Council members can no longer be silent on questions of corporate corruption

The allegations of corporate cheating to influence the outcome of the last Town of Newmarket municipal election appear to be highly credible.

But remember that no corporation would risk their brand's reputation just to get one of its employees another part time job as a Town Councillor. This cheating wasn't about obtaining a $40,000 per year job for Kelly Broome. These corporations have their own self interests in play and are expecting a much higher payback.

For example, let's look at the new Mulock GO Train Station. Back in October 2016, Council voted for a resolution that encourages Metrolinx to fund development plans of a new GO station on the south-east corner of the train tracks on Mulock Drive. This same resolution promised to support amending Newmarket's Official Plan to support changes to land use provisions of the neighbouring properties of the train station. Changes to the Official Plan could potentially be worth millions of dollars to landholders in the area if developers seek to cash in on developing within the vicinity of the new train station.

Did anyone consider which car dealership is located at 349 Mulock Drive (located on the north-west corner across from proposed train station)? Or which Council member is employed by the owner of that dealership? And did that Council member declare a conflict of interest prior to casting her vote?

How about another Council member who is also the president of a controversial charity that used to operate right next door to the dealership located at 349 Mulock Drive? What is the relationship between that dealership and the charity belonging to the Council member? Did he declare a conflict of interest prior to voting in favour of the new train station?

And should we forget that other members of Council received "support" in their election from the owner of this dealership? Did that corporate donation weigh into their decision to vote in favour of this Mulock train station?  

The public deserves answers from our members of Council to these important questions.  When Council decisions could lead to real estate transactions valued in potential millions of dollars involving a Council member's employer, or the member's charity sponsor, or their campaign campaign "supporters", shouldn't every measure be taken to ensure complete transparency and openness?

I truly hope that the Council members will speak openly about their vote. To remain silent (like they are apt to do) only increases the speculation that our democracy is at risk of being sold to the highest corporate bidder.