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!

"I will never take a donation from a developer!"--John Henry

Such was the exclamation from Councillor John Henry in a “holier than thou” statement he made in an August 1, 2007, Page 1 Oshawa This Week Story. By making the statement, Councillor Henry impugns the integrity of every incumbent Oshawa politician all of whom took money from the development industry.

Impugning the integrity of his fellow politicians though is not such a far-fetched action. But by doing so, he is certainly implying that his fellow politicians trade their votes for election funding.

Perhaps Councillor Henry’s utterances were the first shot across the bow of his fellow councillors in what is sure to become a very fractious and unproductive council as members grow their political recognition for a general vote council where all members start competing for the same citywide votes.

Henry’s assertion will prove to be a gross misrepresentation in fund raising for the next election where he will certainly want development industry support. Perhaps he hopes the short term platitudes from the non-analytical will be forgotten by the time of their next vote.

Councillor Henry must not confuse his ability to raise funds from the development industry and his inability to do so.

The article stated that Councillors Henry and Mary Ann Sholdra were the only Oshawa politicians not to benefit from the largesse of the Development Industry. Both will readily accept the largesse of the Development Industry come the next election.

The Development Industry is not in the business of funding a “pig in a poke” and didn’t expect Councillor Henry to defeat incumbent Cathy Clarke and thus wouldn’t fund his campaign. Instead, they funded the campaign of the defeated incumbent!

Councillor Henry was no different in this regard than any other non-incumbent candidate in not receiving development industry political contributions.

The only non-incumbent receiving some Development Industry funding was the spouse of an incumbent councilor. Perhaps this is the reason she received Development funding.

To establish the honesty of Councillor Henry’s dogmatic comments about accepting Development Funding, we will have to wait to see his listing of donations received that must be filed after the next election.

I have annotated my computer calendar to check this issue following the next election and will publicize the result contrasting it with Councillor Henry’s assertions now.

It is hard to believe that he would want to expend $35,000 or so of his own money to self-finance his next “General Vote” campaign.

For him, ward campaigning was cheap, only costing $14239.43. He won’t get by on this slim budget campaigning city wide under the general vote.

Same is true for Mary Anne Sholdra, the other Oshawa Councillor not receiving any donations. Her complete campaign costs had to be borne by herself, despite her past seat on council.

Non-incumbents don’t get development funds…only incumbents get these funds.

Typically non-incumbents have to fund their own campaign and the $35,000 or so necessary to run a viable campaign in the general vote that Oshawa politicians have brought to the city will make it virtually impossible for them to compete. Only incumbent politicians will get donations from the Development Industry and other businesses and individuals that want their votes.

Virtually the only donors to non-incumbents was from trade unions. And you guessed it—they donated to union members…chiefly to members of the UAW retirees who were candidates in the last election.

The donors to all candidates can be surveyed yourself. You can check out who received union donations, who received development industry donations, and who received no donations.

The union movement is a great beneficiary of the general vote. They hope to influence their city-wide membership to vote for their union candidates. The union movement did not have the degree of influence under ward voting as they will have under the general vote.

The union movement has always been supportive of the general vote in Oshawa and labour leaders along with incumbent politicians were the outspoken leaders for retaining the general vote when we last had it prior to 1985. In the days leading up to Ward Voting for Oshawa, the union movement and its leaders like OFL President, Cliff Pilkey, expended huge advertising budgets to try to influence public opinion to retain the general vote.

Even the greatest preponderance of those speaking in favour of the general vote at the April 19, 2007 Sikorski Hall Public Meeting were retired CAW members and virtually all sat together as a group at this meeting. All of these individuals certainly hope to garner the support of city-wide unionists in their next municipal campaign for the $500,000 council seat prize.

We would hope that Oshawa This Week's objectivity is not clouded by the $120,000 annual Oshawa City Hall advertising budget as the public media has a responsibility not to mislead the public when they choose to write “puff stories” to promote city politicians.

Perhaps famed newscaster, Walter Cronkite, was right on in when he stated, “Pressures to go along, to get along, or to place the needs of advertisers or companies above the public’s need for reliable information distort a free press and threaten democracy itself.”

I often wonder if that is why Oshawa This Week refuses to print letters to the editor regarding Oshawa’s change to the general vote that I submit. Perhaps they got the word from City Hall---“Be good or lose our advertising dollar!”

Louise Parkes says this is defamatory and has crossed the line!

Below is an item published on the O'Neill Community Facebook site. A courtesy copy was sent to Councillor Louise Parkes.

The facebook item was accompanied by the following introductory note to Councillors Louise Parkes and John Henry both of which have been avid supporters of Oshawa's return to the general vote which will take away your local ward politicians and make all politicians less accountable to voters---

"Hi John and Louise...just a social visit

Just thought you'd like to know that I started this new site for members of the O'Neill Collegiate Community and thought you might be interested in checking it out.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2325928775

You might want to change your vote to reject the general vote so that this information does not spread too broadly.

Facebook is designed so that once it gets loose in a community, it spreads like wildfire as it is extremely easy for readers to sign up all of the contacts in their address books and it is the new "HOT" site.

As this site grows, i will be able to send a message to every member's email with one click of a button.

We will work on promoting this site among the O'Neill Community shortly.

If you change your vote, you will save me the trouble of promoting this site and you the loss of support both city-wide and in the O'Neill Community.

This is a site for everyone in the community to express their views and so it won't be so time-demanding on me.

In the meantime you will want to check the site regularly to see what is being said by me...and by members of the O'Neill Community.

Isn't the internet great?

Cheers!"

At the April 30th Council meeting following my presentation, She says this information is defamatory and "crosses" the line of reason". She says this information constitutes threats and intimidation. Can you believe?



Is it now defamatory and crossing the line of reason to let voters know how politicians are voting?

Is communicating a politician's voting record to the public a threat and intimidation?

I think not! I think it is necessary.

Public information about politician's votes is only threatening and intimidating to them if they don't have the courage of their convictions and want to keep the public in the dark!

Politicians are our servants and it is our democratic right to know how they vote.

The O'Neill Facebook article in question follows--

The Crunch is here!

Oshawa City Council will be passing their bylaw to introduce the general vote to Oshawa at the regular council meeting 6:30 pm, this coming Monday evening, March 30.

Both your city councillors, John Henry and Louise Parkes are supporting the general vote which will take your local area representative away from you. In the event of a problem in your neighbourhood, there will be no politician directly responsible and accountable to you and your neighbours.

Therefore, Monday nights meeting is important for all to attend who want to preserve democracy in Oshawa.

Democracy means a "real" vote that has a say in determining your political leadership.

Democracy means guaranteeing a voice for your community on city council.

Democracy means an inclusive system that gives equal opportunity to citizens from all parts of the city, with all levels of financial wealth, and with all ethnic backgrounds to have a fair and equal chance to seek a seat on council.

Democracy means that people of all demographic groups will be equally heard.

Democracy means the ability to remove councillors from office who are not representing your interests.

Democracy means that politicians are accountable to the citizens.

Democracy means that the political systems serves the people, not the politicians.

Democracy means that there is a politician that you've elected who is responsible to you to listen to your concerns.

Democracy means all these things...that council is wanting to take away.

It is amazing in this day and age in Canada, of all things, we are seeing the erosion of our democratic rights.

We need you to stock city hall with all of your friends, relatives, neighbours, and associates on Monday night to show the politicians we won't stand for this.

It is our last chance to show council that we won't stand for the erosion of our democratic and Canadian rights.

While attendance is important, you can watch the proceedings on Rogers Cable starting at 6:30 pm if it is impossible for you to attend.

VOTES chair, Bill Longworth, is scheduled as a delegation on your behalf.

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

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?

Council's Confused Vote!---And they say the plebiscite question wasn't confusing

At the council meeting of April 10, 2007, Oshawa City Council voted on the motion "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."

The motion was "LOST" meaning that the Partnership Grant should be provided to VOTES.

Supporting the motion (voting YES) were Councillors Kolodzie, Lutczyk, Marimpietri, Pidwerbecki and Mayor Gray...These councillors voted to deny funding!

Against the motion (voting NO) were Councillors Cullen, Henry, Neal, Nicholson, Parkes and Sholdra...These councillors voted to provide funding!

Confusing isn't it!

This was the same kind of question confronting voters on the plebiscite, a question that some council members have said was so easy to understand that no one could be confused by it. Guess they were wrong. Four councillors got confused and voted the wrong way---at least they voted opposite to the usual way they have been voting on the ward/general vote issue in the past.

Hey...that's 36.4% of the "expert voters" of council that got confused. Is it possible that at least that percentage of "inexperienced" plebiscite voters got confused and voted contrary to their wishes?

On this "easy to understand motion" that "couldn't confuse anyone"---as Councillor Kolodzie and Pidwerbecki have exclaimed numerous times in council when the issue of the plebiscite question being confusing was brought up, they would exclaim, "Are you calling the people stupid?"

On the confusing question council voted on above, they would have had to vote "YES" to deny VOTES the funding and "NO" to deny it. This is similar to voters who had to vote "NO" to keep ward voting and "YES" to reject it. In both cases the answer upon close examination and analysis was opposite to the expected.

So Councillors Henry, Sholdra, and Parkes who have voted on council not to provide a city hall produced brochure with background information on the ward/general vote issue have now supported providing funds to VOTES so that a brochure could be produced and distributed by VOTES independent of city hall input. Hardly likely! Go figure!

Surely they couldn't have been confused by a question similar to the plebiscite question could they? After all they are experienced voters doing so dozens of times a night. The simple plebescite voter only gets to cast a vote a few dozen times in a lifetime! So I understand citizen voters could get confused...but those smart guys on council...never!

Councillor Lutczyk, whom I observe to be one of the more astute, reasoned, thoughtful and intelligent councillors, also got confused as he has supported ward voting on every single question coming before council. But this time he voted contrary to his past record.

If councillors got confused, I'm sure that many citizens who do not have English as their first language also got confused. After all, councillors whose first language is English have shown that a convoluted question is confusing to them.

Maybe those councillors who got confused on the convoluted "plebiscite-like" question will now be called "stupid" by Councillors Pidwerbecki and Kolodzie who liked to use the term to deride fellow councillors who argued the plebiscite question was complicated, convoluted and difficult by exclaiming, "Are you calling the people stupid?"

Of course, that is the way council designed the question to get the plebiscite answer they wanted.

In Oshawa, democracy means Council starts out with an objective...and then designs a strategy to manipulate the public to "trick" them into voting to show "apparent" support for the outcome council wants.

In the case of voting on partnership funding for VOTES, Council got caught in its own petard.

Council, when they realized they made an error and because they make the rules, referred the whole issue back to the committee to give it a second look in preparation for a second vote at council. Now the general vote leaders will have all of the councillors "practice", "discuss", and "debate" their votes to make sure they get it right the next time.

Too bad they are not considering the same "second chance" for all of Oshawa's voters who got confused by the same kind of question that confused the seasoned voters of city council.

Without a vibrant Oshawa press though, council can hide behind this hypocrisy unbeknownst to the general public.

You will never see this "IMPORTANT" story covered in depth and with the attention it deserves in the local media. City Hall's $120,000 advertising budget provided by your tax dollars to Oshawa's weekly newspaper is just "too rich" to jeopardize.

It appears that these advertising dollars control the news we get and are an important ally in allowing city council to carry out its self-serving electoral reforms.

And you thought that press control only happened in places with authoritarian and despotic governments--Hey maybe that's Oshawa!

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?

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.

Hey Oshawa…Take those blinders off!

City Council has blindly pulled the wool over your eyes to satisfy their own blind self-interest. They have robbed you blind. In the process their greed has blinded them to the basic principles of democracy. They have put their own blind interests above the interests of the City of Oshawa and its people.

So how do you feel when council blindsides you in the voter’s booth with a very important change to the system of electing them…a system they so blindly want to guarantee their lifetime seats on council? To make sure you had not previously considered or discussed the question, they virtually kept it a secret from the public. They kept you blind to the facts.

The general vote is a very real possibility. It is up to the Ontario Municipal Board to judge the merits of the change, but council has blocked the main course of appeal under recently revised legislation by keeping the ward boundaries intact but not using them for voting and political purposes, the only purpose for their existence.

Thankfully we have two additional arguments for appeal but these cannot be revealed until the permitting bylaw is passed by council.

Council has called a public meeting on the issue but for all intents and purposes this meeting will be another sham perpetrated by council on the public. Council has made up its mind on the issue and the "Gang of Four", Councillors Pidwerbecki, Kolodzie, Parkes and Henry have publicly stated as much. Even the city solicitor has called it a done deal. We call it a dumb deal. With minds so strongly made up about this already, how can the public meeting be other than a sham meeting.

Yank those blinders off Oshawa. Open your eyes, and protest the self-serving lunacy council is perpetrating on the people The time for letter writing to the mayor and council can’t wait. We need it now and the email address is on the right sidebar or you can simply "click" the highlighted words "mayor and council" just above.

Why did the general vote question arise out of the blue from the politicians? Why did council not provide information about the change to every household? Why did council not make this an important issue for public debate before the vote? What are the benefits to Oshawa of the change? What is the rationale for the change? Why did some council members press so hard for the change?...How will the change help Oshawa? Why? Why? Why? Too many questions….and not one answer!

And council is still being silent on the issue. Why?

We’re not blind, and we’re not fools. And don’t let the council take you for fools, Oshawa. Fight back!! The politicians have to hear from you!

I for one want politicians serving the city and the people…not themselves.

I’m mad as hell! I won’t stand to be taken a fool by the politicians. And I’m doing something about it…how about you?

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!

City Council’s “Mushroom Strategy"

Just like a mushroom--you’ve heard it before; ”Feed us sh-t and keep us in the dark!”

So last night, I attended the opening of the marvelous new South Oshawa Recreation Centre, the birth of which is in large part due to the fact that South Oshawa has some strong ward representation on Oshawa City Council. “South Oshawa has finally received its due after too many years of neglect,” uttered a few of the politicians in remarks at the opening celebrations.

Other projects are also planned, approved, or underway for the South Oshawa communities. A wellness centre on the site of the former Conant School will host an ambulance center, health facilities, and a new seniors center to supplement the three others already existent in central and north Oshawa. As well, a new library is underway also to supplement the three already existent in central and north Oshawa. The south end has finally arrived. And this is in no small measure the result of effective political representation for South Oshawa.

These new developments are tribute to the ward system that determines that no part of Oshawa can be neglected if it elects councillors that are able to effectively articulate the aspirations and desires of the community.

If council has its way, this is about to change. Council wants to take away the local ward representation from all communities in Oshawa and replace it with the “at large" or general vote so that no politician is elected by or accountable to any specific community.

They want to replace local representation with the general vote system making all politicians, they say, responsible for all areas of Oshawa. Now think about that. In a system where everyone is responsible for everything, no one is responsible for anything. And that is the way city council wants it. Politicians obviously don’t want to be held responsible to residents in any part of Oshawa to handle problems or concerns of the area. They want to retire from the burden of constituency problems. After all, that takes a lot of time, effort and energy.

Of course, the politicians were out in full flight taking credit for this well deserved recreational facility that is so handy for South Oshawa residents. They patronized those gathered there with honey coated words so characteristic of politicians, but it was what they didn’t tell the people that was probably the most relevant and important message they could bring.

Counsellor Kolodzie pointed out that he represented South Oshawa for 12 years as its ward councillor and stated, “Today marks the realization of one of my dreams.” As a former teacher of G. L. Roberts CI which is attached to the new rec centre and shares its site, he knows how important it is for kids to have facilities such as this. He didn’t say, however, that he is one of the council leaders in the move to abandon ward voting so that the people listening to his patronizing words would have the ward representation that brought this facility yanked from the community. Just like a mushroom Joe, feed us sh-t and keep us in the dark!

Counsellor Sholdra took the podium and told the people how proud and happy she was to have been the ward counselor for the South end wards. Of course, she also offered an extensive menu of platitudes to accompany her fine words. What she didn’t say was that she also is a firm supporter of yanking the ward representation away from the South End. She has been voting on council to do away with the ward system that has given the south end residents a voice on council that resulted in this recreation centre she was celebrating. Just like a mushroom, Maryanne, feed us sh-t and keep us in the dark!

Even Councillor Henry was there basking in the glory. I guess he was there to work on his recognition profile in the south end in preparation for general vote elections that he has been supporting strongly on council. He too wants to yank ward representation from the citizens that elected him. Too bad he didn’t get a chance to speak to tell the south end people that he wants to pull their ward representation. No doubt, though, Councillor Henry tells his own ward residents as often that he can that he wants to yank ward representation from them--or does he.

Council…just remember your modus operandi—the mushroom principle; “Feed them sh-t and keep them in the dark!

After all—“The Mushroom Strategy”--that has worked so far in all your scheming to revert to the past with the general vote, a system that does nothing for Oshawa but guarantee your re-election!.