on Monday night, Regional Councillor Taylor, with his previous push to limit the towers to 15 storeys seems to be the one who has lost face in this vote. He admitted as much when he declared he would have liked to see the project shrunk by another 25%. The question Newmarket residents must be wondering is: "If you don't think this is a good deal for Newmarket, then why did you vote in favour of it?"
The Mayor of Newmarket bought a 1/3 page ad in the Era in which he took aim at Regional Councillor Taylor's 15-storey plan so no surprise that he voted in favour of Slessor Square. While Gordon Prentice was slamming the Mayor for reading a speech he obviously wrote prior to Council (which is clear evidence that the various members of the public who spoke to Council during the meeting were just wasting their efforts), anyone who follows Newmarket Council meetings is very familiar that the Mayor makes up his mind on issues before the meetings and won't let anything the public has to say to influence his vote. The fact is, the Mayor doesn't have the best track record when it comes to listening to the public. Just ask the Glenway presenters from January's Newmarket Theatre meeting.
Councillor Emanuel threw the Slessor Square neighbours under the bus when he wrote his blog arguing that the Glenway development wasn't needed. His justification for not developing Glenway was projects like Slessor Square. Councillor Emanuel gives us a clear example why Ward systems fail and open representation, such as what Aurora has, has certain advantages. Councillor Emanuel is voting based on what is best for his neighbourhood and he doesn't give a damn what happens elsewhere in Newmarket. That's not leadership but it certainly makes him popular with the hundred or so home owners neighbouring the golf course.
Some people might have been surprised that Councillor Hempen voted in favour of the Slessor Square development. I suggested before that he was almost invisible on Council and this vote signals that he won't be seeking re-election in 2014.
As for the remaining Councillors, they vote as the Taylor/ Van Bynen two-some whips them. The puppet masters pull the strings.
What does this vote mean for other developments before Council?
1) John Taylor will vote in favour of projects that he is outspoken against. This fact should be worrisome to the folks at Glenway.
2) Van Bynen and Taylor give every indication that they are closely aligned. They seem to be firmly capable of whipping the way Councillors Vegh, Kerwin, Twinney and Sponga will vote.
3) Councillor Emanuel will vote with blinders on. He doesn't care what is best for Newmarket as much as he cares about what his chances for re-election are in Ward 7.
4) Councillor Di Muccio will continue to be plain spoken about her position and will be consistent throughout.
5) Councillor Hempen is not seeking re-election in 2014 but don't expect him to be a wild card on Council. He still has a business to run in Newmarket though so I think he will continue to vote with the Taylor/ Van Bynen two-some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)