Someone in my twitter feed reminded me that Jerry Springer was once the Mayor of Cincinnati.
If that image doesn't inspire taxpayers to get out and vote, I'm not sure if anything would.
Just a year away, 2014 will be a pivotal election for the Town of Newmarket.
Due to the consequences of the Places to Grow Act, Newmarket has no option but to welcome intensification. Do we have the men and women in Council that we can trust with this transition?
If you are like me, someone who grew up in this town, then I expect that 10-15 years from now you'll wonder, "what ever happened to the Newmarket of my youth?".
Where once there was farmland, you will see high rises. That is a fact of life.
But the Places to Grow Act can't be used as an excuse to sell the Town of Newmarket out to the highest bidding developer. We need to recognize that there are properties that should be preserved for future generations to enjoy.
While I have heard various members of this council give lip service to preserving green spaces in Newmarket, like many others, I question their sincerity.
Glenway Golf and Country Club is such a property.
Members of council have been very outspoken about the fact that this property should remain unspoiled. Yet why is it we can't trust them at their word?
There are some lingering questions:
1) Why didn't the Town of Newmarket bid to purchase it as parkland when it came for sale? I position this question against the $2.8 million given to the NSC, the $8.4 million assigned to purchasing LED lighting, and the $5 million cost over runs on the Old Town Hall. What if residents were allowed to vote for these three items vs. investing similarly into a Glenway park in a referendum?
2) These same council members who were once rallying to fight at the OMB are now quietly admitting that this route is a fool's errand. Yet council members orchestrated the events that gave the developer the right to make the OMB appeal by delaying their decision on the Marrianeville plan to November 25, 2013 months after the deadline had passed. Why?
3) And why, just a few weeks after voting in favour of establishing a heritage district are members of Council so eager to ignore their designation by approving a high rise that replaces Main Street's historic clock tower? Despite the fact that Main St already has limited traffic flow and even more limited parking, last week's Council meeting left no doubt that various council members are salivating over the idea of this project. It makes no sense.
4) And if we can't trust their word on Glenway or the clock tower, how can we trust them on their "Secondary" plan which designates certain areas as green spaces? If Glenway and the clock tower can be developed, then rest assured, all properties in Newmarket are at risk of the the developer's bulldozers.
There is a very simple solution.
We need to toss out of office anyone who hasn't earned the public trust. Any politician that has said one thing publicly but voted oppositely has to go. So too are those politicians who continually block attempts to keep government open and transparent.
My hope for Newmarket in 2014 is to have the most open, transparent, and accountable government in the Province of Ontario.
I am looking to elect people who meet these criteria:
1) People who have no established alliances with special interests; including friends or family of current/ past councillors, no members of current town related committees or the chamber of commerce, and certainly no one affiliated with any of the Yonge/ Davis car dealerships (who are keenly interested in selling their lands to high rise developers). The reason why political parties are discouraged at the municipal level is to encourage members to reach across the table to compromise. We've seen this term the brutal effects "bloc voting" can have.
2) Candidates that have a plan to make government more accessible. I am not sure what form that will take but if smart men and women run for office, let's hear them out about what it will take to make your government accountable to you.
In just over 10 weeks, the first few candidates will be submitting their nomination papers. We owe it to future generations of Newmarket residents to make sure we scrutinize them before we elect them.
Monday 28 October 2013
Tuesday 22 October 2013
Playing Euchre with Jane Twinney
In the past, Councillor Twinney had tweeted numerous times about how she enjoys playing Euchre with her friends.
At last night's council meeting, she "Euchre'd" Tony Van Bynen.
Mayor Van Bynen has a clear majority of votes that he can count on no matter the issue. He also has a local paper that has never, ever written a critical editorial about any policy he has championed. If Councillor Di Muccio, without any allies of her own, is able to grind the legislative process to a standstill, then that is more a reflection on Mayor Van Bynen's weak leadership than on her behaviour. Van Bynen believes that using the Code of Conduct will make him appear as a strong leader in the eyes of the public but he has badly missed his mark.
Last night Council voted unanimously to proceed with a code of conduct matter. Not being total idiots, Council was at least somewhat aware that tax dollars shouldn't be used to assuage the Mayor's fragile self-esteem.
The Mayor's original motion was altered through a series of add-ons proposed by Councillor Vegh.
The first change, aptly named Item A, (to which the Mayor declared a "pecuniary interest" on), says that if his complaint is not proven, then the Mayor will need to "voluntarily" reimburse the public coffers the cost of the investigation.
The second change, named Item B, (which nobody declared a pecuniary interest, although Councillor Di Muccio was absent), says that if the complaint is upheld by the integrity commission then Councillor Di Muccio is asked to "voluntarily" reimburse the coffers (note: it is voluntary because applicable legislation provides she can't be forced to pay for it. Vegh's proposal reminded me of certain communist totalitarian regimes where the families of executed prisoner traditionally receive an invoice for the cost of the bullet).
The obvious question is, "what if no one volunteers to reimburse the public?"
Not to worry because Councillor Twinney has a contingency plan. She revealed that she has met with her Council colleagues and they have agreed that if Councillor Di Muccio is "unwilling/ unable" to reimburse the funds, that collectively the others will contribute money towards the costs.
When she spoke about this plan, Twitter erupted with a number of tweets expressing incredulity and distrust. (Apparently its hard for the gang of 8 to appear credible and trustworthy these days after many of the antics that they have pulled lately).
No member of Council, nor any member of staff contradicted Councillor Twinney's words.
Mayor Van Bynen's original motion, as well as the two endorsements were passed unanimously.
There are significant issues with what Councillor Twinney spoke about that go the the very core of the Integrity Commission process. All members of Council now have a pecuniary interest because they are potentially all on the hook to fork over the dough when the investigator submits his/her bill.
In my opinion, there is no way that this integrity commission can be conducted that will satisfy the appearance that money somehow influenced the outcome.
If the integrity commission finds Di Muccio violated the code of conduct, then very plausibly, (like she did with last year's Integrity Commission findings), Councillor Di Muccio can argue that the scope of the investigation was too restrictive. How can these members of council defend against the idea that things were done "on the cheap" because these council members were concerned about their own potential out of pocket expense?
I get the impression that Councillor Di Muccio is itching to have a discussion on the topic of misogyny while the gang of 8 want to avoid that topic like the plague. However, if the scope of the investigation does not include the question on whether Tony Van Bynen is a misogynist, then it is very plausible to say that the investigator wasn't allowed to be thorough in his/ her reporting.
If the Integrity Commission finds against Tony Van Bynen, then he too can argue that the rest of Council stacked the cards against him to avoid paying the bill on their own.
Either way, the public isn't well served when Council has decided to "muddy the waters" on what should be an open and transparent process.
Bottom line: the "integrity" of the integrity commision process has been tainted by Councillor Twinney's meddling.
At last night's council meeting, she "Euchre'd" Tony Van Bynen.
Mayor Van Bynen has a clear majority of votes that he can count on no matter the issue. He also has a local paper that has never, ever written a critical editorial about any policy he has championed. If Councillor Di Muccio, without any allies of her own, is able to grind the legislative process to a standstill, then that is more a reflection on Mayor Van Bynen's weak leadership than on her behaviour. Van Bynen believes that using the Code of Conduct will make him appear as a strong leader in the eyes of the public but he has badly missed his mark.
Last night Council voted unanimously to proceed with a code of conduct matter. Not being total idiots, Council was at least somewhat aware that tax dollars shouldn't be used to assuage the Mayor's fragile self-esteem.
The Mayor's original motion was altered through a series of add-ons proposed by Councillor Vegh.
The first change, aptly named Item A, (to which the Mayor declared a "pecuniary interest" on), says that if his complaint is not proven, then the Mayor will need to "voluntarily" reimburse the public coffers the cost of the investigation.
The second change, named Item B, (which nobody declared a pecuniary interest, although Councillor Di Muccio was absent), says that if the complaint is upheld by the integrity commission then Councillor Di Muccio is asked to "voluntarily" reimburse the coffers (note: it is voluntary because applicable legislation provides she can't be forced to pay for it. Vegh's proposal reminded me of certain communist totalitarian regimes where the families of executed prisoner traditionally receive an invoice for the cost of the bullet).
The obvious question is, "what if no one volunteers to reimburse the public?"
Not to worry because Councillor Twinney has a contingency plan. She revealed that she has met with her Council colleagues and they have agreed that if Councillor Di Muccio is "unwilling/ unable" to reimburse the funds, that collectively the others will contribute money towards the costs.
When she spoke about this plan, Twitter erupted with a number of tweets expressing incredulity and distrust. (Apparently its hard for the gang of 8 to appear credible and trustworthy these days after many of the antics that they have pulled lately).
No member of Council, nor any member of staff contradicted Councillor Twinney's words.
Mayor Van Bynen's original motion, as well as the two endorsements were passed unanimously.
There are significant issues with what Councillor Twinney spoke about that go the the very core of the Integrity Commission process. All members of Council now have a pecuniary interest because they are potentially all on the hook to fork over the dough when the investigator submits his/her bill.
In my opinion, there is no way that this integrity commission can be conducted that will satisfy the appearance that money somehow influenced the outcome.
If the integrity commission finds Di Muccio violated the code of conduct, then very plausibly, (like she did with last year's Integrity Commission findings), Councillor Di Muccio can argue that the scope of the investigation was too restrictive. How can these members of council defend against the idea that things were done "on the cheap" because these council members were concerned about their own potential out of pocket expense?
I get the impression that Councillor Di Muccio is itching to have a discussion on the topic of misogyny while the gang of 8 want to avoid that topic like the plague. However, if the scope of the investigation does not include the question on whether Tony Van Bynen is a misogynist, then it is very plausible to say that the investigator wasn't allowed to be thorough in his/ her reporting.
If the Integrity Commission finds against Tony Van Bynen, then he too can argue that the rest of Council stacked the cards against him to avoid paying the bill on their own.
Either way, the public isn't well served when Council has decided to "muddy the waters" on what should be an open and transparent process.
Bottom line: the "integrity" of the integrity commision process has been tainted by Councillor Twinney's meddling.
Saturday 12 October 2013
Reducing Barriers to Serving in Public Office in Newmarket
A fairly prominent person within the political circles affiliated with the Newmarket-Aurora Liberal Party of Canada riding association was recently overheard complaining about the dearth of what he considered to be "ideal" candidates for next year's municipal election.
To paraphrase the comments:
- Local politics have become "too mean"
- People who would previously be considered shoo-ins are not interested in running for election because of personal attacks
- The quality of people on council will suffer because of what he considered inferior candidates were going to win
Oh my.
It sounds like we're in for a whole lot of trouble.
What will ever become of our beloved community when:
a) we don't have a council dominated by wealthy business men (such as former bankers), or the sons/ daughters of previous mayors?
b) when ordinary people with regular, everyday common sense take centre stage at Town Hall and pass budgets and enact legislation that reflect the needs of residents?
It sounds just terrible, (No, not really).
Personally, I am just pleased as punch to see that the elite are finding so-called barriers to public life. I am a true democrat through and through which means everyone has the right to participate in politics, not just those privileged by wealth or birth.
I promised to provide advice (free of charge) to the Town of Newmarket about reducing barriers to political life. Here is my list predicated upon the idea that municipal politics is intended to be a part time job for everyone other than the Mayor.
More community involvement via committees - We need to reform how volunteer-based advisory committees are used. Many staff reports should be submitted to the appropriate committee, debated and then have a recommendation sent to Council to accept or revise. When the committees are not used effectively, there is a greater burden upon the part time council members.
Oppose reducing the size of Council - A larger council means it is easier for a candidate who is not as well funded as others to campaign on a relatively level playing field. One candidate was elected in 2010 after receiving just a few hundred votes. That wouldn't have been possible in a small council scenario. Yet this particular Councillor has made such a significant impact to the way Council functions in terms of transparency and accountability that its hard to imagine what it would be like if she hadn't won. People who want to reduce the size of Council want to reduce opportunities for all except the well funded candidates.
Hold meetings in the evenings or on Saturdays/ Sundays - The fact that currently there is such a heavy time commitment involved during the regular work day means that ordinary people can't run for office. Only those who are retired or own their own well established businesses can afford to be at a mid-day meeting. There are times during the seven-day week that most people can be available, (including time for when members of the public who would like to observe can have a chance to do so). Let's remember that Council is supposed to work for us so they should work the hours that are convenient to us (and not them).
Going to Galas and Fancy Dress Parties are not part of the Council Members' job - There has to be a way to prevent incumbent council members from using their tax funded expense account to attend these parties. It is a significant barrier for aspiring politicians, (who don't have a tax funded expenses account), and especially women, (who frankly don't have the time after family commitments). If the Era really cared about "Women In Politics" as much as they say they do, then the publisher needs to make it the paper's policy not to publish photos of politicians at these events in his paper. Such a policy by the Era would actually make it easier for aspiring female candidates to recognize that they can contribute equally on Council on the real business of the town while not be penalized for not having the time to attend some unimportant gala.
These very simple measures don't require any significant changes to legislation etc. I'd like to see these items be adopted and enacted right away so those people who are considering running in 2014 can be assured that there will be balance in their home/ work/ and political life should they be chosen to lead.
To paraphrase the comments:
- Local politics have become "too mean"
- People who would previously be considered shoo-ins are not interested in running for election because of personal attacks
- The quality of people on council will suffer because of what he considered inferior candidates were going to win
Oh my.
It sounds like we're in for a whole lot of trouble.
What will ever become of our beloved community when:
a) we don't have a council dominated by wealthy business men (such as former bankers), or the sons/ daughters of previous mayors?
b) when ordinary people with regular, everyday common sense take centre stage at Town Hall and pass budgets and enact legislation that reflect the needs of residents?
It sounds just terrible, (No, not really).
Personally, I am just pleased as punch to see that the elite are finding so-called barriers to public life. I am a true democrat through and through which means everyone has the right to participate in politics, not just those privileged by wealth or birth.
I promised to provide advice (free of charge) to the Town of Newmarket about reducing barriers to political life. Here is my list predicated upon the idea that municipal politics is intended to be a part time job for everyone other than the Mayor.
More community involvement via committees - We need to reform how volunteer-based advisory committees are used. Many staff reports should be submitted to the appropriate committee, debated and then have a recommendation sent to Council to accept or revise. When the committees are not used effectively, there is a greater burden upon the part time council members.
Oppose reducing the size of Council - A larger council means it is easier for a candidate who is not as well funded as others to campaign on a relatively level playing field. One candidate was elected in 2010 after receiving just a few hundred votes. That wouldn't have been possible in a small council scenario. Yet this particular Councillor has made such a significant impact to the way Council functions in terms of transparency and accountability that its hard to imagine what it would be like if she hadn't won. People who want to reduce the size of Council want to reduce opportunities for all except the well funded candidates.
Hold meetings in the evenings or on Saturdays/ Sundays - The fact that currently there is such a heavy time commitment involved during the regular work day means that ordinary people can't run for office. Only those who are retired or own their own well established businesses can afford to be at a mid-day meeting. There are times during the seven-day week that most people can be available, (including time for when members of the public who would like to observe can have a chance to do so). Let's remember that Council is supposed to work for us so they should work the hours that are convenient to us (and not them).
Going to Galas and Fancy Dress Parties are not part of the Council Members' job - There has to be a way to prevent incumbent council members from using their tax funded expense account to attend these parties. It is a significant barrier for aspiring politicians, (who don't have a tax funded expenses account), and especially women, (who frankly don't have the time after family commitments). If the Era really cared about "Women In Politics" as much as they say they do, then the publisher needs to make it the paper's policy not to publish photos of politicians at these events in his paper. Such a policy by the Era would actually make it easier for aspiring female candidates to recognize that they can contribute equally on Council on the real business of the town while not be penalized for not having the time to attend some unimportant gala.
These very simple measures don't require any significant changes to legislation etc. I'd like to see these items be adopted and enacted right away so those people who are considering running in 2014 can be assured that there will be balance in their home/ work/ and political life should they be chosen to lead.
Monday 7 October 2013
Want to Investigate Di Muccio, Mayor? Then be prepared to investigate Emanuel.
Something has stuck with me about the Era reporting of Councillor Di Muccio calling Mayor Van Bynen a misogynist.
Councillor Di Muccio called the Mayor as misogynist as she was leaving the meeting.
This detail was repeated three times in three different news pieces.
And the distinction is critical.
Two years ago, when Councillor Emanuel admitted to drinking and driving, the Mayor argued that the Council Code of Conduct wouldn't apply to his binge drinking during the time he represented the town.at a VIP party held at the Pickle Barrel Restaurant. And many people, including myself, were dumbfounded that even though Councillor Emanuel gave a video greeting to Snap magazine that clearly showed he attended the party in an official capacity, the Mayor stuck to his guns saying the Code doesn't apply to "private matters."
If Councillor Di Muccio had left the meeting and then called the Mayor a name, then just like Emanuel's DUI (although its laughable to compare the two - a criminal offense is far more serious than a name calling), it is a "private matter", and protected as free speech.
I think this is why the Era is repeating over and over again that the name calling didn't occur while Di Muccio was participating in the meeting but subsequently while she was leaving.
A few months ago, Councillor Jaye Robinson gave a press conference urging Toronto Mayor Rob Ford to "take time off to deal with his “personal issues,” to “clearly and definitively and without question,” address ongoing questions about his alleged substance abuse.
While Jaye Robinson got into hot water with the Toronto Mayor when he fired her from the city's executive committee, her words were not subject to an integrity commissioner investigation. Although she could have been had she said these same words during a Toronto Council meeting. In the world of integrity commission investigations, it is location, location, location.
Councillor Di Muccio called the Mayor as misogynist as she was leaving the meeting.
This detail was repeated three times in three different news pieces.
And the distinction is critical.
Two years ago, when Councillor Emanuel admitted to drinking and driving, the Mayor argued that the Council Code of Conduct wouldn't apply to his binge drinking during the time he represented the town.at a VIP party held at the Pickle Barrel Restaurant. And many people, including myself, were dumbfounded that even though Councillor Emanuel gave a video greeting to Snap magazine that clearly showed he attended the party in an official capacity, the Mayor stuck to his guns saying the Code doesn't apply to "private matters."
If Councillor Di Muccio had left the meeting and then called the Mayor a name, then just like Emanuel's DUI (although its laughable to compare the two - a criminal offense is far more serious than a name calling), it is a "private matter", and protected as free speech.
I think this is why the Era is repeating over and over again that the name calling didn't occur while Di Muccio was participating in the meeting but subsequently while she was leaving.
A few months ago, Councillor Jaye Robinson gave a press conference urging Toronto Mayor Rob Ford to "take time off to deal with his “personal issues,” to “clearly and definitively and without question,” address ongoing questions about his alleged substance abuse.
While Jaye Robinson got into hot water with the Toronto Mayor when he fired her from the city's executive committee, her words were not subject to an integrity commissioner investigation. Although she could have been had she said these same words during a Toronto Council meeting. In the world of integrity commission investigations, it is location, location, location.
Tuesday 1 October 2013
John Taylor's Performance At Council Last Night
"NwktTownHall you are wrong again. Anonymous and inaccurate - great combo. Now go ahead and do another hatchet job on me In retaliation." -- Regional Councillor John Taylor via Twitter
The funny thing is that I don't have to do "another hatchet job" on the Regional Councillor.
Last night he did a well executed hatchet job to himself.
Like many interested viewers, I watched the broadcast of council (you can watch here: http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&rid=70&sid=3183&gid=118247) tuning in especially to see how Regional Councillor Taylor would behave now that evidence was posted on Councillor Di Muccio's blog showing that Mayor Van Bynen has been busy scheming against him.
How did he react?
Like a person with the self esteem of a boot-licking worm.
If being betrayed and having it exposed in such a public fashion hurt the Regional Councillor's feelings in any way, he didn't show it.
Instead he was his usual sycophantic self.
A word to the wise, Mr. Taylor. If you want people to believe that you will fight on their behalf, you should take an opportunity to show that you have the ability to at least fight for yourself. The kowtowing on display in the video shows that you haven't any fight in you.
The funny thing is that I don't have to do "another hatchet job" on the Regional Councillor.
Last night he did a well executed hatchet job to himself.
Like many interested viewers, I watched the broadcast of council (you can watch here: http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&rid=70&sid=3183&gid=118247) tuning in especially to see how Regional Councillor Taylor would behave now that evidence was posted on Councillor Di Muccio's blog showing that Mayor Van Bynen has been busy scheming against him.
How did he react?
Like a person with the self esteem of a boot-licking worm.
If being betrayed and having it exposed in such a public fashion hurt the Regional Councillor's feelings in any way, he didn't show it.
Instead he was his usual sycophantic self.
A word to the wise, Mr. Taylor. If you want people to believe that you will fight on their behalf, you should take an opportunity to show that you have the ability to at least fight for yourself. The kowtowing on display in the video shows that you haven't any fight in you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)