Oshawa's New City CenterCan't City Council Do Anything Right?

>
City Council irresponsibly destroyed these---

To give us this $17 million
Aluminum "Beer Can"
as the focal point of our City Square
surrounded by existing architectural treasures





Prepare to be amazed
as Oshawa becomes Canada's laughing stock!

if we aren't already...what with
a) Cullen Gardens Miniature purchase
b) Only large city in Canada to use the General Vote without political municipal political parties which are outlawed in Ontario
c) The gall to hold a plebiscite and keep the question secret from voters to avoid public debate and understanding of the issue
d) The highest property taxation in the GTA
e) Attempts to bar minors from purchasing spray paint and magic markers in a mistaken view that this will limit graffiti
f) Refusal to return Provincial Ombudsman documents and widespread distribution of these contrary to conditions by which the city was given the documents
g) Housing discrimination against College and University students
h) Discussions to demolish all existing older arenas except Donovan and replace them with new facilities in the North end thus depriving South end children from easily accessible arenas
i) A mayor who has publicly chastised councillors for refusing to implement 9% tax increases
j) Giant fee increases for the use of taxpayer owned recreational facilties that will insure the facilities are under utilized
k) A giant run up of public debt with the continual explanation that it will not impact on the tax rate (I'd like to know where the money comes from if not from taxpayers!)
l) A Mayor who claims the city is well positioned to be a leading growth center in Canada despite problems in the auto industry, record city unemployment, and record city debt
m) Discussions to sell public park space at give-away prices to developers
n) Rationale for destruction of public buildings is that they need repair or are energy inefficient---if all governing bodies used the same rationale, they would destroy the Parliament Buildings, the White House, Buckingham Palace and every other public building in the world. You would also destroy your house every time it needed a new roof!
o) City Council allowed destruction of the historic Rundle House which they featured on their Historic Walking Tours Brochure
p) Wastage of staff time and tax resources on such publications as Restaurants of the Downtown and the many other publications distributed widely simply to put out political messages at taxpayer expense
q) The Mayor and a staff delegation going to England for a week for the Sustainable Communities Contest to learn that Oshawa was the third best place of our size in the world in which to live---brag about that to your friends
r) The numbers of taxpayer paid political ads at Remembrance Day, Canada Day, Easter, Christmas, Labour Day, Valentines, etc.
s) The destruction of city council chambers and "A" wing without firm prices and designs for the replacement...also hiding giant expenses behind two city hall projects...the refurbishment of Rundle Tower ($10Mill) and the reconstruction of Council Chambers and "A" wing (presently $17Mill)....the only purpose of this giant expenditure was to provide larger and more palatial office space for the politicians!
t) A Mayor who calls some of his fellow council members "Stooges"
u) A council that is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and unproductive as it moves to the general vote where every incumbent will be opponents of every other council member
v) Oshawa's new downtown arena set to lose another $300,000 to be billed to the taxpayer
w) A Mayor arguing citizens must pay $1.50 per withdrawal for "the convenience" of having ABM's placed in public places...he believes everything should be a "profit center" for the city...be damned the public interest
x) The city's use of an accounting system that is designed to hide the true costs of all projects since no master accounting ledger is used to track costs for any project and costs for individual projects are hidden across a myriad of ledger sheets with inadequate descriptors to obfuscate costs.
y) The city's wastage of countless tax dollars and staff time in preparing useless flyers, brochures, press releases, etc. and entering meaningless contests like the "Sustainable Communities" contest where every entrant is a winner
z) We could cite further examples of ineptitude ad nauseum




How will the "beer can" fit with these?


Click on following visual of buildings surrounding
"THE BEER CAN" for a larger view!

City doesn't have track record to manage harbour

Reprinted from July 2, 2009 Oshawa This Week
Guest Columnist Adam Mercer



Few people in the City of Oshawa would deny that the harbour should be well-managed by an agency with the money and clout to do a good job for the people footing the bill; the taxpayers of Oshawa.

In a recent opinion column, Councillor Brian Nicholson essentially posed the question, "Why will the federal government not honour the recommendations of David Crombie and let the City of Oshawa manage the harbour or appoint a body to do so?"

Seriously? Does council as a whole not understand this? Staying informed about events in the city over the last year or two should provide the answer to that question with little difficulty, but in case anyone has forgotten ...

The City of Oshawa has a habit of making business decisions that don't make much sense to an outside observer. The Cullen Miniatures are still out there being stored at the expense of the City of Oshawa. There was never a plan worked out as to what to do with these things once the city owned them. If they cannot plan something like a $250,000 investment, why should they be handed millions in federal cash to do whatever they want?

Taxpayers are also on the hook for something between $14 and $17 million for the cost of rebuilding City Hall. Oh, and there are all the other building projects that have happened in the city that were such a great idea we have had to remortgage the only asset the City has that makes money, our local PUC.

If that were not enough to discourage anyone from allowing the City to take over the management of the harbour, the recent discord among members of council itself might be the straw that broke the camel's back. Between accusations made regarding hidden agendas, letters being hidden from public view, the now infamous "stooges" comment and the massive mishandling of the Ombudsman's report on some of the activities of council, it is hard not to see why there are questions about Council's ability to function on any major question. (Editor's Comment---Don't forget that Council actually voted to refuse voters information about the rationale, impact and ramifications of the change to the General Vote---a system not used in any large city in the country. If the general vote was better, don't you think it would be used widely?)

That's especially valid when it concerns an issue as economically and environmentally sensitive as the harbour.

From the Federal Government's perspective, it is looking to hire the caretaker of an important public asset in the Oshawa Harbour. Our council is confused because it is not even on the short list despite making poor business decisions, mortgaging the City's assets to spend more than it has and it seems incapable of unifying long enough for a photo-op.

If we have to look for positive and important accomplishments, there is always the massive PR effort to bring Kiss to Oshawa.

If you were hiring for an important position in your own company and someone dropped off a resume with highlights like that, would you even interview them?

First You Say You Do...And Then You Don't...And Then You Say You Do...And Then You Don't...So Whatta Ya Gonna Do?

Once again, Oshawa City Council is demonstrating its grossly misguided, rudderless, and waffling leadership in playing fast and loose with your tax dollars.

That commercial slogan, “You’re in good hands with Allstate,” certainly cannot be applied to our City Council here in Oshawa.

Their self serving moves to wipe out your local neighbourhood political representation and bring us city wide elections for all city politicians, a move only designed to facilitate their own political careers while grossly reducing political accountability, attests to that.

At the March 3, 2008 City Council Meeting, Councillor Mary Anne Sholdra told me as much when she said with the "General Vote", she’d now have a much easier time getting re-elected. Perhaps this is why she voted against every single question designed to provide citizen information about the change and supported every single question to bring about the less democratic general vote.

A less accountable General Vote Council that cannot be defeated at the polls can do anything to you and perhaps this is why this City Council has implemented so many controversial, alarming and costly decisions. An unaccountable politician can bulldoze like a dictator, be damned public opinion or the public good.

Besides the Cullen Miniatures purchase, the UOIT student housing issue, the $12 Million redevelopment of City Hall apparently to provide more palatial office space and more presidential council chambers for city politicians, this post describes another example of the irresponsible actions of an unaccountable City Council which has continued to run up debt despite already being the highest taxed region in the GTA.

At an in-camera meeting on January 24, 2007, Oshawa City Council voted to spend $500,000 to hire a PR firm to promote Federal Government Assistance for the development of our waterfront and marina.

In a time when Mayor John Gray was promoting and supporting a 9% property tax increase and also promoting cutting back of services as well as fee increases for others such as the use of our taxpayer funded recreational facilities to reduce the ability of families to fund their child’s participation in activities like hockey, swimming and soccer, all of which would help decrease the major epidemic of child inactivity and obesity, this half million dollar expenditure is a serious misplacement of priorities.

It is all the more ludicrous when the most efficient promotion of Federal assistance to our waterfront should simply result from the mayor picking up the phone to chat with our three area Government Member Federal MP’s.

Surely as past President of the Oshawa Federal Progressive Conservative Association, you’d think he would get a friendly ear from our Conservative Members including Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty who holds the Federal purse strings, Minister of International Cooperation, Bev Oda, who also holds a seat at cabinet where all important decisions are made, and backbencher Colin Carrie who should be well-positioned to lobby in Oshawa’s interest with his fellow influential Conservative Oshawa area MP’s.

Even Minister Flaherty ridiculed this expenditure stating it was a total waste of public money and he could hear the “flushing” sound of your tax dollars all the way to his office in Ottawa. He stated it would have been far more prudent and more cost-effective for the mayor to pick up the telephone to speak to him and the other Oshawa area MP’s.

Finance Minister Flaherty probably and deservedly felt that the Mayor’s failure to utilize him and the other local Federal government members undermined public confidence in their service to the Oshawa community. End-running our influential Federal Members will do us little good and will probably leave them sitting on their hands when the question of Oshawa’s waterfront comes up. No one would have ever considered this "end run" when Ed Broadbent was our member!

When Oshawa Council came “halfway” to its senses on January 28, 2007 (Page 46), it “tabled” Phase 2 of the PR effort costing $385,325 approving only Phase 1 PR funding of $134,675--still a ludicrous expenditure when one realizes that the Federal Government had hired David Crombie, probably Canada’s greatest advocate for the preservation of waterfronts and the development of eco-friendly waterfront nature trails and bike paths to investigate and report on the matter.

Crombie has submitted his report which we are assured will be relased to the public. Undoubtedly though, Crombie would have supported his waterfront vision for Oshawa, the only residential community on Lake Ontario without a recreational marina.

Compounding the problem, however, City Council advocates of the full half million dollar funding, realizing some opponents of the spending (Councillors Marimpietri, Neal, and Parkes) were absent during the March 3, 2008 city council meeting, slipped in a motion by Councillor Pidwerbecki seconded by Councillor Nicholson to re-introduce re-opening the question and it passed on votes of Councillors Cullen, Henry, Kolodzie, Nicholson, Pidwerbecki, Sholdra and Mayor Gray. Councillor Lutczyk was the only councillor present with the sense to oppose re-opening the question.

Like Finance Minister Flaherty, can you hear the sounds of flushing of your hard earned tax dollars down the toilet? At an average house assessment of about $3000, this expenditure consumes the residential tax of you and about 160 of your neighbours.

Now let me go out and count the houses in my neighbourhood to see if my neighbours and I can cover this expenditure with our house taxes! I don't think we can!

I smell some rot somewhere in this!

Be prepared for more of this Oshawa. The heavy handed and ham fisted council you are now seeing is only a start to worst days ahead under the general vote when guaranteed re-election will make politicians far less accountable to your wishes.

And you, Oshawa, by your inaction in regards to the loss of ward voting, are letting the politicians do this to you.

Protecting the Integrity of Oshawa City Council

To the Mayor and Council

There has been much public concern, controversy and ridicule over the city purchase of the Cullen Gardens Miniatures Collection and their recent dismal failure at trying to unload the collection.

Because of the questions of potential conflicts of interest, the reputations of some politicians have been besmirched, sullied, and compromised.

The Law is extremely clear about the actions politicians must take when they foresee a potential conflict of interest stating clearly that they must excuse themselves from all discussion, voting, and comment on the issue in question.

I think it fair to all involved that an investigation be carried out to see if any of the allegations of conflict of interest are justified, and if not, to take official city action such as moving a vote of confidence in the individuals involved to restore their integrity and reputation, but if proven, to insure the wrongdoing reflects the full extent of the law.

Political Conflicts of Interest are extremely serious and we cannot allow such actions to undermine our system of government.

Section 274(1) of the Ontario Municipal Act states that the city can launch an investigation by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice by a resolution of city council.

Such an Investigation by a judge shall:

(a) Investigate any supposed breach of trust or other misconduct of a member of council, an employee of the municipality or a person having a contract with the municipality in relation to the duties or obligations of that person to the municipality;

(b) Inquire into any matter connected with the good government of the municipality; or

(c) Inquire into the conduct of any part of the public business of the municipality, including business conducted by a commission appointed by the council or elected by the electors.

This action can be investigated or prosecuted under either the Ontario Municipal Act or the Ontario Conflict of Interest Act. The Ontario Conflict of Interest Act says that this act shall prevail in the event of conflict between the acts but in fact no conflict exists so either Act can be used.

Action is preferable under the Ontario Municipal Act since this act allows for action to proceed following a resolution of council and all funding and defence costs comes from the city whereas complaint and presumably costs are the responsibility of private citizens under the Conflict of Interest Act.

To avoid impugning the entire council, I cannot impress the need strongly enough for council to initiate an independent investigation under the Municipal Act to:

1) Assure citizens that politicians are indeed acting in the best interests of Oshawa citizens and taxpayers, and

2) Clear any politician’s reputations that have been besmirched by this purchase, and

3) Assure citizens that we have an honest and uncompromised city government that acts with integrity, and

4) Assure citizens that the council is indeed self policing and does not require external public oversight to insure honesty and integrity.

Inadequate Accountability and Transparency Committee response to Longworth's Seven Deadly Sins Questions

VOTES Chair, Bill Longworth, made a presentation to the Accountability and Transparency Committee on January 17, 2008. As a result the committee made recommendations accessible here. While I supported Recommendations #3 (Agree to Post politician's expense and renumeration records, #5 (Agree to notify delegations of time and date of their presentations to councils and committees), and #6 (publish construction costs and funding details of GM Centre and dispensation details of funds raised from OPUC sale), I did not support the committee failure to accept my requests in #1 (auditor general to investigate city plebiscite strategy), #2(request for links to all staff reports and citizen correspondence on the council agenda where the items are officially dealt with), #4 (that city council severely limit in-camera meetings), and #7 (that auditor general investigate potential ethical and legal questions behind the purchase of the Cullen Miniatures).

I therefore sent the following letter to Oshawa City Council c/o Oshawa City Clerk as well as the Local and Regional Media.


To the Mayor and Council,
c/o Oshawa City Clerk:

I am requesting to address the full council re the Accountability and Transparency Committee recommendations in respect of my recent presentations to them which were considered at the meeting of February 7, 2008

I am satisfied with committee recommendations that addressed my requests:

1) That city politician’s complete and detailed expenses, salaries, honorariums, and allowances for sitting on both City and Regional Councils and Citizen Committees be posted on the city website, and

2) That city clerk’s office give formal notification to delegations of the date and time when they are scheduled to address either city council or committees of council, and

3) That a full public report be prepared regarding the $45 million funding details of GM Centre and of the dispensation of the $30 million that council received as a result of monetizing a portion of the ownership of the OPUC

I would reserve the right to present these items to the full council in the event that any or all of the committee recommendations do not meet approval of City Council.


I am not satisfied with committee recommendations in respect of my following requests and wish to address city council on these items:

1) That Oshawa's Auditor General investigate Oshawa's information campaign and strategy leading up to the plebiscite process in respect of the 18 questions I asked him to review.

A letter stating that the city complied with the the Ontario Municipal Elections Act is insufficient since the law specifically gives city council unlimited spending authority regarding ballot questions which implies a responsibility and expectation to do so while at the same time specifically constrains any 3rd party citizen campaigns in regards to ballot questions.

No law defines every possible potential contingency and no legislator would have ever foreseen that an Ontario City Council would ask their voters a question and then refuse to give them information about it as Oshawa politicians have done. That is the reason why courts interpret the "intent" of the law.

Democracy depends upon an informed public and the Canadian Supreme Court states that information regarding a vote is a basic right in Canadian Society. Yet the Mayor publicly stated that the city had no responsibility to inform citizens about the question and thus the city failed to do so.

The failure to inform looks like part of the city strategy along with the convoluted question in order to get a preconceived answer. This is not democracy. It is manipulation of the people.

2) In the interests of transparency, that Oshawa City Council implement a policy to provide appropriate links to Committee Reports and Citizen Correspondence directly on the agenda and minutes of City Council Meetings where official decisions are made in respect of the reports and correspondence.

The committee has only recommended putting an explanatory note on the agendas. This is not good enough. Interested citizens would still have to leave the agenda to search through a completely unrelated and unlinked file to seek the information.

Links to the staff reports and citizen correspondence directly on the agenda where the decision is being made would simplify citizen’s ability to following pertinent information about the issues and decisions made by Oshawa City Council.

Transparency is putting things together so make them easier to follow and understand rather rather hiding them remote from the city agenda. Politicians are provided this information in their meeting packages…why is it not provided for citizens?

3) That City Council cease the practice of having closed meetings scheduled prior to every city council meeting in the spirit of Provincial Law that severely limits the content of such meetings to personnel and property matters stating that all of the business of council is to be carried on in public and the committee has only recommended that my request be received for information rather than action.

4) That the auditor general be directed to investigate all details leading up to the purchase of the Cullen Gardens Miniatures including any and all ethical questions and potential conflicts of interest and report publicly on his findings.

The committee recommendation that my request regarding this most controversial decision of Oshawa City Council be received for information rather than action is drastically insufficient.

Bill Longworth,
Founder & Chair of VOTES (Vote to Eliminate Self Serving Politicians)
www.oshawaspeaks.ca

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!