When is a new municipal service not really a service at all?
Yesterday. the Town of Newmarket and members of the council breathlessly announced a new "service" to residents. "FREE WiFi" the twitter account of the Town of Newmarket exclaimed.
Ah, but read the fine print.
Are they offering this WiFi in places where residents actually congregate and spend any amount of time?
For example, maybe they decided to install the "Free" WiFi at the Community Centre and River Walk Commons. People seem to congregate there. Sadly, no.
What about the Youth Centre, where kids with cell phones would certainly appreciate not having to use up their data minutes to text and play games. No, there is no "Free" WiFi there either.
Maybe seniors on fixed incomes would enjoy access to "Free" WiFi. We all know that the costs of home Internet service is ever increasing so this would make good sense to help those on fixed means stay connected to the Internet. But sadly, no that isn't where the "Free" Internet will be installed.
The installation is going into a facility where ordinary residents rarely congregate and hardly ever visit -- The municipal office at 395 Mulock Drive.
So if the Town of Newmarket is offering this fantastic new service for "Free" and investing reportedly $50,000 to make it happen, why is the service being installed in the one facility rarely every visited by ordinary residents?
Because the service isn't meant for ordinary residents.
Like the $30,000 coffee budget, this money is just another perk of employment being offered to the employees of the Town of Newmarket although disguised as a expanded service for you and me.
Town employees enjoy surfing the web like everyone else but they resent having to spend their own money to do it. So, no more going on line via a cell phone data plan, these employees can now surf for free.
Too bad that residents who use the River Walk Commons, Community Centre, Youth Centre, and Senior Centre aren't as fortunate. For those folks there is no such thing as "Free" WiFi.
Welcome to Newmarket under the auspices of the Old Boys Club. Free WiFI is a great idea. So why not install it where ordinary people can access it?
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Monday, 2 December 2013
Dirty tricks have already begun in the Newmarket 2014 election
I am not sure if it resonated with my readers just how devious and, frankly unethical, it is to run a decoy candidate in a municipal election.
Running a decoy candidate only makes sense in a municipal election because there are no parties. In a municipal election, a candidate runs on his/ her good name.
For a decoy to work, the decoy candidate accepts he/she has no chance in actually winning. The decoy's only job is to create so much fuss as to distract from real issues to gang up on a legitimate candidate and ensure that person is defeated.
Let's take Newmarket for example.
Incumbent Mayor Van Bynen, doesn't like his chances when he comes face to face with the following real issues:
1. seven consecutive years of tax hikes under his administration
2. unscheduled closings of a number of town owned facilities due to emergency maintenance repairs
3. bloated staff numbers with extravagant "perks" that the average Joe doesn't get through private sector employment
4. major traffic foul ups through VivaNext on Davis Drive and soon to be on Yonge Street too
5. major employers have packed up and left town for greener pastures
6. cost over runs with the Magna Centre construction and the Old Town Hall
7. the fiasco of closed door meetings - particularly with the Soccer Club bailout
8. York Region having the highest per capita public debt of any region in the country
9. water rates rising beyond affordability despite community conservation efforts
10. tense labour issues at the NPL, Viva, and York Region
Instead, he gets a decoy to set up shop and has him start to sling mud at every perceived threat to Mayor Van Bynen's incumbency -- namely Regional Councillor Taylor and Ward 6 Councillor Maddie Di Muccio.
The advantage of the decoy candidate is that Tony Van Bynen is one-person removed from any mudslinging going on. He believes the decoy will preserve his image that he isn't personally involved in the dirty politics taking place. In reality nothing is further from the truth as the decoy is very much under the thumb of his master.
At the same time, this decoy is very careful to make sure that none of the mud being tossed about actually sticks to Tony Van Bynen. The decoy refuses to make even the slightest sound of criticism of Mayor Van Bynen's record even though he shares the same side of many of the issues the decoy is critical of with the Mayor's opponents.
And to a limited degree, the task of the decoy candidate has enjoyed some limited success. In the case of Regional Councillor John Taylor, he immediately backed off announcing that he will not be challenging Tony Van Bynen at the next election.
Astute readers will note that the decoy's attacks on Regional Councillor Taylor have greatly subsided since the Regional Councillor has made that announcement. The reason for this is simple, it is not about winning the Regional Councillor election that has the decoy in the race, it is about making sure that Tony Van Bynen is re-elected.
I think Maddie Di Muccio is made of stronger stuff though. If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, Maddie is not likely going to back down so Newmarket residents can expect a fair bit of mud-slinging and dirty politics from Tony Van Bynen's corner. I personally believe if Maddie sticks to the script and keeps the focus on the 10 items above, no amount of mud will save Van Bynen's campaign.
On the weekend, the mudslinging turned nasty and it caused me to do some fact checking on the decoy's allegations.
Lets shed some light on the allegations being spread by Mayor Van Bynen's decoy candidate:
The Decoy Candidate tweeted: The Cybersquatting issue can be looked up and proven at anytime via whois. It is fact. Media reported on it with video
And also tweeted: She renewed the domains after getting caught cybersquatting and blaming her husband for it. Her baggage as bad as anyone.
And finally:@dlkyorkeditor @Era_Reporter Could you please follow up with Councillor Di Muccio and see if Tom Vegh's domains ever returned to him?
I took the decoy's advice and checked on Whois to see for myself. What I found was an abundance of domain names available for purchase. It seems the allegations that domain names were renewed is just a lie.
Here is a partial list of related domain names currently available for purchase by anyone interested.
Running a decoy candidate only makes sense in a municipal election because there are no parties. In a municipal election, a candidate runs on his/ her good name.
For a decoy to work, the decoy candidate accepts he/she has no chance in actually winning. The decoy's only job is to create so much fuss as to distract from real issues to gang up on a legitimate candidate and ensure that person is defeated.
Let's take Newmarket for example.
Incumbent Mayor Van Bynen, doesn't like his chances when he comes face to face with the following real issues:
1. seven consecutive years of tax hikes under his administration
2. unscheduled closings of a number of town owned facilities due to emergency maintenance repairs
3. bloated staff numbers with extravagant "perks" that the average Joe doesn't get through private sector employment
4. major traffic foul ups through VivaNext on Davis Drive and soon to be on Yonge Street too
5. major employers have packed up and left town for greener pastures
6. cost over runs with the Magna Centre construction and the Old Town Hall
7. the fiasco of closed door meetings - particularly with the Soccer Club bailout
8. York Region having the highest per capita public debt of any region in the country
9. water rates rising beyond affordability despite community conservation efforts
10. tense labour issues at the NPL, Viva, and York Region
Instead, he gets a decoy to set up shop and has him start to sling mud at every perceived threat to Mayor Van Bynen's incumbency -- namely Regional Councillor Taylor and Ward 6 Councillor Maddie Di Muccio.
The advantage of the decoy candidate is that Tony Van Bynen is one-person removed from any mudslinging going on. He believes the decoy will preserve his image that he isn't personally involved in the dirty politics taking place. In reality nothing is further from the truth as the decoy is very much under the thumb of his master.
At the same time, this decoy is very careful to make sure that none of the mud being tossed about actually sticks to Tony Van Bynen. The decoy refuses to make even the slightest sound of criticism of Mayor Van Bynen's record even though he shares the same side of many of the issues the decoy is critical of with the Mayor's opponents.
And to a limited degree, the task of the decoy candidate has enjoyed some limited success. In the case of Regional Councillor John Taylor, he immediately backed off announcing that he will not be challenging Tony Van Bynen at the next election.
Astute readers will note that the decoy's attacks on Regional Councillor Taylor have greatly subsided since the Regional Councillor has made that announcement. The reason for this is simple, it is not about winning the Regional Councillor election that has the decoy in the race, it is about making sure that Tony Van Bynen is re-elected.
I think Maddie Di Muccio is made of stronger stuff though. If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, Maddie is not likely going to back down so Newmarket residents can expect a fair bit of mud-slinging and dirty politics from Tony Van Bynen's corner. I personally believe if Maddie sticks to the script and keeps the focus on the 10 items above, no amount of mud will save Van Bynen's campaign.
On the weekend, the mudslinging turned nasty and it caused me to do some fact checking on the decoy's allegations.
Lets shed some light on the allegations being spread by Mayor Van Bynen's decoy candidate:
The Decoy Candidate tweeted: The Cybersquatting issue can be looked up and proven at anytime via whois. It is fact. Media reported on it with video
And also tweeted: She renewed the domains after getting caught cybersquatting and blaming her husband for it. Her baggage as bad as anyone.
And finally:
I took the decoy's advice and checked on Whois to see for myself. What I found was an abundance of domain names available for purchase. It seems the allegations that domain names were renewed is just a lie.
Here is a partial list of related domain names currently available for purchase by anyone interested.
Saturday, 30 November 2013
A pun making light of violence against a female isn't well informed nor entertaining
They say that puns are the lowest form of humour. And if that is the case, then surely making a pun out of a person's name must be the basement level of humour. No, let me re-phrase that: it is infantile.
A recent example of this is the Glenway activist and Frank Klees inner circle groupie: Anne Leroux who recently tweeted:
Anne Leroux @anneleroux
@TonyVanBynen more 'Guess which Ward' game: If someone was mad, they would guess this one pic.twitter.com/QsKt6heZ6S #FF @WattsTrending and @yolkregion for some interesting coverage of politics in York Region. Both well informed entertaining writers.
A recent example of this is the Glenway activist and Frank Klees inner circle groupie: Anne Leroux who recently tweeted:
Anne Leroux
Stupid, right?
But what isn't stupid is when the pun crosses the line of good taste to something far more dark and insidious like this tweet from Aurora blogger and The Auroran columnist, Christopher Watts:
Ah thnx. Heard it is DieMuch-io @ricklamanna One of the pitfalls of remaining #anonymous is lack of credibility #takenwithagrainofsalt
I'm sorry but "DieMuch-io"?
Are you kidding me? Is there something funny about referring to a female as "Die Much"?
Violence against women is never an appropriate topic matter for even the lamest attempt of humour.
I didn't see this tweet when it was posted last night. I spotted it today when I was cc'd with an on-line discussion between Newmarket Councillor Di Muccio and Aurora blogger Watts. Like Di Muccio, I have also taken offense to Watts' poor taste in humour. My policy has been to Name it - Shame it when I see anti-female language on-line and certainly Watts has crossed the line by choosing his words terribly when referring to Di Muccio as "Die Much".
Perhaps even worst judgment was displayed by Regional Council candidate Darryl Wolk who, subsequent to the Die Much tweet, Wolk made the regrettable decision to post this:
Wolk, an aspiring "community leader" is instructing the public to follow a man who refers to a female as "Die Much" with the promise that such a sentiment is well-informed and entertaining.
That's not acceptable language in our day and age, Mr. Watts. And violence against women isn't a community value that Newmarket residents aspire to, Mr. Wolk.
The Internet attracts all kinds of outrageous opinions and perspectives. but there are lines that should never be crossed. Violence against women, even when intended as a joking pun, is never funny and nor should it ever be tolerated or excused.
Friday, 29 November 2013
Integrity and your local "news" paper
Every couple of weeks, the Newmarket Era publishes a column by MPP Frank Klees on various local issues. This week MPP Klees is writing about provincial versus federal boundaries. At the end of the column, the following appears:
"This column is paid for by Frank Klees."
All is well and good. If Mr. Klees purchases the ad space then like any advertiser, he can responsibly disseminate his political message to the masses.
This week, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen has a column in the Era as well under the sub-heading "Newmarket Notes". Unlike Mr. Klees' column, there is no message trailer that his item was a paid advertorial (i.e. paid for by Tony Van Bynen).
In fact, by all appearances it seems as though the Era has added Mayor Van Bynen on its list of columnists joining Dr. David Suzuki and others.
Based on the poor quality of his writing, I am not sure if any aspiring opponent should be terribly concerned that Tony Van Bynen has been given space in the paper. His writing style is best described as "pedestrian". After reading it, I can't say I had any other impression other than YAWN. After a few more columns like this, Tony Van Bynen will surely convince the community that he is the least imaginative, uninteresting candidate possible for the Mayor's chair.
That said, I am concerned with the concept of fair play.
Does the Era intend to make it public that the editorial position of the paper is to back a Tony Van Bynen mayoralty campaign? If so, when will the Era make its position clear?
Also part of the same media group as the Era, the Toronto Star makes its Atkinson Principle well known. Toronto Star readers know that the Atkinson Principle skews the paper's bias towards the left of the political spectrum. As long as the editors are open about it, I have no issue with a paper's position. It is the responsibility of the paper's readers to read the paper with a critical eye.
Similarly, the Era is equally free to be biased about Mayor Tony Van Bynen. I think Mayor Van Bynen's record speaks for itself and as I have written previously, there is little that would recommend him for re-election. From the Magna Centre, to Glenway, to VivaNext and so on - he has displayed a clear record of bungling and bumbling. But if Van Bynen is the one who the Era backs, its a free society.
Yet as the only paper in town, the Era should have the basic integrity to admit to being biased and allow readers to decide what is news versus what is propaganda. If Tony Van Bynen is the Era's preferred candidate and it plans on giving him free space to write about himself in hopes of getting re-elected, then the very least the publisher should do is to admit it.
Bottom Line: Everyone has biases and admitting to holding a bias is what it means to have integrity.
"This column is paid for by Frank Klees."
All is well and good. If Mr. Klees purchases the ad space then like any advertiser, he can responsibly disseminate his political message to the masses.
This week, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen has a column in the Era as well under the sub-heading "Newmarket Notes". Unlike Mr. Klees' column, there is no message trailer that his item was a paid advertorial (i.e. paid for by Tony Van Bynen).
In fact, by all appearances it seems as though the Era has added Mayor Van Bynen on its list of columnists joining Dr. David Suzuki and others.
Based on the poor quality of his writing, I am not sure if any aspiring opponent should be terribly concerned that Tony Van Bynen has been given space in the paper. His writing style is best described as "pedestrian". After reading it, I can't say I had any other impression other than YAWN. After a few more columns like this, Tony Van Bynen will surely convince the community that he is the least imaginative, uninteresting candidate possible for the Mayor's chair.
That said, I am concerned with the concept of fair play.
Does the Era intend to make it public that the editorial position of the paper is to back a Tony Van Bynen mayoralty campaign? If so, when will the Era make its position clear?
Also part of the same media group as the Era, the Toronto Star makes its Atkinson Principle well known. Toronto Star readers know that the Atkinson Principle skews the paper's bias towards the left of the political spectrum. As long as the editors are open about it, I have no issue with a paper's position. It is the responsibility of the paper's readers to read the paper with a critical eye.
Similarly, the Era is equally free to be biased about Mayor Tony Van Bynen. I think Mayor Van Bynen's record speaks for itself and as I have written previously, there is little that would recommend him for re-election. From the Magna Centre, to Glenway, to VivaNext and so on - he has displayed a clear record of bungling and bumbling. But if Van Bynen is the one who the Era backs, its a free society.
Yet as the only paper in town, the Era should have the basic integrity to admit to being biased and allow readers to decide what is news versus what is propaganda. If Tony Van Bynen is the Era's preferred candidate and it plans on giving him free space to write about himself in hopes of getting re-elected, then the very least the publisher should do is to admit it.
Bottom Line: Everyone has biases and admitting to holding a bias is what it means to have integrity.
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Disappointed that the Glenway OMB vote was unanimous
The outcome of the long awaited Glenway vote was a foregone conclusion. We have known for years that this council was determined to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars at an 8-week OMB hearing.
Faced with the dilemma that growth was being shoved down our throats by the Province and York Region, many sane residents recognize that single family homes are preferable to condo high rise towers.
If we have to choose between them, Glenway and its 750 homes should be developed but we would like give a pass on the Slessor Square and Clock Tower developments please.
I have often heard council members speak about the need to allow Newmarket to control development, yet I have never heard any explanation why the highrise residential towers are preferred by this council.
It doesn't go unnoticed that the developers who build single family homes sell out their inventories within days while lots approved for high rise condos remain barren and desolate for a decade or longer. Families moving to Newmarket overwhelmingly choose houses over apartment style residences.
Newmarket taxpayers are going to pay approximately $30 per household towards the legal costs to keep Glenway "green space"; a luxury for the very few people whose homes back on the old golf course to continue to enjoy their view, (keep in mind that not one single resident will actually be using the Glenway lot because it is still private property).
And for the rest of us, enjoy your idling time, stuck in gridlock traffic along Yonge and Davis as more and more cars and construction snarl our major thruways.
With Mayor Van Bynen's bloc remaining standfast behind Glenway, we had no hopes of winning the Glenway vote. The best that any of us could have hoped for would have been a split decision. It would have been nice to see this vote break 5-4 to show residents that members of Council actually gave this matter some serious consideration.
I am disappointed with the unanimous vote.
If a 5-4 split vote was the best we could have hoped for, I expected at very least an 8-1 vote.
I recognize that Councillor Di Muccio has been on record for supporting Slessor and being against Glenway. But I also know that she and Councillor Twinney have been publicly wary of the high-risks associated with Tony Van Bynen's "no negotiations" stance with the Marrianeville developer.
With Councillor Twinney, her past voting record would indicate that she wouldn't break from the pack. Her vote is obvious because she has never publicly displayed the fortitude it takes to stand on her sole convictions.
Councillor Di Muccio, on the other hand, has stood alone on principle many times before.
Why did she go along with Tony Van Bynen's hard line approach?
Anyone who plays poker knows that the difference between winning and losing is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Glenway residents have been dealt a bad hand. The best course of action would be to negotiate and see if you can't get your parks, school, and a reduced size for the condo tower. Instead, the Glenway are going to get a front row seat to the original Glenway proposal when they lose their stakes at the OMB.
Maybe it is wrong for me to take umbrage with Councillor Di Muccio's vote while letting the 8 others who voted similiarly off scot-free. But it wouldn't be honest of me to say that I am not disappointed with her vote.
There will be no honour in losing this high stakes game at the OMB. And make no mistake about it, losing is the only outcome that I expect when the 8-week OMB hearing wraps up.
Faced with the dilemma that growth was being shoved down our throats by the Province and York Region, many sane residents recognize that single family homes are preferable to condo high rise towers.
If we have to choose between them, Glenway and its 750 homes should be developed but we would like give a pass on the Slessor Square and Clock Tower developments please.
I have often heard council members speak about the need to allow Newmarket to control development, yet I have never heard any explanation why the highrise residential towers are preferred by this council.
It doesn't go unnoticed that the developers who build single family homes sell out their inventories within days while lots approved for high rise condos remain barren and desolate for a decade or longer. Families moving to Newmarket overwhelmingly choose houses over apartment style residences.
Newmarket taxpayers are going to pay approximately $30 per household towards the legal costs to keep Glenway "green space"; a luxury for the very few people whose homes back on the old golf course to continue to enjoy their view, (keep in mind that not one single resident will actually be using the Glenway lot because it is still private property).
And for the rest of us, enjoy your idling time, stuck in gridlock traffic along Yonge and Davis as more and more cars and construction snarl our major thruways.
With Mayor Van Bynen's bloc remaining standfast behind Glenway, we had no hopes of winning the Glenway vote. The best that any of us could have hoped for would have been a split decision. It would have been nice to see this vote break 5-4 to show residents that members of Council actually gave this matter some serious consideration.
I am disappointed with the unanimous vote.
If a 5-4 split vote was the best we could have hoped for, I expected at very least an 8-1 vote.
I recognize that Councillor Di Muccio has been on record for supporting Slessor and being against Glenway. But I also know that she and Councillor Twinney have been publicly wary of the high-risks associated with Tony Van Bynen's "no negotiations" stance with the Marrianeville developer.
With Councillor Twinney, her past voting record would indicate that she wouldn't break from the pack. Her vote is obvious because she has never publicly displayed the fortitude it takes to stand on her sole convictions.
Councillor Di Muccio, on the other hand, has stood alone on principle many times before.
Why did she go along with Tony Van Bynen's hard line approach?
Anyone who plays poker knows that the difference between winning and losing is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Glenway residents have been dealt a bad hand. The best course of action would be to negotiate and see if you can't get your parks, school, and a reduced size for the condo tower. Instead, the Glenway are going to get a front row seat to the original Glenway proposal when they lose their stakes at the OMB.
Maybe it is wrong for me to take umbrage with Councillor Di Muccio's vote while letting the 8 others who voted similiarly off scot-free. But it wouldn't be honest of me to say that I am not disappointed with her vote.
There will be no honour in losing this high stakes game at the OMB. And make no mistake about it, losing is the only outcome that I expect when the 8-week OMB hearing wraps up.
Sunday, 17 November 2013
$100's of Millions Later - The Buses are Still Empty
"The buses are empty!"
When people are asked about public transit in Newmarket, that is the typical response received.
Personally, I think we have an excellent public transit system locally. Due to our population density and size of town (approximately 20 square kilometers in all), its easy to get around town by bus. It is only the cost of a bus trip relative to what I pay for the convenience of owning a car that keeps me behind the wheel at all. If the YRT could figure out a way to make the cost of transit a bit cheaper, I would be one of those who would give up my car in favour of the bus.
But like many in Newmarket, I fail to see the "upgrade" we are getting with the Davis Drive rapidway (termed VivaNext locally) relative to the $100million tab being spent on the project.
Who is going to ride this route?
And that is the question that must be answered before the mistake is repeated along Yonge St. (between Davis Drive and Mulock). Before we spend another $100million+, why don't we take a few months to determine if the local commuters want this service?
As it is, VivaNext is planning to proceed with the Yonge bus rapidway starting in early 2014. You can read all about the next steps in the project here: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/4207578-next-phase-in-vivanext-work-in-newmarket-to-begin-in-spring/
I don't know who is driving this project ahead without due diligence but we do know who sits on York Region's Transportation Services Committee -- Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen.
Like so many of his other projects (Magna Centre, Old Town Hall just to name a couple) spending tax payer money frivolously and without prior knowledge of public demand for the intended services seems to be the hallmark of his term as Mayor.
How much longer will Mayor Van Bynen continue to spend without any regard for the taxpayer's ability to pay?
Why are we building rapidway bus lanes that lead to nowhere?
How much longer are taxpayers going to abide with spending hundreds of millions of public funds toward empty buses?
When people are asked about public transit in Newmarket, that is the typical response received.
Personally, I think we have an excellent public transit system locally. Due to our population density and size of town (approximately 20 square kilometers in all), its easy to get around town by bus. It is only the cost of a bus trip relative to what I pay for the convenience of owning a car that keeps me behind the wheel at all. If the YRT could figure out a way to make the cost of transit a bit cheaper, I would be one of those who would give up my car in favour of the bus.
But like many in Newmarket, I fail to see the "upgrade" we are getting with the Davis Drive rapidway (termed VivaNext locally) relative to the $100million tab being spent on the project.
Who is going to ride this route?
And that is the question that must be answered before the mistake is repeated along Yonge St. (between Davis Drive and Mulock). Before we spend another $100million+, why don't we take a few months to determine if the local commuters want this service?
As it is, VivaNext is planning to proceed with the Yonge bus rapidway starting in early 2014. You can read all about the next steps in the project here: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/4207578-next-phase-in-vivanext-work-in-newmarket-to-begin-in-spring/
I don't know who is driving this project ahead without due diligence but we do know who sits on York Region's Transportation Services Committee -- Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen.
Like so many of his other projects (Magna Centre, Old Town Hall just to name a couple) spending tax payer money frivolously and without prior knowledge of public demand for the intended services seems to be the hallmark of his term as Mayor.
How much longer will Mayor Van Bynen continue to spend without any regard for the taxpayer's ability to pay?
Why are we building rapidway bus lanes that lead to nowhere?
How much longer are taxpayers going to abide with spending hundreds of millions of public funds toward empty buses?
Friday, 15 November 2013
Confirm or Deny Town of Newmarket, How committed is the NSC to pay back its loan?
Gossip is a guilty pleasure for most people.
There is one piece of juicy gossip making the rounds these days that perhaps someone at the Town of Newmarket's office can confirm or deny.
If the little birdies who told this news to me are to be believed, it seems that while the Newmarket Soccer Club was cozying up to certain members of Council to secure their $2.8 million bailout from local taxpayers, the NSC was also selected to participate in the Magna Hoedown as a beneficiary of the company's popular annual fundraiser.
All participating groups are assigned to sell a requisite number of event tickets and raffle tickets by the Magna Hoedown organizers. The story gets interesting because there is word that the Newmarket Soccer Club had failed to meet its obligated quota for sales.
So what does that say about a commitment by the Newmarket Soccer Club board if they can't help themselves when they are given an opportunity?
Apathy is a dangerous attitude for any organization. I can only imagine that the public funds loaned to the the NSC are at even greater risk now if this rumour is true.
The Magna Hoedown is a private venture so its organizers have no obligation to make this news public.
But doesn't the Town of Newmarket have someone on the Newmarket Soccer Club Board that supposedly is charged with the responsibility for watching out for us taxpayers?
If the NSC Board failed at the Magna Hoedown fundraiser, I think this Town of Newmarket board person has an obligation to make this information public. Especially considering that much of the discussion regarding this bail out was done in secret by Council.
The secrecy needs to stop.
Come clean Town of Newmarket and let us know if the NSC is as committed to paying its debt as you would like us to believe.
Will the NSC board member representing the Town of Newmarket provide confirmation to Newmarket residents as to whether or not the Newmarket Soccer Club has met its Magna Hoedown ticket sales (both event and raffle)?
Stay tuned.
There is one piece of juicy gossip making the rounds these days that perhaps someone at the Town of Newmarket's office can confirm or deny.
If the little birdies who told this news to me are to be believed, it seems that while the Newmarket Soccer Club was cozying up to certain members of Council to secure their $2.8 million bailout from local taxpayers, the NSC was also selected to participate in the Magna Hoedown as a beneficiary of the company's popular annual fundraiser.
All participating groups are assigned to sell a requisite number of event tickets and raffle tickets by the Magna Hoedown organizers. The story gets interesting because there is word that the Newmarket Soccer Club had failed to meet its obligated quota for sales.
So what does that say about a commitment by the Newmarket Soccer Club board if they can't help themselves when they are given an opportunity?
Apathy is a dangerous attitude for any organization. I can only imagine that the public funds loaned to the the NSC are at even greater risk now if this rumour is true.
The Magna Hoedown is a private venture so its organizers have no obligation to make this news public.
But doesn't the Town of Newmarket have someone on the Newmarket Soccer Club Board that supposedly is charged with the responsibility for watching out for us taxpayers?
If the NSC Board failed at the Magna Hoedown fundraiser, I think this Town of Newmarket board person has an obligation to make this information public. Especially considering that much of the discussion regarding this bail out was done in secret by Council.
The secrecy needs to stop.
Come clean Town of Newmarket and let us know if the NSC is as committed to paying its debt as you would like us to believe.
Will the NSC board member representing the Town of Newmarket provide confirmation to Newmarket residents as to whether or not the Newmarket Soccer Club has met its Magna Hoedown ticket sales (both event and raffle)?
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)