At a time when city hall is struggling to get next year's tax increase below 9%, and you are struggling to make your property tax payments, City Council has delivered a New Year's Gift to you to "relieve" the pain.
At a "reported" cost of just $30,000, city hall has hired professional writers and other "creative" people to prepare Oshawa's entry documents to the Livable Communities Contest. They have also seen fit to send Mayor John Gray and a city delegation to London, England, to "present" our entry.
So what is the present? Why Council has presented us with a gold medal as one of the most desirable cities of 75,001 – 200,000 population in the universe in which to live.
Out of 9 competitors though, 3 got gold and all the others got silver. It's nice that ALL competitors can go home a winner, isn't it. This is a model that could be introduced into the Olympics or the NHL to make everyone a winner. When everyone is a winner, though, the contest becomes nothing more than "smoke and mirror" optics for the politicians to brandish to their devotees back home.
Myself...I find it hard to believe that Oshawa City Hall would want to spend our hard-earned tax dollars to communicate how great Oshawa is to the world when they repeatedly voted to refuse Oshawa citizens information about a truly important issue--the plebiscite question they asked about our city's voting system. They asked that question but repeatedly voted to deny giving citizens information about it.
I always understood that communication started at home. I can't understand why they would want to communicate to the world and yet deny information to the people here at home. I guess they just didn't want your informed opinion about the question they asked.
If they didn't want your informed opinion...why ask the question in the first place?
People might have benefitted from knowing important stuff about the plebiscite question like “What it meant”, “What the meanings of the terms used in the question were”, “What the consequences were of the various choices they could make”, and yes, the question could have been asked in a simple and straightforward way rather than the confusing and convoluted way it was.
But the Mayor said it was not the city's responsibility to inform the public about any of this if you could imagine.
I did see the Oshawa's LivCom visual presentation and while it highlighted the new arena, the new courthouse as an example of brownfields renewal, our creek valleys and bike paths, the second marsh, the lakefront, etc., they did not portray our embarrassing downtown, the pathetic South Simcoe Street main entrance to our city from the 401, the only Lake Ontario city not having a marina nor did they highlight the fact that city council has voted to make Oshawa the largest city in Canada and probably the world to have a general vote without the use of formal civic political parties which are at present prohibited in Ontario.
While the presentation did comment on some communication
"highlights", it failed to mention the fact that City Council continually voted to deny the public information they needed to make an informed and reasoned decision on the plebiscite question.
Oshawa's delegation's verbal presentation to the competition panel was extraordinarily ordinary at the same time as being extraordinarily deceitful in what it didn't mention. But the $30,000 citizen tax money was professionally creative in putting our best foot forward in the accompanying video...and provided the Mayor and staff delegation a well earned holiday in expensive London.
Oh what the Mayor will do to "serve" this city!
And we learned a lesson...the "secret" of success lies in what you don't say.
Now Oshawa...go and convince your friends and neighbours nation-wide that you live in one of the most livable communities in the world.
After all, Oshawa politicians and civic administration gloated far and wide in press releases to every conceivable publication and website about this event where it appears that everyone was a winner.
With all of the efforts at communicating this stuff nation-wide and preparing all of the documentation required for the event, it just makes you wonder how city council has civic administration staff spending their time. Perhaps our civic administration is overstaffed and needs these superfluous activities to keep itself busy!
The cruncher though...I think the $30,000 price tag for all of the time and effort, not to mention travel costs, is vastly understated and I intend to file a "Freedom of Information" request to expose the "real" costs of this folly including the cost of carbon offsets purchased by our delegation, they claimed to the judging panel, to offset environmental damage done by their air travel.
Initial investigations show that the conference was held at the Thistle Marble Arch Hotel in London where our delegation undoubtedly stayed. Rooms start at 139.23 pounds/night so a 7 day total for 3 rooms amounts to £2923.83 + any applicable taxes for a minimum cut into the $30,000 budget of $5,701.04 CAD. This is before competition entrance and delegate registration fees, air travel and meals for three, entertainment, tuxedo rentals, London city transportation, hospitality, tour costs (as a day was set aside for this!), etc...and all those professional writers, photographers, graphic designers, voice-over actors and printers who prepared all of the full colour documents, slideshows, and videos...and oh, almost forgot---those carbon offsets!
In the meantime Oshawa, have a wonderful holiday and a contented New Year as you contemplate your tax bills for the upcoming year. There may be more LivCom debacles and more travel junkets planned for the New Year.
My final assessment of this taxpayer expenditure? Indications were that there were few entrants, delegate presentations seemed to have been made privately to the judges with little public audience or other display of interest, that large cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc. did not enter, that potentially all entrants were shortlisted to the final--in short, the whole contest was about meaningless optics and possibly a "holiday abroad" at taxpayer expense for the delegations. I wonder whether a cost/benefit analysis was done on this extravagance?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
City Hall's New Year's Gift
to Oshawa Taxpayers
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Request to Canadian Civil Liberties Association to Assist in Preserving Democracy in Oshawa and Throughout Ontario
Mr. A. Borovoy,
General Counsel,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Good afternoon Sir:
I write you in regards to the first decree of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which is the protection of rights and freedoms fundamental to our democratic system.
The City of Oshawa of population approximately 160,000 has recently passed a bylaw to bring the “at large” or the “general vote” to the city for the election of its city council.
This will make the city the largest in Canada to use the general vote without the “formal” use of municipal political parties which are at present prohibited by the Ontario Municipal Elections Act.
This irresponsible, undemocratic, and self-serving action of Oshawa City Council cannot at present be appealed for review by any outside independent and objective body and Oshawa City Council took specific action to insure this.
The general vote in a city the size of Oshawa is completely unworkable without political parties as it excludes the possibility of informed voters which the Supreme Court has said is a necessity in a democracy and a basic right of Canadians.
The resulting city council will be less accountable, less inclusive, less representative, and less democratic and will give all city politicians constituencies about twice the size of those of our Federal and Provincial Members which is untenable for a local government that is supposed to be closest to the people.
Oshawa did hold a “non-binding” plebiscite on the issue but designed an extremely flawed plebiscite process with a gerrymandered question designed to confuse the people and solicit a response favored by the majority of council.
Oshawa’s Mayor stated publicly that City Council had no duty to inform the public prior to the plebiscite and thus voters were confronted in the voting booth seeing a question for the first time that they didn’t understand and had not previously considered. Even the “technical” terminology used in the question was never defined for the public.
What is worst the action of Oshawa City Council can be duplicated unilaterally by any irresponsible city council in Ontario without rebuke given the Ontario Municipal Act as it stands today.
I am writing you with the hopes that your organization might consider taking action on this important issue.
You can find considerable background information about the issue at www.oshawaspeaks.ca and I am personally available at the pleasure of you or your staff at any time to discuss any aspect of this issue in depth or provide any details that you might require.
We ask that one of the following actions be taken:
1) Oshawa’s General Vote Bylaw should be repealed, or,The involvement of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in this issue will apply influence and pressure on the powers that be to work to protect the basic premise of democracy--the “real” vote that allows the public to determine their political destiny. This is the basic “icon” of democracy and it is being undermined by Oshawa’s General Vote Bylaw and by the undemocratic process City Council followed in implementing it.
2) That this kind of governance question should be appealable to the OMB, or,
3) If Oshawa is allowed to implement the General Vote, that the Province institute appropriate legislation in terms of fundraising, election expenses reporting, formal party approval of its slate of candidates as a requirement of registering as a party candidate, and an indication of party affiliation on voting ballots, and,
4) Failing the introduction of legislation to allow the growth of municipal political parties, the Ontario Municipal Act be revised to ensure that Oshawa's irresponsible and undemocratic actions cannot be duplicated in any other Ontario Municipality without citizen appeal to an independent, uninvolved, and objective body like the OMB.
We believe that governments exist to serve the people and that it is a degradation of Canadian democratic ideals when politicians can shanghai the system for their own self-serving purposes.
I think we have to be ever-vigilant to protect against erosion of our democratic rights and freedoms.
We look forward to hearing from you soon regarding this important question and pray that your organization will provide assistance in the preservation of Canadian democracy and freedoms in Oshawa and potentially in the rest of Ontario.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bill Longworth calls on City Auditor to Investigate Council's Plebiscite Strategy
The video following is VOTES Chairman, Bill Longworth's, presentation to Oshawa City Council on November 26, 2007.
As the title suggests, Mr. Longworth was calling on Oshawa City Council to direct Oshawa's Auditor General to conduct an audit on City Hall's communication, information, and education efforts to prepare Oshawa voters for the General Vote Plebiscite.
In the video, Mr. Longworth makes mention of the Mayor's public comments that the city had no responsibility to communicate information to the public about the plebiscite question. This is amazing since Oshawa purportedly asked the question to get an informed opinion about the issue from Oshawa voters. How can you get an informed opinion if people do not understand the question and city council refuses to provide information to them.
The only information we have about why the question was asked was a news report of Councillor Pidwerbecki, the guy who loudly insisted the plebiscite was democratic you will recall, and well after the plebiscite was held gave a very poorly thought-out explanation to the press. His actual answers have been dramatically satirized in a video. His answers and council's whole plebiscite process was designed to "snow" the people to implement an electoral system that would be self-serving to incumbents to secure their political careers till their death or resignation.
If you thought that the political system was to serve the people...guess again---because Oshawa politicians led by Mayor Gray and Councillors Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Parkes, Henry, Sholdra, and Marimpietri have proven by their votes in support of the general vote that they believe it should serve them...be damned the people!
As we noted in an earlier post
Wording the question in terms of a "general vote" is a concept that most people would not understand since it was not defined anywhere and is not part of people's daily experience. While its meaning is as elementary to politicians as "galactosylceramide lipoidosis" or "zalcitabine" or "palmar fibromatosisis" is to medical doctors...the meaning is not easily understood unless you are in the field.And so how did Oshawa Council handle Bill's request? Just as expected! Page 584 on the Nov. 26, 2007 Council minutes shows...
How would you feel if your family doctor said you needed a Cholecystectomy and then offered you a choice of laparoscopic or open...and refused to define the terms and give you the advantages/disadvantages of each? Wouldn't you get rid of him? Even worse, what if he didn't even tell you about the surgery and just wheeled you in and did it?
This is similar to what the politicians did with the plebescite question. They refused to give you information and just wheeled you into the voting booth for your "X" on a weighted question...irresponsible, undemocratic, and unprincipled.
They deserve the same fate as a doctor who would refuse you required information. Get rid of them!
15. Bill Longworth - Request to address Committee to request that City Council direct Oshawa's Auditor General to perform an audit on how well the City of Oshawa carried out its responsibilities in informing the public concerning the plebiscite question during the 2006 Municipal ElectionNow isn't it amazing that they have referred FUTURE referendum questions to the Accountability and Transparency Committee to develop a framework. The last referendum that I recall was almost 25 years ago.
Recommendation (LOST AND REFERRED)
That Correspondence FA-07-198, dated October 19, 2007, from Bill Longworth requesting that City Council direct Oshawa's Auditor General to perform an audit on how well the City of Oshawa carried out its responsibilities in informing the public concerning the plebiscite question during the 2006 Municipal Election be received for information.
16. Referendum Questions
Recommendation (LOST)
That any future referendum questions be referred to the Accountability and Transparency Sub-Committee to develop a framework.
This is really sweeping the serious problem with the recent plebiscite under the rug.
These "OPTICS" of "ACTION" will not fool anyone!
Friday, December 7, 2007
Oshawa City Council "Hall of Shame"
We're going to institute a new feature on OshawaSpeaks.ca--Oshawa City Council "Hall of Shame". This will appear as a featured sidebar item like our "Best of" sidebar item and will be a perpetual watchdog for readers on the extravagance, waste, and failures of Oshawa City Council
While I realize that all councillors did not vote for those issues "making the list", I will attempt to identify those who did.
Some of the "Hall of Shame" stories have already been published on the blog and will appear as links to the stories. Other stories will be researched and written up in an ongoing way over the life of this council.
Those politicians supporting the "Hall of Shame" items will find their names linked to these issues as regularly as possible during the next election in our attempt to discredit and defeat those whom we feel are not positive contributors to Oshawa's long term health.
Some "Hall of Shame" stories we will be featuring in our growing list will be:
1. Oshawa City Council members, Mayor John Gray and Councillors Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Henry, Parkes, Sholdra, and Tito Dante Marimpietri all of whom voted to refuse to provide ratepayer information re the general vote and all of whom voted to take away local neighbourhood representation on Oshawa City Council.
2. Oshawa Council calls plebiscite question but refuses to inform public as Mayor Gray says its not Council's responsibility...this was up to private citizens despite Ontario Muncipal Elections Act roadblocks to third party campaigning.
3. Oshawa highest taxed jurisdiction in GTA yet mayor supports a further 9% increase.
4. Oshawa Bylaw Officers forced entry to UOIC student housing searching private quarters for student leasing documents.
5. City Council's misplaced communication priorities...it is absolutely wrong to spent big bucks on world contests like LIVCOM contests to communicate to the world when council refused to communicate important information to the Oshawa public on the plebiscite question.
Communication begins at home!
Why ask a plebiscite question when you refuse to tell the public what its about or to insure understanding and promote public debate about it?We are presently researching costs and other questions on the city's LIVCOM submission and will publish an article once we have established all of the necessary facts.
Early indications though are that there were few entrants, delegate presentations seemed to have been made privately to the judges without any public audience or other display of interest, that large cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc. did not enter, that potentially all entrants were shortlisted to the final--in short, the whole contest was about meaningless optics and possibly a "holiday abroad" at taxpayer expense for the delegations. I wonder whether a cost/benefit analysis was done on this extravagance?
6. Council's continual votes to deny public information on the plebiscite.
7. Introduction of the General Vote which reduces council accountability, reduces inclusiveness in Oshawa political life, and removes neighbourhood representation from council. The General Vote further isolates political leadership from the people of the city and is completely unworkable without municipal political parties which are not at present encouraged by Ontario Municipal Elections Law.
8. City Politician's total renumeration packages including untaxed Expense Accounts, Auto expense allowance and political honorariums for sitting on community committees alongside unpaid community volunteers, conference attendance costs, blackberry costs, entertainment/meal expenses, etc.--all details under investigation at present and freedom of information request(s) is/are being prepared. Some city politicians conferenced (partied?) in all of Calgary, Ottawa, and Europe at taxpayer expense over the summer months.
9. GM Place costs citizens half million dollars this year but you can bet your boots that Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment that manages the site did make money on the operation. What is total cost when city borrowing costs including PUC monies are included? This whole area is being explored...but you can bet that there is going to be a continual taxpayer cost going forward...and continual profits to the management group MLS&E (of which my pension group is the majority owner!. My pension plan, one of the best and most profitable in the world is much smarter than city politicians and only invests where their return is assured!--in this case without putting any up-front development monies into the mix.)
10. The Cullen Garden Miniatures purchase fiasco which from all reports looks like an inside job with potential politician conflicts of interest.
11. Some council getting confused on a partnership funding question for the VOTES group where they were confronted with a "plebiscite-like" convoluted question and got confused voting the wrong way.
That the 2007 Partnership Grant request from VOTES of $25,000 as outlined in Report ABCS-07-95 be denied as it does not meet all the criteria established within the Partnership Grant Policy.Realizing that they erred on a question similar to the plebiscite question that they insisted was so easy it wouldn't fool anyone, they voted against the committee/staff recommendation that VOTES be denied funding. In my books, this means that they had to support providing the funding to communicate plebiscite details to the public...but hey...council makes the rules and simply referred it back to committee so that they could bring it forth another time "so they could get it right!"
12. Plans to demolish and rebuild parts of city hall under the pretense that they need a "customer care" area...I bet that the public service area if they build one is miniscule but that political office space becomes gigantic...all at taxpayer cost purported to be about $12,300,000...but we'll believe this when we see the final figure. After all, our city politicians do need palatial spaces, don't they? And with the general vote, they'll all claim the need for bigger salaries, more staff and bigger budgets....you watch!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Request for An Audit on City's Plebiscite Information and Communication Efforts
Presentation to Oshawa City Council
Nov. 26, 2007
I am here tonight to request that you direct Oshawa’s Auditor General to conduct an audit on City Hall’s communication, information, and education efforts to prepare Oshawa voters for the General Vote Plebiscite question.
We think it important to establish if Oshawa measured up to the communication standards expected by the Supreme Court of Canada and Elections Ontario in its information campaign leading up to the General Vote Plebiscite
If you’re interested in good government for Oshawa, you’d jump at the chance to have an independent look at your whole plebiscite strategy….to see if the voters were fairly informed…to see whether the plebiscite result had any validity whatsoever….because purportedly you voted to adopt the general vote because of public opinion as expressed by the plebiscite result.
If the plebiscite result was not valid because people didn’t understand the question or what they were voting for, perhaps you should not have moved to the general vote.There seems to be a great disconnect between the expectations of the Supreme Court and Elections Ontario and public pronouncements from the Mayor that the city had no responsibility to inform the public, to define the terms used in the plebiscite question, to provide a rationale for the change, to explain why the question was asked since the question was not in response to any expressed public concerns about ward voting and to explain the ramifications of the change to Oshawa ratepayers.
While the supreme court says voter information is a basic right in a democracy, and the mandate of Ontario’s election commissioner leading up to the Provincial Plebiscite on Electoral Reform was
a) That voters receive clear and impartial information about the referendum processNone of this was done in Oshawa…the mayor said the city had no responsibility to communicate any of this to the voter…and Councillor Joe Kolodzie said he’d never heard of a government body providing information about a plebiscite question
b) To increase awareness of the referendum question
c) To educate voters about their choices
Are city politician's heads in the sand and they simply overlooked their communication responsibilities to insure an informed voter…or did they purposely and systematically design a system to keep the voter in the dark until they were confronted with the complex and confusing question for the first time in the voting booth not even knowing what was meant by a general vote or its ramifications.
A possible interpretation of General Vote to many voters is like a General Election where everyone votes in constituencies for their area representative. And this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation for someone unfamiliar with political terms. But it is the complete opposite of the meaning of the General Vote that people voted for. Unfortunately the meaning of the term "General Vote" was never communicated to the people.Interestingly, Oshawa’s Strategic Initiatives committee is presently discussing a report to establish a committee on how to receive more direct communication from the upper levels of government. Isn’t it hypocritical for a local government that refuses to communicate important information about a plebiscite question to voters to get their considered and valid opinion to complain itself about what they consider to be inadequate communication from senior levels of government?
Council is also establishing an accountability and transparency committee as required under Bill 130.
Isn’t it hypocritical also for council to establish an accountability committee when it has voted to introduce the less accountable general vote system to the city. And isn’t it hypocritical for council to establish anything having to do with transparency when it hid the plebiscite question and details about its implications from the public as best they could.
And isn’t it hypocritical when council publishes brochures on topics like downtown ethnic restaurants, walking paths, and the 60 page Infosource document complete with politician’s mug shots delivered as a re-election document by Canada Post to everyone’s doorstep only to land in their recycling bucket and then be collected and disposed of at taxpayer expense when they refuse to provide information about major electoral reform being proposed for Oshawa?The Mayor is not here tonight…he’s in England as part of Oshawa’s entry into the Livable Communities Contest…so isn’t it hypocritical to spend a reported (and no doubt seriously underestimated!) $30,000 to send the Mayor and an Oshawa delegation to England for a week for this Contest even hiring professional writers to prepare the submission when council repeatedly refused to provide plebiscite information to Oshawa voters?
And so I’m asking Council to direct Oshawa’s Auditor General to perform an independent and thorough audit on Oshawa’s plebiscite process and City Council’s efforts to inform and educate the public about the referendum process and question to establish with some certainty the validity of the plebiscite result…to see how well Oshawa City Council measured up to the information expectations of both Canada’s Supreme Court and Elections Ontario.
In the survey, I’m asking that:
a) The auditor compare Oshawa’s communication efforts with other Canadian Federal, Provincial and Municipal administrations that wanted to secure a measure of public opinion through the plebiscite process,I would ask that any audits commissioned on this issue be completely independent of city council, that reports and study design be completed without input or approvals of city politicians, and that the results be widely distributed to the public.
b) The auditor commission a survey of Supreme Court cases having to do with the availability of voter information leading up to elections,
c) The auditor commission questionnaires and surveys to establish the degree of voter knowledge about the plebiscite questions, its meanings and ramifications leading up to the vote,
d) The auditor commission independent and random surveys of Oshawa voters to establish ratepayer’s knowledge of the change and their degree of satisfaction with its ramifications,
e) Survey questions should include:
i) if respondents agree that they were fully and sufficiently aware of the details and ramifications of what they were being asked on the plebiscite question,
ii) if respondents agree with the removal of local or neighborhood ward representation,
iii) if respondents agree that they could make knowledgeable choices of the merits of up to 100 general vote candidates for different offices on an election ballot,
iv) if respondents agree that members of local council should have constituencies twice the size of those of their provincial and federal government representatives,
v) If respondents agree that governments have responsibility to inform the public of details and ramifications of questions they are being asked…or do they agree with mayor gray who says the city has no responsibility to inform and all of the efforts at communicating details of the city question should be left up to private citizens to fundraise and organize the information campaign
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A Dangerous Precedent for Ontario Voters
To the Mayor and Council,
c/o Oshawa City Clerk
You may be interested to know that the following Letter to the Editor has today been forwarded to 250 Ontario Newspapers and hopefully will receive wide circulation and exposure. As you can see, we are wanting to focus province-wide attention to the actions of Oshawa City Council to either bring legislative reform to enable a workable general vote for Oshawa or for the government to prohibit Oshawa's move if this is not the direction it intends for Ontario Municipal Elections.
As you know, a similar but expanded letter has already gone to the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Letter to the Editor
250 Ontario Newspapers (personally named and addressed)
A Dangerous Precedent for Ontario Voters
Ontario Bill 130 allows city councils across the Province to introduce city wide elections whereby the vote for every council seat would take place over the entire city as is the case for mayors at present.
Ontario Municipal Councils can make this change unilaterally and it cannot be appealed to the OMB or any other independent or senior body.
Oshawa City Council has voted for this change. At the next election, all candidates for Oshawa City Council will campaign for election across the entire city of 160,000 people.
This has a number of negative repercussions for Oshawa ratepayers and potentially for voters throughout Ontario where local politicians choose to implement the general vote.
In Oshawa, the huge election ballot will contain the names of up to 70 or 80 candidates for the various offices making informed voter choices virtually impossible. The city-wide constituencies of local politicians will be twice the size of our Federal and Provincial Constituencies making local politicians less accessible and accountable than our senior government members, and the high cost of campaigning will make city politicians less representative of the demographics of the city.
To overcome these and the many additional deficiencies of the general vote, the growth of civic political parties must be encouraged by changes to the Ontario Municipal Act and The Ontario Municipal Elections Act if the general vote is to be allowed in large municipalities in Ontario.
The formation of civic political parties would simplify the process of informing voters as candidates associated with the party would all adhere to a common platform and party affiliation and its platform would be the predominant factor attracting votes rather than the individual. The party would be accountable to the public in implementing its platform and its candidates would face electoral defeat for not doing so.
Barriers to municipal political parties presently exist in regards to fundraising limitations, election expenses reporting, registering of candidates, etc., and no provision is given for civic parties to formally and officially approve their associated candidates or the identification of candidate party affiliation on the election ballot which the Supreme Court has held as an essential aspect of voter’s rights to make informed and rational ballot choices under the Charter of Rights.
Such permissive legislation to allow for the formation of civic political parties exists in British Columbia's Local Governments Act to permit the use of the general vote in Vancouver, the only large city in the country, now along with Oshawa, to use the general vote.
While these changes would “Americanize” Ontario’s Municipal Elections System, there is no alternative if the Province is going to allow for use of the general vote in large Ontario Municipalities.
You can read more about this important issue at www.oshawaspeaks.ca.
Bill Longworth,
Founder & Chair of VOTES (Vote to Eliminate Self Serving Politicians)
www.oshawaspeaks.ca
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Legislative Changes Required to Make General Vote Workable
Hon. J. Gerretsen,
Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org
cc:
Hon. D. McGuinty,
Premier of Ontario
dmcguinty.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Jerry Oullette,
MPP Oshawa
jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org
Christine Elliot
MPP Whitby/Oshawa
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org
To the Mayor and Council
c/o Oshawa City Clerk
clerks@oshawa.ca
Local Press
Dear Hon. Minister:
Re:
Request changes to The Ontario Municipal Act and The Ontario Municipal Elections Act to allow for Municipal Political Parties to contest Municipal Elections
As you know, Bill 130 changes to the Municipal Act allowed Oshawa City Council to implement the general vote for the election of city council for the next municipal elections. While a plebiscite was held, the people were ill-informed as the Mayor stated that the city had no responsibility to inform them of the meaning of the question, its ramifications, or why the question was asked.
This has a number of negative repercussions for Oshawa ratepayers and potentially for voters throughout Ontario where local politicians choose to implement the general vote for municipal elections.
The huge number of candidates on the Oshawa Municipal Ballot will produce an enormous ballot listing up to 100 names for the various offices making it virtually impossible for voters to make informed choices.
Since informed voters are a basic requirement in a democracy, I am asking for legislative changes to The Ontario Municipal Act and The Ontario Municipal Elections Act to make the general vote “workable” and “democratic” for voters in Oshawa.
The only way to make the municipal general vote workable in a city the size of Oshawa is to allow for the organization of municipal political parties. While this would “Americanize” our municipal election systems mirroring their city elections which are largely organized around slates representing the Republican and Democratic Parties, there is no alternative for the Provincial Government if democracy is valued and the general vote is to be allowed or encouraged in Ontario Municipalities.
Such permissive legislation to allow for the formation of civic political parties exists in Sections 6, 7, & 8 of British Columbia's Local Governments Act to permit the use of the general vote in Vancouver, the only large city in the country, now along with Oshawa, to use the general vote.
The formation of civic political parties would simplify the process of informing voters as candidates associated with the party would all adhere to a common platform and party affiliation itself would be the predominant factor attracting votes rather than the individual or his/her name alphabetically positioned on the ballot.
As you know, barriers to the formation of civic political parties presently exist under The Ontario Municipal Act and Sections 29-39 and 66-82 of The Ontario Municipal Elections Act in regards to fundraising limitations, election expenses reporting, registering of candidates, etc., and no provision is given for civic parties to formally and officially approve their associated candidates or the identification of candidate party affiliation on the election ballot which the Supreme Court has held as an essential aspect of voter’s rights to make informed and rational ballot choices under the Charter of Rights.
Changes are necessary to allow for centralized party fundraising and spending at any time and not confined to election periods in order to allow for the development of public awareness of party objectives and platforms as well as for common election period expenses for party signage, brochures, advertising, etc. during election periods.
Should the Province be unwilling to introduce these legislative changes permitting and encouraging the development of Municipal Political Parties, I am asking that they declare Oshawa’s move to the general vote invalid as it severely jeopardizes the ideal of an “informed” vote necessary in a democracy.
You will understand, sir, that the basic premise of democratic politics is to serve the people…not the politicians. We cannot allow our city politicians to "Shanghai" the system for their own selfish purposes and benefits. We cannot allow our political system to become “self-serving” for the politicians.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Here's A Postage Stamp Oshawa...Politician's want you to write down all you know!
Oshawa politicians along with all Ontario Municipal Governments have been compelled by recent Bill 130 amendments to Provincial Legislation to appoint various officers by January 2008 to ensure the Accountability and Transparency of Municipal Councils.
You can request your own survey from city hall by clicking the highlighted text and requesting one. Due to the shortness of time, you can request the form be sent to your email and you can return it electronically.
Below is the city survey sent out to randomly selected citizens with some format changes to the form to facilitate this blog medium.
Accountability and Transparency Survey
Accountability and transparency are the cornerstones of good government.
The City wants to hear how well it is doing.
Please return this survey in the postage-paid envelope by November 30, 2007.
Oshawa City Council has created an Accountability and Transparency Subcommittee to respond to the Provincial Municipal Act requirements to establish an Accountability and Transparency Policy. The Accountability and Transparency Subcommittee is seeking your input.
Being accountable means that Oshawa City Council is clear in its actions, that its decision-making processes are understandable, that it is accessible to the citizens it represents and, finally, it is responsible for its decisions.
Being transparent requires that the City actively encourages and fosters public participation, ensures adequate communication on issues and that the City’s decision making process is accessible and understandable by you.
By providing your opinions on the City’s level of accountability and transparency, you will help to support a process that seeks to continuously improve the way our City responds to your needs.
The form following is my submission to the questions asked!
A. For each question below, please indicate your level of agreement in the brackets following the statement. Strongly Agree=1, Agree=2, Neither Agree or Disagree=3, Disagree=4, Strongly Disagree=5, No Opinion=6.
1. I am knowledgeable about city processes used to make decisions. (1)
2. I understand the processes used by the City to make decisions. (1)
3. I feel the City’s decision-making processes are transparent. (5)
4. I am able to contact City Council to express my opinions. (2)
5. I am able to contact City administrators for information. (2)
6. I feel City Council accepts responsibility for its decisions. (4)
7. I feel City administrators accept responsibility for their actions. (2)
8. I feel the City adequately communicates information to its residents through:
a) City Page in Oshawa This Week ---(5)
I feel that Oshawa's $10,000 monthly advertisng bill to Oshawa This Week strongly influences their news coverage of city hall activities. Instead, city hall should advertise in the Canadian Tire Advertising supplement that accompanies the Friday paper. Further the minimal news of perhaps 2 or 3 major and 10-12 minor stories is lost in the reams of paid advertising flyers all of which have to be collected up and disposed of at taxpayer expense. This pickup cost should be borne by the paper itself.b) Inside Oshawa (annual report to citizens)---(5)
I feel this is ill spent taxpayer money. Why should city council expend significant monies this way to prepare and distribute these huge flyers, and others similar to them, complete with politician's messages and mugshots when they constantly refused to distribute information about the plebiscite question on the recent municipal election ballot.c) Bill inserts---(5)
This was truly an important issue for taxpayers and yet the mayor said it was not council's responsibility to inform the people. He said it was up to taxpayers themselves to fundraise, produce, and distribute any such information even though The Municipal Elections Act erects significant roadblocks to such third party campaigning.
If plebiscite information was not important to get out to the public to insure voters understood the question and knew the consequences of their votes...no information is.
The Supreme Court says citizens have a basic right to know such information but council refused to provide it....SHAME!
If bills are going to be sent out anyway, this is the time to include information for ratepayers. The Mayor's mugshot and message along with those of city council members should be sent out with the municipal tax bills.d) Public meetings---(5)
And while I'm at it, why should taxpayers fund expensive ads for politicians at special days like Remembrance Day, Christmas, etc., and every possible opportunity known to man. (Check pg. 6 & 10 at link) I was sickened to see the number of such taxpayer funded political advertising appearing in every publication conceivable around Oshawa this past Nov. 11. If politicians feel this kind of advertising is necessary, let them pay for it out of their own pocket.
These are suspect in terms of influencing political decisions. In terms of the Sikorski Hall public meeting to hear citizen concerns, city council voted not to produce and deliver information about the topic to Oshawa households and the flyer sent informing of the meeting was of such low quality that it looked like a typed and mimeographed flyer...hardly the quality that Oshawa City Hall produces on such topics as "Downtown Ethnic Restaurants", "Oshawa's Walking Paths", "Pesticide Use in Oshawa," 60 page Infosource, and a myriad of other high quality, professionally designed and printed, and colourful brochures they waste taxpayer money on.e) Other, please specify (5)
At the public meeting cited, politician's minds were already made up on the topic. They subsequently made a decision to adopt the general vote even though they had no access to letters solicited from the public or indeed the minutes of the Sikorski Hall Meeting. Indeed, Councillor Nester Pidwerbecki gloated to me that the general vote was a "done deal" in mid January long before the public meeting. Councillor's minds were made up on this issue when the last council framed the plebiscite question and designed the "KEEP EM IN THE DARK" strategy....Democracy--Be damned!
There also is no way to objectively measure public sentiments at these meetings if the Sikorski Hall Meeting was representative of these. While speakers favouring ward elections slightly outnumbered those favouring the general vote, the quality of input was not even close. The weight of reasoned opinion was clearly on the side of ward voting. Many speakers favouring ward elections gave well thought out, learned, thoughtful, and academic presentations while those favoring the general vote, all of whom seemed to be politically ambitious CAW retirees, simply argued that the plebiscite result should be upheld without acknowledging how flawed the process was when voters were denied the necessary information to inform them of the meaning and consequences of the question.
Then and now, the public meeting seemed to be all about "OPTICS" and not about genuinely seeking public input or opinion.
The Mayor has also tried to explain the convoluted and difficult plebiscite question in terms of a requirement to “be worded in the affirmative”. This is absolutely wrong. Either the Mayor is unaware of election law or he is deliberately misleading the people. Section 8.1(2.4) of the Municipal Elections Act clearly states that the question shall be capable of being answered in the affirmative or the negative and the only permitted answers to the question are “yes” or “no”.There is a profound disconnect between the "pretty words" that council uses to describe its communication, transparency, and accountability objectives to the public and its actual practice.
City Council is being profoundly hypocritical to show any concern for good communication, transparency, and accountable in light of their refusal to inform citizens about the plebiscite details as well as many other issues affecting our city.
In summary, good communications starts with honest and forthright attempts to do so. City politicians have failed miserably at the task and no public optics exercise like this one is going to change their practice.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Violated UOIT/Durham College Students must act to Protect the Freedoms of Canadians
This effort was important in bringing accountable and representative government to our city and the change was important in bringing vibrant progress to this city and a breed of politician whose electoral success was dependent upon serving the needs of people.
The first ward elections turfed half of the council out of office because ward elections require politicians to work to solve constituency problems and are accountable to voters to do this. General vote politicians got turfed out because they concentrated only on promoting their name since that was the name of the game in getting elected.
Today, I am addressing another injustice in Oshawa…the recent searches through UOIT/Durham College student housing to find leasing documents.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
1) Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. (Part 1, s8)Despite Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the articles cited above, City officials with police and locksmith in tow entered student residences to find evidence to charge property owners with bylaw infractions. In so doing, they subjected students to unreasonable search and seizure contrary to protections guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the basic Constitutional Law of the country.
2) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (Part 1, s24 (1))
3) Where, in proceedings under subsection 24 (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.(Part 1 s24 (2))
The above sections of Canada's constitution clearly state that those whose basic Canadian rights were violated can seek recourse through the courts and in this article, I am counselling those students affected to do just that. I am counselling them to seek legal recourse to protect their rights and those of their fellow Canadians and am working to distribute this information to UOIT/Durham College students. Interested readers should read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association statements regarding citizens right's of privacy.
Students affected need simply file a complaint at the closest police station or to a police officer dispatched to their home that their rights of unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated by the City of Oshawa who took unreasonable actions against student privacy when in fact the action should have taken place against the property owners whom the city felt were skirting city bylaws and whom they wanted to hold to account.
Only the police can lay the charge, but they need a "complaint" in order to begin their investigation. Once the case has been investigated, a charge, if warranted, is laid against the offenders, and then the case is passed to the Crown Attorney to prosecute the case which is the first stage in the students getting retribution for the offence.
Offended students can seek this legal recourse without cost and legal awards may very well pay the bulk of their tuitions and other educational and housing expenses.
City politicians must learn that they cannot take advantage of the vulnerable…that they cannot simply run over ratepayers and citizens as they have done with the ward/general vote issue.
Had the politicians been properly advised, they would have known that Section 24 (2) of the charter prohibits any evidence seized through these unreasonable searches from being used in a court of law to prosecute infringements of city bylaws in any case and so the action by the city supported by the mayor and politicians was singularly and unbelievably ludicrous in this country, an affront to the rights and freedoms of Oshawa residents as delineated in the Charter, a public relations disaster, and no doubt made our city council once again the laughing stock of the nation.
The problem becomes even more outrageous when one realizes that the city itself was party to the infringements that they are now trying to reel in through renovation approvals they gave throughout the building process.
Affected students should review the following of many “Unreasonable Search and Seizure” Supreme Court Cases of a much more serious nature than having rental housing arrangements that were problematic for the city and indeed decide to take police and legal action against the unjustified invasion of their privacy.
1) A school vice principal detained and searched a student in presence of police officer and confiscated drugs…found to be illegal search and seizureWe have cited a variety of search and seizure complaints all of which were upheld by the Supreme Court and all of which would seem to be far more serious than city bylaw infractions and the attempt by the city to find and seize housing rental documents in order to prosecute owners of rental units.
2) Police installed tracking device in car of suspected murderer…less intrusive search in car than in home but still found to be too intrusive..Supreme Court found evidence obtained through tracking device inadmissible in court
3) Investigation and Enforcement Officer of the Ministry of Environment compelled Inco employees to submit to questioning and to produce documents and other materials related to dumping of chemicals and other materials into waterway. The Supreme Court found the Enforcement Officer in an abuse of process as he had no statutory authority to compel Inco employees to submit to questioning or to produce documents related to the issue in question.
4) Police attended at a residence at 4:00 a.m. and executed a search warrant as part of an investigation for possession of a firearm and stolen property.
Six police officers entered the suspect's residence, two of whom had guns drawn. The firearm was subsequently found to be permitted and registered to the plaintiff. The court found that the police violated the plaintiff’s rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter as the circumstances did not justify a night search of a private dwelling, the degree of force used was unreasonable, the investigation of the firearm registration was careless, and police seized numerous items outside the scope of the search warrant. Compensatory damages in excess of $3000 were awarded to the complaintant.
RCMP spokesmen described the whole search and seizure investigation process acceptable under Canada’s constitution at a recent international crime symposium.
Like our fight to retain ward voting for Oshawa which serves people and the city best, we have a responsibility to future generations to be ever vigilant to protect our liberties to ensure that our country remains the best and free-est in the world.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Bill Longworth's Request for an Audit on City Council's efforts to prepare voters for the plebiscite question
"I am here this morning to request City Council to direct Oshawa's Auditor General to perform an audit on City Hall’s communication, information, and education efforts to properly prepare Oshawa voters for the General Vote Plebiscite question.
In a democracy, the result of a vote is valid only if it comes from an informed electorate. Thus voter information about the plebiscite question prior to voting is the only input that could validate the plebiscite result.
In this country, we have access to information legislation protecting citizen's right to "know". In the face of this "right" protected by law, how could Oshawa politicians withhold important voter information about the general vote plebiscite--Why the question was asked when no disatisfaction with ward voting was ever expressed; What was meant by the term "general vote"; What the consequences of the general vote were to the city; Why were satisfactory attempts not made to ensure voters understood the question; Why did council refused to circulate information brochures to the public on the issue, etc., etc., etc.
We think it important to establish if Oshawa measured up to the communication standards expected by the Supreme Court of Canada, Elections Ontario, Elections Canada, and Access to Information Legislation in its awareness campaign leading up to the General Vote Plebiscite.
There seems to be a great disconnect between the expectations of these bodies and public pronouncements from the Mayor that the city had no responsibility to inform the public, to define the terms used in the plebiscite question, to provide a rationale for the change, to explain why the question was asked since the question was not in response to any expressed public concerns about ward voting and to explain the ramifications of the change to Oshawa ratepayers.
The mayor insisted it was the public's responsibility to fundraise and organize public awareness campaigns despite the fact that Section 39 of the Municipal Elections Act places significant legislative restraints in the Municipal Elections Act against such "third party" campaigns. Such groups have to register with the clerk, can fundraise only after such registration and continuing up to the voting day, and are subject to the same spending limits and reporting requirements as candidates
While the supreme court says voter information is a basic right in a democracy, and the mandate of Ontario’s election commissioner leading up to the Provincial Plebiscite on Electoral Reform was:
a) To insure that voters receive clear and impartial information about the referendum process;None of this was done in Oshawa…the Mayor said the city had no responsibility to communicate any of this to the voter. Councillor Joe Kolodzie said he’d never heard of a government body providing information about a plebiscite question.
b) To increase awareness of the referendum question; and,
c) To educate voters about their choices.
Along with Mayor Gray and Councillor Kolodzie, Councillors Sholdra, Pidwerbecki, Parkes, Marimpietri, and Henry consistently voted against providing any information to the public. Obviously, they didn't respect Oshawa voters enough to provide the information.
Are city politicians heads in the sand so they simply overlooked their communication responsibilities to insure an informed voter…or did they purposely and systematically design a system to keep the voter in the dark until they were confronted with the complex and confusing question for the first time in the voting booth not knowing even what was meant by a general vote or its ramifications.
In either case, those who voted to deny voter information are unfit to govern.
At the very least, Oshawa politicians should have insured that voters were aware of what was meant by the general vote. A likely interpretation of the general vote to many voters is like a general election where everyone votes in constituencies for their area representative. And this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation for someone unfamiliar with political terms.
Interestingly, Oshawa’s Strategic Initiatives committee is presently establishing a committee to study how City Council can receive more direct communication from the upper levels of government. Isn’t it hypocritical for a local government that refuses to communicate important information about a plebiscite question to voters to get their considered and valid opinion itself to complain about what they consider to be inadequate communication from senior levels of government?
Council is also establishing an accountability and transparency committee as required under Bill 130.
Isn’t it hypocritical also for council to establish an accountability committee when it has voted to introduce the less accountable general vote system to the city. And isn’t it hypocritical for council to establish anything having to do with transparency when it hid the plebiscite question and details about its implications from the public as best they could.
And isn’t it hypocritical when council publishes brochures on topics like downtown ethnic restaurants, walking paths, and the 60 page Infosource document complete with politician’s mug shots delivered as a re-election document by Canada Post to everyone’s doorstep only to land in their recycling bucket and then be collected and disposed of at taxpayer expense when they refuse to provide information about major electoral reform being proposed for Oshawa?
And so I’m asking council to direct Oshawa’s Auditor General to perform an independent and thorough audit on Oshawa’s plebiscite process and City Council’s efforts to inform and educate the public about the referendum process and question to establish with some certainty the validity of the plebiscite result…to see how well Oshawa City Council measured up to the information expectations of both Canada’s Supreme Court and Elections Ontario.
In the survey, I’m asking that:
a) The auditor compare Oshawa’s communication efforts with other Canadian Federal, Provincial and Municipal administrations that wanted to secure a measure of public opinion through the plebiscite process,
b) The auditor commission a survey of Supreme Court cases having to do with the availability of voter information leading up to elections,
c) The auditor commission questionnaires and surveys to establish the degree of voter knowledge about the plebiscite questions, its meanings and ramifications leading up to the vote,
d) The auditor commission independent and random surveys of Oshawa voters to establish ratepayer’s knowledge of the change and their degree of satisfaction with its ramifications,
e) Survey questions should include:
I would ask that any audits commissioned on this issue be completely independent of city council, that reports and study design be completed without input or approvals of city politicians, and that the results be widely distributed to the public."i) if respondents agree that they were fully and sufficiently aware of the details and ramifications of what they were being asked on the plebiscite question,
ii) if respondents agree with the removal of local or neighborhood ward representation,
iii) if respondents agree that they could make knowledgeable choices of the merits of up to 100 general vote candidates for different offices on an election ballot,
iv) if respondents agree that members of local council should have constituencies twice the size of those of their provincial and federal government representatives
v) If respondents agree that governments have responsibility to inform the public of details and ramifications of questions they are being asked…or do they agree with mayor gray who says the city has no responsibility to inform and all of the efforts at communicating details of the city question should be left up to private citizens to fundraise and organize the information campaign
And so what was the result of this suggestion? It was the expected. No action! The committee recommendation is to receive and file this request. They don't want any study of their undemocratic, irresponsible, and self-serving actions that cannot be supported on any rational grounds whatsoever. So I will be making the same request of the full council at their November 26th meeting.
I am predicting that the recalcitrant intractable and obstinate
seven---Mayor Gray and Councillors Sholdra, Pidwerbecki, Parkes, Mariempietri, Kolodzie, and Henry will vote against any objective study of the sense of their decision to move to the general vote while such a study will probably be favoured by Councillors Lutcyk, Neal, Cullen, and Nicholson.
So you ask why would I continue to knock my head against the wall when I can predict the result with a high degree of certainty?
I have to document and exhaust as many lines of potential positive action as I can and every roadblock I reach is mounting evidence of council's resistance towards any reasoned and responsible action. All of this will be useful as pleas for democracy escalate to higher external authorities with Canada's Supreme Court at the pinnacle.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Protecting the Ideals of Remembrance Day
A WWII veteran recounts his war experience describing first hand observations of his war experiences...the sights, the sounds, the smells, the terror, and the raw emotions of war. And what it was like to see your comrades fall beside you.
Throughout our nation, we have to protect the spirit of what our heroes were trying to preserve for the world.
And maybe these efforts and sacrifices were all for nought in Oshawa.
Our soldiers were fighting to liberate the people and preserve their freedoms...and in the free world the meaningful vote that has power to determine political leadership is the icon of all of this.
The "real" and "meaningful" vote is the very essence of a democracy.
And on this Remembrance Day, not only should we remember our heroes, but we should remember what they were fighting for--the democratic vote that determines political destiny.
Unfortunately, with Oshawa City Council's return to the General Vote, we will lose all of this.
Oshawa's history with the General Vote demonstrates that politicians could not be defeated so voting was an exercise in futility. And like non-democratic systems everywhere, all political power became centralized to a few...and in Oshawa under the General Vote, all political power became centralized in a few of the richer areas leaving vast areas of the city unrepresented, disenfranchised...and forgotten!
The devastating and un-Canadian effects of the General Vote in Oshawa cited above is not speculation. It is Oshawa's history!
Let us not forget this plea, "If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flander's Fields."
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Cullen Garden Miniatures Fiasco Raises Important Questions & Some Ethical If Not Legal Issues!
At this time when council is trying to keep our tax increases below 9%, the tax money they blew on the miniatures purchase seems like a spending rounder of a drunken sailor. It has every appearance of being an inside job.
Without any idea of what they would do with them, council voted to spend $234,000 of our hard earned tax dollars on the 182 unit collection of the Cullen Gardens miniature buildings. This comes out to an average price for the "dollhouse" buildings at $1285 each.
Of course to make the purchase far more palatable to the politicians, Oshawa City Council were given an appraised value of the collection at $678,000. So at $234,000 the price seems like a great bargain.
Only problem was, the appraisal was provided by a Cullen Gardens insider; the guy who designed, built, and managed the collection for Cullen Gardens.
I guess you could tell this Oshawa Council gang anything and they would believe it. Hopefully they are more astute shoppers with their own money.
But that's not the end of the story. They bought the stuff in a "private meeting" without any public knowledge or information about the potential purchase.
Remarkably they were prepared to spend another $120,000 for restoration and an additional $2,400,000 to develop a site to house them---Only trouble is: What were they going to do with them? Where they going to put them?
Council's first idea for a site was Lakeview Park where they would probably last a week before destruction, and then they suggested Camp Samac where the public has been barred for the last number of years due to liability concerns. Other sites considered were the Oshawa Valley Botanical Gardens and the Oshawa airport south field.
For a council that wants to limit its responsibility to do important things like informing the public about the plebiscite question on Oshawa's move to the general vote, why do they want to get into the business of developing tourist attractions. Even Whitby which had housed the miniatures for years refused to cough up the bait to buy the collection.
The whole charade stopped when council debated spending an additional $50,000 to hire a consultant to prepare a plan. Maybe they had in mind hiring the Cullen Gardens "insider" who had built and then appraised the things for valuation purposes.
The result? Oshawa will now try to sell the things.
I wonder how much they will get for them. I think it is doubtful that they would get $1000 for the Parkwood miniature which the insider said cost $22,000 to build and is now appraised at $17,600, requires $3,400 in repairs, and we are told has a replacement cost of $29,000. Amazingly, the $22,000 build cost is about the same build cost as my full size home in Beau Valley which in all probability was built about the same time.
Even if they are given away at a !00% loss of taxpayer's $234,000, this is still a blessing to Oshawa since, according to Mayor John Gray, who supported the miniatures purchase in the first place, $4,000,000 has to be carved out of the budget to keep our tax increase to 4%. Even throwing these miniatures in the dumpster will provide a savings of close to $3,000,000 of that in budgeted development costs. I guess Mayor Gray earlier thought that a 9% increase was justified if we could keep the Cullen Garden miniatures.
The real question? One city councillor, who from all press coverage took a leading role as an advocate of the purchase by the city admitted in the October 2nd meeting of Council's "Finance and Administration Committee", according to a Letter to the Editor published in the October 24th issue of Oshawa Express, that her company did consulting work on behalf of Cullen Gardens and the Cullen Family.
One might legitimately ask the question then whether this councillor had a conflict of interest as a protector, defender, custodian, and guardian of taxpayer's money and her role as an advocate and consultant for the Cullen Family.
If she indeed had a conflict in her role as city counsellor and with her business relationship with the Cullen family, did she declare it on occasions when the issue of the Cullen miniatures was discussed and excuse herself from all discussions on the purchase?
Press reports indicate that she took a leading role in the discussions.
If the councillor had a conflict of interest, what is the responsibility of other councillors and the city to take action to report on the situation and seek corrective action?
Something indeed may be rotten in the State of Denmark!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Hitler, Mussolini, & Mao had centralized control too!!!
They built their power by controlling what the people could think, say, and know.
They instituted this control first through a series of perks, privileges, and power they dispensed to government members and finally extended it to the citizenry as they instituted thought control throughout their nations.
We cannot allow this to happen in Oshawa!
But thought control and information restraints are already upon us.
First city council conspired together under the mayor's leadership to withhold plebiscite information from the people. Along with a gerrymandered and convoluted plebiscite question designed to manipulate plebiscite results, city council has returned the general vote to Oshawa.
While this system limits democracy and accountable politics in Oshawa, it does serve the politicians by assuring their council seats until their death or resignation.
It does nothing to serve the people or the city. If the general vote was better in serving the city, wouldn't it be used widely? Instead, Oshawa will be the largest city in the country using it without political parties which, with the exception of Vancouver, are not used in Canada.
In terms of the plebiscite, Mayor John Gray said it was not the city's responsibility to inform the citizens about details of the plebisicite question, why it was being asked, what the general vote meant for the people, why the general vote was better, or indeed even to insure that the people understood the question they were being asked by City Council. He said all of this was up to the citizens themselves. He said interested citizens had to fundraise and organize the communication plan themselves to inform the public. Does this sound sensible or democratic to you?
Under Mayor John Gray's leadership, city council refused citizen appeals to communicate plebiscite details to the public and when they refused to do so, turned down citizen requests for city funding to carry out the communication job that city council refused to do.
And now Mayor John Gray wants to muzzle city council. He wants to limit what city council members can say to the press and wants such communications to be submitted to his office for prior approval.
These "muzzles" on city politicians will effectively put "blinders" on the people.
But all of this is an attempt to further centralize all of the municipal political power in this city and keep the people in the dark.
So how is this much different than Hitler, Mussolini and Mao?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Request for Audit on City Council's Plebiscite Efforts
c/o City Clerk,
Oshawa City Hall
Cc:
Hon. D. McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Hon J. Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Members, Oshawa City Council
Local News Media
Canada’s Supreme Court says that information for voters is a basic right in a democracy, and Elections Ontario guarantees the democratic voting rights of all Ontarians.
John Hollins, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario, states in regard to the recent Provincial Electoral Reform Plebiscite, “Our mandate, as defined by law, is to ensure that Ontario voters receive clear and impartial information about the referendum process, the date of the referendum, the referendum question and the content of the choices in the referendum,” and, he continues, “Our focus over the remaining days leading up to the referendum is continuing to increase awareness of the referendum question and educating voters about their choices.
With the priorities placed on an informed voting public by both the Supreme Court and by Elections Ontario, I am requesting that Oshawa’s Auditor General be directed by City Council to perform an audit on how well the City of Oshawa measured up to these ideals.
The auditor general should include a comparison of Oshawa’s efforts with those of other civic and provincial jurisdictions that included recent plebiscites on their election ballots.
In addition, the auditor should commission a survey of Supreme Court cases having to do with the requirement for voter information leading up to elections and the Supreme Court rulings in this regard.
Further an independent polling service should be commissioned to establish the knowledge Oshawa voters had of the plebiscite question prior to voting.
The poll should have enough random respondents in all parts of the city to reach the 95% confidence level and should ask Oshawa residents:
1) If they agree with the removal of local ward representatives elected by their communities;I would ask that any audits commissioned on this issue be completely independent of city council, that reports and study design be completed without input or approvals of city politicians, and the results be distributed widely to the public.
2) If they agree that they could become knowledgeable enough of up to 100 candidates for election on a general vote ballot in order to make an informed choice;
3) Whether citizens were aware prior to voting that a plebiscite question was to appear on the election ballot;
4) If citizens agree that they were fully and sufficiently aware of the details and ramifications of the what they were asked on the plebiscite;
5) Whether informing the voters of details and ramifications of a city plebiscite is the responsibility of the city or of private citizens who must personally finance an information campaign; (This question is especially important because Mayor Gray says it’s not the city responsibility to inform the public…it’s up to the public themselves to fundraise and organize an information campaign, and Councillor Kolodzie who states he’s never heard of a government providing information about a plebiscite question!—this film clip is under preparation!)
6) Any other questions a professional polling organization deems useful given their expertise in the area of political and public opinion polling.
I understand that I must first propose this audit to a committee of council and await details of when I can make this presentation.
Bill Longworth
Chair and Founder
VOTES (Vote To Eliminate Self-serving Politicians)
Friday, October 19, 2007
Is the Vote a Joke in Oshawa?
Many people in the world would give their life for a democratic vote to have a voice in their political destiny…and you only have to read the news to know that many are doing so daily to win the privilege. Still others are giving their lives to help bring the democratic vote to places that don’t have it.
The vote is a serious matter and we have to take the whole process seriously. No one expects you to vote randomly picking and choosing without the necessary background information on any vote in question.
Random voting would be considered irresponsible as would not being informed about the vote you were about to cast.
Candidates and parties (in the case of Provincial and Federal Elections) campaign by informing voters of their beliefs and viewpoints on the various issues of the day. Similarly, when governments seek public opinion by way of plebiscite, they have a responsibility to provide background information for voters.
The only valid vote is one cast by a knowledgeable voter. Everyone knows this. So if a government is seeking public opinion on an issue, they know they must provide background information on the issue and promote public dialogue, debate, and discussion.
If they're not serious about getting an honest measure of public opinion, then they don't provide the information. They try to keep the issue as quiet as possible. They may even gerrymander a complex question to skew results in a way they favour. All of this was the case in Oshawa when they had a plebiscite about electoral change on the ballot.
Because city hall was not interested in getting a valid plebiscite result, they didn't provide any information for voters.
Democracy depends upon an informed voter and cannot function without it. Indeed Canada’s Supreme Court says voter information is a basic right.
So what do you think of a government in Canada that refuses to provide information to the voter…a government that didn’t want their citizens to know anything about a question they were asking their citizens...a government that treats the vote as a joke. I’d suggest you’d think this was impossible in Canada.
But you haven’t heard of Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
Oshawa’s local government wanted to seek citizen opinion about a potential change to its electoral system…but refused to provide any background information about the question. They said giving information to voters was not their responsibility. Indeed Oshawa's Mayor publicly stated this. Unbelieveable!
So if you were a council member and a motion was made “that staff be directed to prepare an information brochure on the pros and cons of the ward system vs central vote methods of election and that a copy of the brochure be circulated to each household in the City of Oshawa prior to any public meeting on this issue,” how would you vote on this question?
Does it seem reasonable that council would defeat such a reasonable motion?
Well you are not aware of Oshawa.
Watch this film clip and “Prepare to be Amazed!”
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
VOTES files complaint with Ontario Ombudsman
COMPLAINT FORM
All fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required
________________________________________
*First Name: Bill
*Last Name: Longworth
Rest of Contact information removed!
The Ombudsman Office hours of work are Monday to Friday, 9:00am-4:30pm (EST). Please indicate the best method and time to contact you for information:
Any time
1. What government body is your question or complaint about? (please identify by name)
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing---Insufficient oversight and supervision of irresponsible and undemocratic actions of Oshawa City Council
2. Who have you dealt with in this organization with respect to your complaint?
Hon. J. Gerretsen, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Hon. D. McGuinty, Premier of the Province of Ontario
3. Please summarize the matter you are complaining about and include any relevant dates.
City of Oshawa's Bylaw to move to a general vote for the election of Municipal Council. In this city of 160,000 people, the impossible election ballot will contain upwards of 100 candidates and give members of council constituency sizes twice the size of our Provincial and Federal Government members.
Officials of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing have been quoted as saying that the maximum size of a municipality for a general vote is about 20,000—about the size of Oshawa’s present wards. At 160,000 population, Oshawa will be 8 times larger than the maximum general vote size suggested by the Ministry.
Changes to Provincial Legislation give municipalities authority to determine their own governance but insufficient provincial guidelines are provided to municipalities to insure adequate public communication including rationale for the proposed change, definitions of terms used in referendum questions, levels and quality of information to promote understanding and public debate to insure that citizens are adequately prepared for informed plebiscite voting.
An informed public is a requirement in a democracy and a basic right of voters according to both Canada's Supreme Court and Elections Ontario.
In Oshawa's case, city council introduced a plebiscite question in terms of Oshawa’s governance and then acted irresponsibly in providing no information, stimulating no public debate, and gave no rationale for the plebiscite.
In view of the fact that no dissatisfaction was ever expressed with the existent ward voting system, voters are entitled to know why the question was asked.
All of the suggestion and initiative for abandoning ward voting in favour of the general vote came from the politicians who then tried to keep it a non-issue.
They then designed a referendum question to skew the vote to the result they favoured.
The mayor publicly supported city council's “secret” strategy by saying city council had no responsibility to inform the public.
Because of the way the issue arose from council, the "secret" strategy they followed to catch voters "cold" in the voting booth and the convoluted question in which they were required to vote "NO" to preserve their existent system, we must assume that the change is self-serving to councillors...they want a system that serves them rather than the people they are supposed to serve.
Oshawa City Council’s actions are an affront to democracy and because of the severely flawed process I feel that the Provincial Government should step in and postpone Oshawa's moves to the general vote until after the next election and only then after calling another referendum after satisfying the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they have a plan to sufficiently inform the public and promoted public debate about the change.
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Oshawa's local government that is supposed to be closest to the people has councillor constituency sizes twice the size of our Provincial and Federal government members.
There is no appeal process for Oshawa Council's action because their bylaw changing to the general vote includes retaining the present ward boundaries. These wards will not be used but have only been retained to avoid an appeal to the OMB.
Because wards are associated with ward voting in Ontario, and Oshawa is moving to the general vote, for all practical purposes they are effectively reducing all of our presently defined wards to one for voting purposes.
This practical change to one ward for voting purposes should be appealable to the OMB.
4. Summarize what steps you have taken to try and resolve your complaint including any grievance, appeals and/or requests for reconsideration you have submitted and what response you received.
1. Letters to city council committee in charge of the referendum strategy to provide information flyers to all households giving:
a) the rationale for change,
b) consequences of the change,
c) benefits to accrue from the change.
2. Addresses to council
a) problems with the change,
b) shortcomings of the referendum process,
c) requests for funds to have a brochure independently prepared and distributed to do the communication job that council refused to do.
3. Numerous letters to the Mayor and Council
4. Letters to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier
5. A website oshawaspeaks.ca
5. If you have received a final decision on an appeal or request for review or reconsideration of your complaint, please indicate what the result was and why you feel this was unfair.
Council has approved a bylaw to move to a general vote despite considerable objection in the community and receiving inordinate amounts of public comment and letters that the plebiscite question was confusing, not understood, and that after many exclamations by voters who felt they had voted the wrong way.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is taking no apparent action.
6. Describe the result or outcome which you would like to see for the matter you are complaining about.
1. Oshawa's general vote bylaw declared invalid because of a severely and purposefully flawed process and an "engineered" plebiscite question tailored to skew results the way council wanted.
Oshawa city council should be told that if they feel the general vote is best for Oshawa that they should have another plebiscite question on the issue at the next election but only after they have satisfied the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they have provided sufficient information and promoted public debate.
2. The Municipal Act revised to insure that sufficient communication is provided and debate is promoted prior to any plebiscite on municipal governance systems.
7. If you consider the matter urgent, please explain why.
City Council's self-serving manipulation of the people is fostering a loss of confidence in this council to the point where they will be rendered ineffective in providing adequate government for this city.
Oshawa will be the largest city in the country using the general vote without political parties and it will be undemocratic to have an impossible general vote ballot approaching 100 candidates.
I believe that those drafting legislative changes to the Municipal Act did not foresee the shortcomings of the changes in terms of the potential of allowing an irresponsible council to introduce governance changes to make local government far less accountable to the people, far less representative of the demographics of the city, and that a city the size of Oshawa at 160,000 would pick up on these shortcomings to reduce democracy and take city government further from the people that our Provincial and Federal Government Members.