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?

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?

Video...Oshawa Council takes voters as fools

Oshawa City Council "out of the blue" put a plebiscite question on the election ballot asking voters if they wanted a change to the general vote for the election of city council.

This was a surprising question to ask since there had not been one whimper of public disatisfaction expressed with Oshawa's use of a voting system used virtually everywhere in the country...and Council has yet to provide any rationale for asking the question or explaining how the change would benefit Oshawa.

The concept of a general vote was not one that people were familiar with or understood and the term was not defined anywhere. Council gerrymandered the question in such a way that voters had to vote "NO" to preserve the system that had served the community well as one of the fastest growing regions in Canada and with the country's highest average income. We are a people that cannot be taken as fools.

Council refused to provide any public information about the issue to minimize any public debate or discussion.

The result...with the trick question and the absence of information, voters were confronted in the voting booth for the first time seeing and considering the complex and convoluted question heavily weighted in a way to give an answer the politicians wanted to hear.

It is obvious Oshawa politicians believe in Democracy...Saddam Hussein style!

As believers in "Canadian Style" Democracy, the VOTES group will contest the next election. We will use every ounce of our efforts in the campaign to focus, activate, and arouse citizen anger, resentment, and rebellion against those who take the voters as fools.

We predict that council's action is going to result in a "revolution of ill-will" toward this council...public sentiment is going to explode at the anti-democratic and self-serving move in pushing for the general vote simply to insure politicians their lifetime seats on council.

The people's revolutionary broom will sweep all of the council who are not members of our team out of office.

We believe in a system that serves the people, not the politicians!

29 Reasons Why The Ward System Is Better

In Niagara Falls, Ontario, during a 2000 ballot pebiscite, the majority of citizens voted in favour of retaining the ward system. But because less than 50% of eligible voters turned out at the polls, the city council was legally able to ignore the results of the plebiscite. They ignored the plebiscite because they favored the general vote. Here in Oshawa, politicians are supporting the plebescite because they favour a change to the general vote. In the 1985, Oshawa City Council ignored a plebiscite favoring ward voting because they wanted to retain the general vote. How politicians handle non-binding plebiscites has nothing to do with democratically upholding the public will but rather what action supports Council's desired outcome.

A citizen group in Niagara Falls developed and published a document listing 99 reasons to keep the ward system. Excerpted here are 29 solid reasons that pertain to Guelph.

You may also be interested to read the rationale for suggesting the general vote for London by its prime mover, Councillor Rocco Furfaro. You'll see that they are about as significant as Oshawa Councillor Nester Pidwerbecki's rationale for suggesting the plebiscite question for Oshawa.

REASONS WHY A WARD SYSTEM IS BETTER FOR GUELPH (AND OBVIOUSLY FOR OSHAWA)

1. Every area of the city deserves equal representation.
2. The ward system encourages councillors to become fully knowledgeable about the area they represent.
3. Running in a ward makes councillors more accountable to neighbourhood voters.
4. The at-large system gives an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates.
5. There is not, nor has there ever been, any public desire to abolish the current ward system.
6. The ward system works. City council has never offered any substantial evidence to the contrary.
7. Your vote carries more weight in ward elections.
8. Without a ward system, local politics will become more remote than ever before.
9. The ward system prevents the undesirable possibility of having all councillors come from the same area of town.
10. A council elected at-large is more susceptible to being influenced by non-territorially based special interest groups.
11. The city is growing and becoming more diverse. A ward system can best accommodate these changes.
12. The ward system gives us a diversity of opinion on council.
13. Election debates are unworkable in an at-large system.
14. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that “the cream rises to the top” in an at-large system.
15. Citizens who need help know exactly who to contact and can hold them directly accountable at election time.
16. Printing election materials and lawn signs for over 60,000 voters would be cost prohibitive.
17. Guelph is too large for councillors to have intimate knowledge of every neighbourhood in the city.
18. Ward elections allow candidates to personally visit each home in the ward, to speak personally with a member of each household they seek to represent.
19. An at-large election system means more candidates and longer ballots. This makes it extremely difficult for voters to thoroughly consider the issues or ask questions of each and every candidate.
20. In a democracy, it is important to make informed decisions. Ward elections, by facilitating face-to-face interaction between voters and candidates, help voters become better-informed.
21. In the at-large system, every councillor will be competing against every other councillor. That makes it more difficult for incumbent councillors to build mutual trust and camaraderie.
22. Federal, provincial, and regional elections are all based on the ward system.
23. In a city of roughly 110,000 people, it simply makes sense to have city politicians take responsibility for neighbourhood problems through a ward system.
24. The trend in Ontario, in Canada, and across North America is towards adopting ward systems.
25. Your councillor likely lives, drives, walks, and shops in your neighborhood. This gives councillors a better understanding of neighbourhood issues and allows them to be proactive in dealing with neighbourhood problems.
26. At-large systems only tend to exist very small homogeneous communities. Guelph does not fit this criteria.
27. Under the at-large system, there is a greater possibility of having a homogeneous group of people representing a heterogeneous city.
28. Newmarket is one of only three medium sized municipalities in Ontario that has an at-large system. The City is currently in the process of adopting a ward system after citizens voted to dump the at-large system in a 2000 referendum.
29. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

There you go Oshawa...you don't have to take my word for it that ward voting is best in serving the people. The initiative for change to the general vote comes from politicians who know that it secures and guarantees their political futures. Their private rationale is for a "self-serving" election system but their publicly stated rationale always falls far short of a full load. Why? Because a return to the general vote cannot be justified on any grounds by any thinking person. There simply is no public benefit of the general vote...but there are a number of deficits which have been cited in various posts on this site.