So the Mayor Wants Me to Eat His Words

OPEN LETTER TO THE MAYOR

Mayor John Gray
City of Oshawa
emailed to: jgray@oshawa.ca
January 17, 2007


Hello John:

Because of your protestations at the Accountability and Transparency Committee Meeting this morning about the accuracy of the film clip on www.oshawaspeaks, I reviewed the clip and can find no inaccuracies about my comments that you publicly insisted that the City had no responsibility to inform and educate the public about the plebiscite question to insure that they understood the question and its ramifications.

If council was unwilling to inform the public about the plebiscite question, I can't understand why it was asked. Not insuring the public understood the question, I have difficulty comprehending why you and six other members of council insist on upholding its results as "democratic" saying, "The people have spoken!"

I find council's action in this whole issue extremely undemocratic as the basic requirement in a democracy is an informed voter. How can it be democratic when council took concrete and deliberate action to deny information to the voter.

While I fully understand, in retrospect, that you may not like your ill-founded comments being publicized on the video that is at present approaching 1500 viewers, no one put these words into your mouth and so you have to take full responsibility for them.

Your words certainly help explain why the citizens were not adequately informed and why public discussion and debate were not promoted. Your words also help to explain why council repeatedly voted to deny public information. Like you, the majority felt it was not Council's responsibility to insure that the public was aware of and understood the question council itself was asking. Obviously, like you, they didn't think it was important to inform the public to insure that the vote reflected a valid measure of public sentiment on the issue.

I do not believe, however, that council failed to adequately inform the public because they believed it was not their responsibility...but that they contrived to deliberately keep the public in the dark to catch them "cold" for the first time in the voting booth to confront a difficult and convoluted question worded in a way to solicit a specific response by unaware voters.

Council's lack of interest in insuring the public understood the question, along with the convoluted way it was worded, and the fact that the question did not arise from any concern expressed by the public, all work to prove beyond a doubt that council manipulated the public to get a result they favoured...democracy be damned!

Surely as a long-time politician who should be very familiar with the Ontario Municipal Elections Act, you, Mayor Gray, knew that your public statements about the interested public itself being responsible to organize and run information campaigns regarding YOUR question was against the law and that the Act gives cities themselves unfettered spending ability to inform the public about questions they are being asked on the ballot.

Because Municipal Elections Law gives cities that unfettered and uncontrolled spending ability to inform the public about ballot questions, but does not give the same right to the public, surely implies to any reasonable person that the city itself had a responsibility to adequately inform the public.

Mayor Gray---I should also express my personal displeasure at your public comment to me at committee this morning that, "I knew of the plebiscite but didn't get off my ass to do anything about it until it was too late".

While I don't appreciate your choice of words as Chairman of the committee, as it isn't the way that I communicate, I also want to correct your perceptions of the action (or as you say---inaction) that I took.

Just weeks before the election, I found out "by accident" that the plebiscite question was to be asked. Not believing this from my source, records in the clerk's office will show that I communicated with that office to confirm the accuracy of my information. Upon confirmation from the clerk, I wrote to the Mayor and Council asking that an information brochure be sent to all homes in Oshawa. This letter was never acknowledged nor did city hall ever take any action on my request.

I am extremely careful about the accuracy of everything I write on www.oshawaspeaks.ca and would appreciate you identifying specific factual inaccuracies that you find in the video documenting your comments on this issue at the April 30, 2007 council meeting. As far as I can see, the video itself reflects with 100% accuracy what you said. I do not have the ability to edit the video to put words in your mouth!

I can assure you that I will correct any inaccuracies in the explanatory notes inserted in the video clip but will not change content just because you do not agree with it or like it but at this moment stand behind everything that is said and implied in the video.

City Hall's New Year's Giftto Oshawa Taxpayers

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?

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.

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!

And so how did Oshawa Council handle Bill's request? Just as expected! Page 584 on the Nov. 26, 2007 Council minutes shows...

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 Election

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.

Now 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.

This is really sweeping the serious problem with the recent plebiscite under the rug.

These "OPTICS" of "ACTION" will not fool anyone!

Request for An Audit on City's Plebiscite Information and Communication Efforts

Bill Longworth
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 process

b) To increase awareness of the referendum question

c) To educate voters about their choices

None 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

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,

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

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.

Request for Audit on City Council's Plebiscite Efforts

Mayor and Council,
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;

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 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.

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)

Oshawa’s Self-Serving Politicians

Your Oshawa City Council has voted to implement the general vote for the election of members of Oshawa City Council. This means that all members of city council will be elected city-wide the same way mayors are across the country.

There are serious implications of this to you as a citizen. You will no longer vote for ward politicians to look after the interests of your community. If you have a community problem that you want addressed, there are no specific politicians accountable to you and your neighbors.

In the past, if you became dissatisfied with your ward politicians, this dissatisfaction is something probably shared with your community, and the politician would be replaced.

For example, the residents of North Simcoe Street became dissatisfied with politicians’ moves to “protect” the street from any development or changes to existing residential architecture there. Residents saw this as interference with their property interests which would affect their property values. They also saw it as interference in their right to modify their residences. Thus they defeated Councilor Cathy Clarke and replaced her with Councilor John Henry. Under the general vote, this would not be possible as politicians are elected city-wide.

Councilor Henry benefitted from this “power” of ward voting but he has since been a strident supporter of the General Vote which means that he no longer is responsible for any neighborhood and cannot be defeated in the same way that he was able to defeat his predecessor.

It is interesting that Councilor Henry has turned his back on the system that gave him political success in favor of one that assures his continued seat on council. By supporting the change, he is also turning his back on the voters of his community who placed their trust in him.

Councilor Henry was joined by Mayor John Gray and Councilors Parkes, Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Sholdra, and Marimpietri in voting to take away your local community political representation. They have adopted a system virtually unused in Canada which will make Oshawa the largest city in Canada using the General Vote without also the use of political parties.

As citizens, we have to work to defeat these politicians who have proven that they are more interested in their own interests rather than the interests of the citizens of Oshawa.

If the general vote made sense, wouldn’t it be widely used across the country?

While Municipal Government is supposed to be the government closest to the people, Oshawa politicians have taken our local government farther away than either the Provincial or Federal governments since our local politicians will have constituencies almost twice the size of those of our Provincial or Federal Members.

Politicians like the General Vote because it provides them far more protection from political defeat even though they may support very unpopular positions.

Because politicians are no longer responsible to the individual citizens and individual neighborhoods whose voting power is insufficient to remove them, politicians start to serve “new masters” who can deliver more votes to allow significant growth toward the 25,000 votes or so they require for election.

So what do they do? Their “masters” now become the large organizations and groups who can influence their city-wide members to support the politicians who “are friends of the group”.

Politicians can also support development proposals of those who would donate to their campaigns with far more immunity than they had under ward elections.

In all ways, the change to the general vote is self-serving for the politicians.

And all of this time, we thought politicians were supposed to serve us!

Wake up Oshawa! Get active and do something about this!

We have to start now to defeat the politicians who have voted to serve themselves rather than serve us.

What are you going to do to help bring “responsible” politicians to our city council?

More signs that democracy is dead in Oshawa

Oshawa City Council passed their self-serving bylaw to bring in the general vote for the election of Oshawa City Council Monday night.

They arranged the affair once again to keep it a secret.

They excluded interested citizens from addressing council on the bylaw because they still want to keep it a "non-issue" with the public. They want to keep it as quiet as possible. They still want to stifle public comment and debate.

They invited the public to provide written submissions but none of these were considered in Council's deliberations. Some citizens took the time and effort to write...but their efforts were in vain. Once again, council's invitation to provide input was only a joke....a sham--the same as the rest of the process!

By their actions, council shows great disrespect and disregard for the public.

Only one citizen, VOTES Chair, Bill Longworth, was able to comment to council on the bylaw, and that was an accident of timing.

VOTES had previously applied for a city funding request for $25,000 to prepare and distribute an information brochure on the ward issue for distribution to all Oshawa households.

It came back to council because Councillors Henry, Sholdra, and Parkes were unable to understand a "plebiscite-like" question at council that required them to vote "NO" to provide the funds and "YES" to deny them.

Misunderstanding the question, like many voters misunderstood the similar plebiscite question, they voted "NO" thinking they were denying the funds but from the convoluted way the question was worded were actually providing VOTES the funds.

With Oshawa City Council's definition of democracy, they can make up the rules as they go along. And so when they realized they had made an error, they simply referred the whole thing back to committee so the question could once again come back to council to give them another kick at the cat to "get it right."

This was the April 30th meeting---the same meeting where Council were voting to introduce the general vote...and that is why the VOTES chair was the only citizen allowed to speak.

The mayor tried to confine the VOTES Chair's remarks to the funding question but Bill Longworth refused to allow the mayor to define how his presentation for the funds grant was to be made. Had he wanted the mayor to write his presentation...he would have asked him!

And now Councillor's Henry, Sholdra, and Parkes are hitching their horse to the plebiscite result...which came from the very kind of question they themselves did not understand and got confused by...amazing!

I guess Councillor's Henry, Sholdra, and Parkes must feel the public is far more astute, wise, and intelligent than they are and thus could not make the same kind of error that they did.

Also amazing, as part of his summary comments to the general vote bylaw, the Mayor even had the audacity to suggest that city council had no responsibility to provide citizens with information about the change before they voted. Can you imagine? The mayor says they didn't feel a responsibility to the citizens to provide information they required to make an informed judgement...unbelievable!

This proves beyond a doubt that council wanted to slip the whole thing in below the public radar.

The Mayor said it was up to private taxpayers to use their own finances as well as their time and effort to communicate the details to the public...amazing!

The Provincial Government is planning to ask the people about a new provincial voting procedure in Ontario...Perhaps the Premier should take the Mayor's advice and provide no information and promote no public discourse or discussion. According to the Mayor, this would not be Provincial responsibility....Can you imagine? Dumb!

Responsible governments that want to ask a serious question to get a serious reading of public opinion are also serious in providing as much information and promoting as much public discussion and dialogue as they can. If they don't want to provide information, they shouldn't ask the question.

The process followed by Oshawa City Council was a "sham" designed to "trick" and "confuse" the public. The process they followed made a mockery of democracy which absolutely requires an informed public.

Fortunately, Monday night's vote to bring in the general vote is not the end of the process.

Council's adoption of the general vote bylaw will not stifle the VOTES group which has started to accelerate its communication efforts with the introduction of 37 internet "community forums." All of these sites can be accessed by the public both from www.oshawaspeaks.ca as well as directly over the internet.

You can find these forums by logging into www.facebook.com and searching "Oshawa." There you will find a forum focussed to your community or your particular interest that can be used freely for the discussion and dissemination of any and all items of interest to you or your community. You could even inform your neighbours of a yard sale, a social function...or your opinions about any political issue---including council's change to the general vote if that is the issue that turns your crank.

We are also looking at other remedies to counteract Oshawa Council's anti-democratic moves and feel the whole issue still has significant potential to explode in the face of council in ways that they had not considered.

The will to insure that there is no erosion in the democratic ideals, values and principles is basic and strong in thinking and free people, and we shall continue to honour, cherish, and work to preserve the integrity of these beliefs and values that have made our country the greatest in the world.

The result of the council vote Monday night is what we expected, and we want to insure all that we have always felt that the struggle and the fight is just beginning.

We are confident justice, and freedom, and "right" will prevail in the end.

Keep the faith.

It is time for renewal

So what would be the banner headline on your paper

Oshawa Scores High Fees on ATM’s OR Oshawa Councillors can’t understand Plebiscite-like question and vote the wrong way---so they’re giving themselves another chance to see if “they can get it right.”

Two issues were discussed at the same City Finance and Administration Committee meeting on Monday April 23, 2007

The committee discussed fees charged by ATM machines installed at city-owned facilities like the Legends Centre.

The “big” issue was whether they should charge $1.75 giving the ATM provider $1 and the city 75 cents per transaction for an extra projected ciry revenue of $12,000 over 3 years, $1.50 per transaction giving the city 50 cents per transaction or $7,500 over 3 years, or $1.25 per transaction giving the city only 25 cents per transaction

Mayor John Gray summed up the sentiment of the committee, “If people want the extra convenience, they’re going to have to pay for it. I think the $1.75 fee is appropriate.”

And thus the banner headline on the April 25, 2007 edition of Oshawa This Week screams, “Oshawa scores high fees on ATN’s.”

Great Choice of top news story of the week.

In the same meeting the committee was reconsidering a Partnership Grant to VOTES so that an information brochure could be prepared and distributed to all Oshawa households---But that’s not the story!

It's not even the story that the reporter left the meeting when VOTES Chair Bill Longworth was called forward...because the paper had decided it was not a story that they wanted to cover no matter what was said!

The story was that councillors who state the public could not be confused by the plebiscite question got confused themselves with the same kind of question the public confronted on the plebiscite.

Because they couldn't understand the question, they voted the wrong way!

This reconsideration of the issue was made necessary because three members of this committee, John Henry, Louise Parkes, and Maryanne Sholdra, got their votes wrong at the previous council meeting.

They couldn’t understand the motion on which they had to vote “NO” to provide the funds to VOTES and “YES” to deny it.

These same three councillors have been voting “In the name of democracy”, they say, to uphold the plebiscite result because “the people have spoken.”

Over 36% of the councillors got confused on the vote. Isn’t it possible that the same percentage of voters got confused on the same kind of question asked of voters on the plebiscite?

And isn’t it fair that the people are given a second chance to “get it right” since council themselves are giving themselves a second opportunity to get it right.

You’d think that the councillors who voted wrong on this question would finally “get it”…they’re not supporting public opinion at all. They’re supporting a flawed plebiscite process marred by a “trick” question of the type council members themselves couldn’t understand combined with a denial of information from city hall.

So what would be the lead story in your paper? ATM fees at city owned facilites or 36% of Councillors don’t understand “plebiscite-like” question and vote the wrong way.

All of this leads of course to the question of the degree to which Oshawa City Hall’s huge $10,000 per month advertising bill with Oshawa This Week controls the stories they choose to print.

I know what I think about this! How about you?

To their credit, Oshawa This Week used to carry this story in a serious way...but not anymore.

Did someone get to them?

Interesting Ideas presented at Public Meeting

Mr. Dariusz Kulczyński presented the following comments at the public input meeting at Sikorski Hall last night.

He has given permission for me to publish the text forwarded on Polish Canadian Independent Courier Newspaper Letterhead.


POLISH–CANADIAN INDEPENDENT COURIER
12 FOCH AVENUE, TORONTO, ONTARIO M8W 3X1, Canada
Tel/Fax: (416) 259-4353: zkopc549@rogers.com ; www.nowykurier.com

City of Oshawa – Residents’ General Meeting April 19th, 2007

My name is Dariusz Kulczyński. I am an engineer with Ontario Power Generation, Darlington NGS. I am also a Deputy Editor in Chief of “Nowy Kurier” i.e. Polish-Canadian Independent Courier biweekly. I have lived in Ward 5 of Oshawa for almost 20 years now.

Like many other voters, I thought that electing all Councillors by all City Residents would be a good idea and I voted accordingly last October. Since then, however, I have given the proposal more thought and I like the system the way it is better. There are several considerations that must be taken into account before the new Bylaw changes the municipal electoral system in our City. I believe there are at least four important issues, and they are as follows:

1. The majority of Oshawa Residents may vote for a Councillor that does little for the Ward he or she supposedly represents. The responsibility of the Councillor would be watered down if not eliminated. After all, the thing that politicians of all kinds care most is whether or not they are re-elected. If all Councillors are elected by all city population, how can the residents of a particular Ward unseat a Councillor if he/she, God forbid, allows for major disrepair of that Ward?

2. If a Councillor must run in a Ward as big as a Federal or a Provincial Riding, then he/she would need to become known to at least five times more people than those residing in his/her Ward. This requires a lot of effort and money and municipal donations are not Tax deductible. It would be fair to institute Tax Credits for Municipal Elections’ Donations to be deducted off the Property Tax the same way that we can deduct donations to political parties. This proposal would, however, contravene the statement by the City Council that changing the electoral system would be “revenue neutral” or have “no financial impact”.

3. Without providing future Candidates with some reasonable source of revenue from Tax-deductible donations, how would they make themselves known to residents of the whole City? Would the City buy free TV spots or Radio commercials for all Candidates? What would the voters base their decision on unless they really saw and listened to the Candidate? On the name alone? This disadvantages such residents as me if I ever wanted to run for office. Outside of the Polish, Ukranian, Lithuanian, Belorussian and Jewish communities my name: “Dariusz Kulczyński” is barely pronounceable in English, let alone easily remembered. The ethnic population can prevail in some areas of the city but not in the city as a whole.

4. The proposed system will deviate from the majority-single riding rep or “first-past-the-post” English style democracy that has existed in Canada since inception. The proposed system would create a pseudo-slate, similar to that used in the proportional system. However, the proportional system requires that each political party submits its slate and, only within each slate, the seats are allotted according to the amount of the votes. This is the way the system works in many member states of the European Union such as Poland. Yet, political parties do not run their candidates in municipal elections in Canada. Hence, the proposed pseudo-slate resembles the one used in the now defunct Communist countries. For example, in Poland, when it was Communist before 1989, there was only one slate-list of the National Unity Front approved Candidates. Those who got most votes on it got elected, and unless, of course, the results were further tampered with. This was considered undemocratic. Without multi-party representation the proposed system hardly offers any benefits associated with proportional representation.


Editor's Comment

You will note that Mr. Kulczynski comments on the accountability problem of general vs ward politicians, the suggestion of a requirement of public funding for candidates in huge city-wide elections, the probable exclusion of ethnic candidates in city wide elections, and argues city wide elections will require association with competing political parties.

Older resident's of Eastern European heritage undoubtedly will have greater understanding of the ramifications of his last point. We have identified the point previously that many Eastern Europeans came here for Canada's democratic and "real vote" which some of their descendents on Oshawa City Council now want to take away from the Oshawa people.


Editor's Comment 2

Hopefully Mr. Kulczyński will forward his remarks and the address of this site to all of his contacts in the Oshawa Polish Community to keep them informed.

It is important that the ethnic communities, particularly those of Eastern European heritage, be fully informed about Oshawa Council's desires to take the "real" vote...the ward vote, the vote that does make a difference in determining political leadership away from the people.

These communities are all too aware of the helplessness they feel when they have no control over the actions of their political leaders. The Eastern European peoples came here for the freedoms we have characterized by the vote that does make a difference.

History with the general vote in Oshawa is that no general vote politician in Oshawa's 7 general vote councils was removed by the vote. All change during that time took place through the death or resignation of members. Since the general vote didn't and couldn't effect change, it was not a "real" vote. It was the kind of vote that people have in countries such as China, Russia, or Egypt...an apparent vote that has not one iota of a chance of influencing political leadership or direction in the country.

We don't want that in Oshawa!


Editor's Comment 3

I think it fair to append to this comment that Councillor Robt. Lutczyk has been an undying supporter of ward voting in every stage of the process....from opposing the plebiscite question as not being inclusive of the various communities and demographics of Oshawa to his continuing opposition to implementing the plebiscite result because of the flawed process and convoluted plebiscite question. He is joined at present by Councillors Neal, Cullen, and Nicholson in opposing a move to the general vote.

Councillors Pidwerbecki and Kolodzie are the most outspoken advocates of the General Vote and are joined at present by Councillors Sholdra, Parkes, Marimpietri, and Henry as well as Mayor Gray.

Video...Where's Council's Loyalty to the People Who Put Them In Power?

Where does loyalty stand in the hierarchy of human qualities you value.

Loyalty is a fundamental value…the most basic requirement of all human relationships.

It is the quality we want most in our friends…without it, friendship cannot exist.

Politics is a human relationship…a trust of leadership between the leader and the led.



The Leaders ascend to the “throne of leadership” in a free society because we place our trust in them to make decisions for us and in our interest. We expect their loyalty to their supporters and in the broader sense to the whole society. After all it was our loyalty to them that gave them their positions.

When we feed politicians our votes…we don’t expect to be bitten. We don’t expect them to bite the hands that feed them…we expect loyalty…a reciprocal and beneficial relationship to both parties.

When we vote for our politicians…we expect them to be loyal in their service to us. We expect them to work in our best interests.

Unfortunately this is not what is happening in Oshawa.

Politicians want to return to the general vote knowing full well that huge sections of the city will grow to be unrepresented.over time. The south end (anywhere in Oshawa below King Street) couldn’t elect one resident from their community in seven successive general vote councils, a total of 109 seats leading up to the change to ward voting in 1985.

Ward Voting has guaranteed the south end 4½ councillors so the ward system has given voice to their concerns. This has brought important benefits to the south end…a new library, senior’s center, ambulance dispatch station, and a new recreation center.

With the ward system, no longer is it possible to have a “Have Not” section of Oshawa because ward voting has guaranteed equality of representation to all.

Ward politicians have been loyal to their voters in insuring progress for their neighbourhoods.

This is about to change.

Long time counciillor Joe Kolodzie who represented the south end for ages is supporting taking away guaranteed community council representation for the south end.

Long time councillor Nester Pidwerbecki who represents a large part of the south end is supporting taking away guaranteed south end community representation.

Councillor Maryanne Sholdra who represents the south end on local council recently made a speech where she stated that she was “honoured” to be the south end representative on council…yet she too is supporting yanking guaranteed south end representation from the south end.

Councillors John Henry, Tito Dante Marimpietri, and Louise Parkes also want to yank your south end guaranteed council representation from you. They are joined by Mayor Gray.

Why don’t these politicians want all areas of Oshawa to have fair and equal guaranteed representation on council? That question has never been answered.

If Council is able to bring in a general vote, all of Oshawa will have to work to defeat these politicians who are stealing local community council representation from the people…not just from the south end…but from all parts of Oshawa. Under the general vote no politician will be responsible for looking after your ward concerns.

For those in the south end…for sure don’t support those politicians who have proven their disloyalty to you.

For all others in Oshawa…you’ll lose your guaranteed representation on council too and there will be no one responsible for handling your ward concerns either. You’ll have to remember to defeat the “thieves” who are stealing your ward representatives too.

After all…loyalty is the highest personal quality you expect in someone you support, isn’t it?

And why ever would you support someone who has proven to be disloyal to you and your interests?

Group blames Pidwerbecki for change in the system

Written by Bill Longworth and
Reprinted from Oshawa Express, Feb. 7, 2007

Oshawa citizens are becoming more aware of Oshawa City Council’s desire to return to the general vote and some anger has arisen at their self-serving actions. Council failed to provide voters information about the issue prior to the referendum vote and political action groups like VOTES (vote to eliminate self-serving politicians) have sprung up to fight the change.

Citizens are finally being provided information about the issue by sites such as www.oshawaspeaks.ca which is the VOTES website.

Some angry residents have asked who was responsible for the referendum question and who supported it.

The sole architect of putting this asinine referendum question was Nestor Pidwerbecki. This was despite the fact that there had been not been a whimper of public discontent for the ward system. It’s unfortunate that he was able to solicit council support to get the question on the ballot.

Voting for the ballot question were Councillors Nestor Pidwerbecki, Brian Nicholson, Mike Nicholson, Cathy Clarke, John Neal, Joe Kolodzie, and April Cullen. Voting against were Mayor Gray, Councillors Robert Lucyk, Tito-Dante Marimpietri, and Louise Parkes.

According to press reports Pidwerbecki’s rationale for introducing the issue was: 1) Oshawa was growing too large for a ward system, 2) that a ward system council was too divisive and, 3) councillors should have a city-wide mentality. Pidwerbecki is dead wrong on all counts and hopefully he brings less faulty thinking to his council votes. I suspect, though, that Pidwerbecki is smarter than this and that he is “stretching” to justify the unjustifiable.

Let’s analyze Pidwerbecki’s argument.

Oshawa is growing too large for a ward system---This is completely opposite from the truth. In reality, a general vote is only valid where the municipality is quite small and everyone knows each other. Using Pidwerbecki’s argument, Toronto’s council of 44 members representing 2.48 million people because of its vast size should be an obvious candidate for the general vote because he would argue it is too large for a ward system….ridiculous and absurd!

A Ward System Council is too divisive---How so? General vote politicians compete with each other at every meeting for press necessary to foster high name recognition.

Therefore, they hog the floor and backbite, bitch, and bicker to steal the press. Ward politicians are not election competitors and have to be far more co-operative with their peers in order to gain support for the needs of their ward

A general vote promotes a city-wide mentality---Not so! A general vote politician gets elected through high name recognition and thus promoting themselves at the expense of real productivity becomes job one for general vote politicians.

A ward vote politician gets elected through service to his/her constituents and so service to people becomes job one for a ward politicians.

Ward politicians have to develop positive relations with their fellow politicians to get support for any of their ward initiatives.

The very nature of co-operation leads to politicians working together to set priorities for the betterment of the city.

The general vote cannot be justified on any grounds for a municipality the size of Oshawa, It is obvious Pidwerbecki is stretching for straws trying to justify the unjustifiable…Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes.

When we got the ward system in 1985, Pidwerbecki was quoted in the press as saying, “They are going to have to break up the country club and it is going to be the best thing that ever happened to Oshawa. How can I describe our feelings,” he continued, “we’re elated.” He said up to now Council had been composed of people who have had enough money to afford the high price tag of a general election campaign. “Now people who are relatively unknown may figure they have a chance where there was none before,” he said. “Instead of spending a lot of money to cover the whole city, they can now concentrate on one area and reduce the cost factor.” Describing the then “General Vote” Council as an “elite group”, Pidwerbecki said he expects some new faces on council after the next municipal election in November.

Pidwerbecki knows the value of ward elections but has changed his tune now that he is a member of council.

His bringing up a return to the general vote can be no less than self serving in insuring his re-election.

Self serving politicians deserve neither our respect nor support. Councillor Pidwerbecki will undoubtedly be #1 on our hit list for politicians to be defeated in the next election.

We will organize his ward to ensure this. We are keeping our options open on other council members to see how they vote on the Bylaw that has to be introduced before a change.

We shall appeal this bylaw to the OMB and have every expectation of a “slam dunk” win.

Updated Comment by VOTES Chair…Council has moved to adapt the general vote but to keep the wards solely to avoid an appeal to the OMB. Their case there would be indefensible. While they are keeping the wards, they will not be used for voting or for any other "real" purpose. The votes group still plans to appeal to the OMB arguing that wards are associated with voting by practice and tradition and therefore insist that the 7 election wards are being folded into one ward for voting purposes…this is a change in wards that is appealable to the OMB. Two additional grounds of appeal, however, have been developed but cannot be released until the city bylaw is passed and we are ready to appeal to the OMB. If we release the information early, the politicians in their greedy and self-serving efforts to move to the general vote will simply try to word a bylaw to thwart our efforts. We think this is impossible but still do not want to disclose our case and our arguments prematurely.

Be sure to watch tomorrow’s post….We will present a humorous Video dramatization of the above that will both inform and entertain you.

My Pledge to the People of Oshawa

City politicians will not be able to hide anonymously behind their votes in regards to a change to the general vote.

This site will publish the names of those voting for the general vote bylaw as a staple every day until the next election so that voters will become very familiar with the self-serving Councillors undeserving of voter support, and the site will "marshall" and “excite” voter opinion to insure the defeat of those who feel that serving their own interest is more important than serving the city’s interest.

Without a daily newspaper, politicians may have thought they were going to keep their votes secret from the public. They were successful in keeping the plebiscite to return to the general vote secret even from those, like myself, who follow City Council actions quite closely. Unfortunately, I also relied on the local press to keep me informed. I missed the extremely minimal coverage of the proposed change that was immersed in the overloads of advertising flyers accompanying the paper.

Council’s strategy in refusing to inform the public by a professionally prepared brochure sent to all houses in Oshawa, as I suggested to Council before the vote, demonstrated the fact that Council did not want to arouse any public interest or debate about the issue prior to the vote and thus were able to catch the public “cold” in the voting booth never before considering the question. An informed public is the most basic requirement of democracy…yet Council kept us uninformed! Why?

Further voters were confronted with a question that Council “gerrymandered” several times until they refined the question that they thought would “trick” the public with a question where they had to vote “NO” to retain the ward system. Beyond the convoluted difficulty of the question, they knew that the majority of people naturally vote “YES” rather than “NO” on ballot questions, and a ”YES” response would result in an “apparent” but “not real” support for turning to the general vote. Why did Council want to confuse the public with a convoluted question that they had kept secret from the public? Why?

The General Vote in the past had devastating results in Oshawa. It protected incumbent’s council seats from the threat of real competition. It resulted in an aging council with no new ideas where all change took place through death or resignation. It produced an unproductive and very fractious city council where all politicians had to fight for name recognition with their peers which they did by backbiting, bitching, bickering, and grandstanding at the expense of real leadership for the city and its people. General Vote politicians were even reluctant to support “brilliant” ideas arising from their peers out of fear that their politician competitor would grab the press with the good idea. It resulted in a council where all of the politicians came from a few of the wealthier areas of Oshawa leaving many areas unrepresented at council over the entire history of the general vote councils. How could this be a system that is best for Oshawa? If the General Vote was a better system, wouldn’t it be used by municipalities everywhere? Well, wouldn’t it?

So which of your council members want the general vote? Councillors Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Parkes, and Henry, the "Gang of Four," are unwavering in their support for the change. They have voted to support the change in every way from limiting information to the public, to voting against hearing presentations from the VOTES Chairman, to voting to limit public meetings to get citizen input re the change to the general vote, to voting to retain present wards while moving to the general vote simply to avoid any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board which would take an independent and impartial second look at the change to insure it was in Oshawa’s interests---This “Gang of Four” have their minds made up and have to go with the next election if they are successful in bringing in the general vote.

Mayor Gray and Councillors Sholdra and Marimpietri have voted to uphold the plebiscite result even though they have stated they don’t believe it to be best for Oshawa. I believe Oshawa voters want politicians who vote for what they know to be best for Oshawa. Don’t you?

Councillors Nicholson, Neal, Cullen, and Lutczk have been steadfastly against the change to the general vote and have voted this way in all motions related to the question.

Councillors will not be able to hide behind any anonymous votes due to the lack of a daily press in Oshawa. Once the vote is held on the general vote permitting bylaw, this vote will be highlighted on this site daily for the duration of the council term leading all the way to the next municipal elections.

Our Pledge to You---We will insure that the public is fully aware of politician’s voting records and that self-serving politicians will pay the price at the next election.

God's Creation--Oshawa City Politicians

We needed a lot of help with this one…so we asked a group of others with much more familiarity with the source than your humble author!

Why did God make Oshawa politicians??

1. He needed something to make wind for the world.
2. He needed some way to spend all of Oshawa’s extra tax dollars.
3. He needed to have politicians to listen to all of the other politicians otherwise no one would listen to them.
4. He needed to add more humour to this part of the world.
5. He needed to hold up a sample of greedy “self-serving" to the public as an example of what “good people” should avoid.
6. He wanted to provide some humour for Oshawa people.


What ingredients did God make Oshawa politicians out of?

1. He found a pile of stinky raw material stuff behind the barn.
2. He found some used spaghetti that got installed as brains.
3. Bagpipes that got blown up and turned into people windbags.
4. God thought that, in the interests of democracy, everyone should have a hand in this and so he left one ingredient to each voter's imagination.


Why did God give Oshawa its politicians?

1. He realized Oshawa people had to suffer for the original sin.
2. He figured that Oshawa politicians attempts to bring in the general vote would wake up Oshawa people to the injustices being perpetrated on them.
3. As Canada’s auto center, Oshawa is a unique place and he figured a self-serving council would be a way to characterize this uniqueness.
4. Because of it’s wealth as the highest income place in Canada, he figured Oshawa shouldn’t have the best of everything in the country.


What did God give Oshawa politicians that he didn’t give other politicians?

1. The wisdom to adapt an election system seldom used in the country.
2. The guile to design a scheme to "trick" the people of Oshawa to vote for a general vote council to give incumbents a lifetime seat.
3. The uncommon characteristic of being self-serving rather than holding a strong sense in public service for the public good found in most jurisdictions in the country.


What kind of children were our Oshawa politicians?

1. One was a bully always scheming to get his way---and perpetrating fierce verbal attacks on those that didn’t measure up.
2. Three others were “perfect” children always doing what the dominant person around them wanted them to do…these along with the bully ended up as Oshawa’s “Gang of Four”--Councillors Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Parkes, and Henry.
3. Four of them fought for justice for all and tried to make the world around them a better place representing everybody’s interests. These children grew up to be Councillors Nicholson, Neal, Lutczyk, and Cullen. As adults they showed their childhood traits by defending the democratic ward voting for the people of Oshawa.
4. Some just blew in the wind. You couldn’t predict ahead of time what they were going to do. These are the ones that may change their vote to abandon a return to the general vote. However, they will first have to realize the political consequences of continuing to support a change to the general vote. They need your letters! Send them to Mayor Gray and Councillors Sholdra and Mariempietri. You can click on the names to send them emails.


What did Oshawa voters need to know about our politicians before electing them?

1. Whether they believed in serving the people first or themselves first…The "Gang of Four" who are solidly behind a return to the general vote obviously are self-serving.
2. Whether they were true to voting for what they truly believed to be best for Oshawa. Some say they know ward voting is best but they are voting to reject it. This doesn’t make sense. You must vote for what you know and believe to be right and best for Oshawa.
3. Whether they really wanted to serve the people necessary under the ward vote or whether they wanted to “retire” with the general vote and just continue to collect their salaries, perks, allowances, expense accounts, and honoraria.


Why did Oshawa voters elect our politicians?

1. They were uninformed about the values of some politicians who kept their beliefs and agendas private from the people.
2. Some were elected because of their good service to the residents of their ward.
3. Others were newly elected because of the promise they held for ward voters. Hopefully their votes will not disappoint their supporters…if that is the case, they will become non-supporters leading to the defeat of these politicians.


Who is the boss on city council?

1. There is one guy who bullies members to support him lest he turn on them with his personal attacks…thus he is a leader of three others.
2. There is the “Chair” who votes but seldom offers his own comment as that is difficult from the chair position which is supposed to be neutral.
3. There is a guy who often comes up with the most sensible motions which unfortunately seldom “carry” among the rest.
4. There are the aligned followers whose votes are predictable with a group no matter the issue and the unaligned independents who bring their personal and wisest judgment to all issues.


What’s the difference between politicians and ordinary people?

1. Most politicians like to listen to themselves while ordinary people often listen to others.
2. Most politicians think they are expert on everything while ordinary people recognize there are a few things they don’t know.
3. The money they make in relation to the energy they exert.


What would it take to make our Oshawa politicians perfect?

1. More common sense.
2. A real sense of the meaning of democracy.
3. A real sense of the high calling of politics in providing service to the people.
4. Listening to the people.
5. Communicating about important issues rather than trying to pull “a fast one” on the public by keeping issues such as the plebescite question” a virtual secret which confronted people “cold” in the voting booth never before thinking about or discussing the issue and then voting on a convoluted question where voters had to vote “NO” to preserve the system that they were satisfied with.

Stealing the Silverware!

Now how would you feel? You invite someone to dinner and they steal the silverware?

You invite them because you like them, want to be with them, find them interesting, whatever. In any case they are there because you “support them” and you expect them to reward you at least with their loyalty and friendship. You would never expect these “guests” to disregard your best interests, would you?

So isn’t that why you elected your ward politician? You entrusted him/her with your vote which helped get them elected, and what do they do?

They steal from you the very essence of democracy--the right and ability to select a personal representative to voice your concerns at the decision table.

Those who are presently voting to reject ward voting in favor of the general vote, Councillors Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Parkes, Henry, Sholdra, Marimpietri, and Mayor Gray, by their vote to support the general vote are denying you a ward representative who is accountable to you as your community’s personal voice on council

They are stealing a basic value of the democratic menu from you so that the unique needs of your neighborhood can not and will not be heard.

They are yanking your democratic right to guarantee a community voice. They are yanking the idea of a politician specially chosen by your community to steer your community or private concern through the bureaucracy. They are yanking a voice chosen by you to articulate the needs and aspirations of your community to the City Hall decision makers. They are yanking “the ear” who listens to your community. They are yanking “the eye” that is in the community every day seeing what has to be done to make your neighbourhood a better place. They are yanking the expert on your community who advises and convinces the others of your needs. They are yanking political accountability to the voters of this city...because all of that will go with the elimination of the ward system. They have betrayed your trust.

This is your reward for the trust you placed in them with your vote.

You have invited them to dinner…and they have stolen you blind.

They are furnishing their own “self-serving” interests at your expense.

They have betrayed your trust…and that is your reward!