The electoral reform wipeout!

Well we had our Provincial plebiscite yesterday on electoral reform and the thing got shot down in flames.

This despite a massive $6.8 million advertising program that was designed to inform the public.

Few voters could have missed the blitz that turned up everywhere…print media, television, and even popped up regularly on your internet screens.

Journalists on all sides of the issue in all media wrote reams about the change. The systems were compared, differences highlighted, advantages and differences were given…it seems that no end of information was provided.

Most voters must have been aware that the proposed system was devised by an independent citizen assembly commissioned by the government as a result of rising critiques of the existing system.

After all of the information that had been made available, the question asked was very straight forward….Which system should Ontario use? (a) The existing system, or (b) The alternative system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly?

Despite the massive communication efforts, critics today are saying that the public was still ill-informed.

So what would these same critics say about Oshawa’s recent plebiscite about electoral reform in Oshawa?

Unlike the Provincial efforts that have been criticized for not enough information, Oshawa provided none!

Unlike the Provincial efforts where the idea for electoral reform arose as a result of public criticism and then the solution was proposed by an independent citizen assembly, Oshawa’s electoral reform was all an inside job by the politicians…they proposed change when no criticism was heard, and then gerrymandered a question using technical and undefined terms that had meaning to them but not to the public, and the question they asked was convoluted and difficult to comprehend so that voters had to vote “NO” to retain the system they were obviously satisfied with and “YES to reject it for the system favoured and proposed by the politicians.

Oshawa’s plebiscite questions regarding City of Oshawa council were:

1) Are you in favour of electing those councillors who represent the City on City Council and on Regional Council by general vote as opposed to ward vote? And,

2) “Are you in favour of electing those councillors who represent the City only on City Council by general vote as opposed to ward vote?”

Realizing that most people will answer “yes” to things they think experts are proposing, council asked the question in such a way that the “yes” answer proposed the change they wanted.

The Oshawa questions would have given a completely opposite result had the politicians transposed the order of words to read, "ward vote as opposed to general vote!"---but this was not the result the Oshawa politicians wanted!

Council deliberately designed a question to skew the results the way they wanted. In the process Council has manipulated voters and treated them as fools and in the process has debauched, debased, defiled and demeaned the very basis of democracy.

No doubt had they asked the simple question as the Province did, “Are you in favour of retaining the present system?”, the question would have been simple to understand and the overwhelming response would have been “yes” to keep the system that they were familiar with and satisfied with.

The whole Oshawa process was so flawed that the Oshawa plebiscite has no validity whatsoever. Politicians know this and designed the process this way…and then many have the nerve to say they support ward voting but must uphold the voice of the people as expressed through the plebiscite.

Oshawa City Council’s strategy in this whole thing explodes any credibility city council members might have.

Isn’t it about time the politicians “come clean” with the Oshawa public and fess up to the fact that the only reason we’re getting the electoral change is to protect incumbent’s council seats until their death or resignation?

The politicians are choosing to serve themselves rather than the people they are supposed to represent.

There can be no other reason.

And what is the cost of council’s self serving actions? Oshawa citizens will pay the price through a loss of our neighbourhood council representation, less accountable politicians, an electoral system that depends upon name recognition rather than service to the people, a fractious and non-productive council as all members fight to grow their “name recognition” to compete for the same city-wide vote, and a council that grows stale because of limited turnover.

Oshawa…The head of the pack again, eh---NOT!

Oshawa city council has again distinguished itself across the country with another first! NOT!

FIRST--Oshawa Council voted on April 30, 2007 to return to the general vote for the election of city council for no reason other than to protect their council positions until their death or resignation. They rigged a plebiscite question to confuse voters and skew results the way they wanted, refused to provide any public information about the question or the reasons why it was being asked and now at 160,000 become the largest city in the country to use the general vote without municipal political parties. They know that with an impossible general vote election ballot with close to 100 names, their ability to raise the necessary $35,000 campaign funds through political donations from their political favours and their ability to grab the press over the term of council, that they will be the only candidates familiar to the voters and thus will be impossible to dethrone. This method of election means that city council is not accountable to the citizens and they can rule dictatorially with impunity…something they are presently doing in regards to University/College student rental housing. As an Oshawa "First" for the country, we may have the only city council in the country that puts their personal electoral interests ahead of the public good….shame!

SECOND—With police and a locksmith in tow, Oshawa Bylaw Officers enter private student residences without permission searching bedrooms for rental documents. In most parts of the country, we’d call this a “break and enter.” We might understand this uninvited entry in the event of criminal activity…but for student rental documents—never! With no doubt, this is an Oshawa “First” for Canada.THIRD—As another Oshawa “First” in the country, Oshawa politicians devise a bylaw to license and control student rental accommodations in a defined area of Oshawa. This is blatantly discriminatory against the owners, some of whom had been approved for up to 7 bedrooms by city planning officials and had plans approved by the building inspections department. If the city succeeds in closing this student housing area, the students will simply move further afield. In the process though, the city inconveniences students in causing them to live further from their studies and drives up student rents.

FOURTH—City Council calls a public meeting to get input regarding their bylaw. Despite an overflow crowd with many legitimate and intelligent concerns being raised by spokespeople, not one voice I heard spoke up in defense of the proposed city bylaw. No matter, if citizen experience with the general vote/ward vote issue is any indication, the meeting was a sham anyway. Council will plunge ahead and do what it wants no matter the opposition. The real test will be comparing the bylaw council passes with the draft distributed at the meeting.

The large turnout at this meeting resulted from the real and immediate personal financial consequences to everyone involved. Unfortunately, the ward/general vote issue did not attract the same attention because the consequences to the public while just as real were unfortunately more abstract. People have not yet realized that this kind of irrational council action will be repeated by a general vote council that is not accountable to the people because councillors know they are not in danger of being voted out of office for irrational and irresponsible actions.

On the other hand, perhaps council action will motivate those affected to solidify their organizations and work for the defeat of council at the next election. With the general vote, block voting of the size represented by those concerned will be able to turf the whole council out of office.

I would be pleased to lend my efforts to any such organization

Knock! Knock! The Oshawa SWAT Team Calling!

What kind of town are we living in?

First City Council denies citizens information they need to make intelligent decisions on a city referendum on the voting system to use and then a City SWAT team with police and locksmith in tow show up at UOIT/ Durham College private student residences to search student bedrooms for leasing documents. This was such an enormous news story among North American Universities that it was featured on an international website about university towns.

In the case of the plebiscite on the voting system we should use, City Council comes up with a trick question to skew voting results the way they want and then deny citizens information to catch them “cold” in the voting booth to vote on a difficult question that they are seeing for the first time without any prior knowledge, consideration, or debate about it.

This is contrary to everything that is basic about a democracy. In Canada, the Supreme Court states that citizens have the “right” to information before voting, as does Elections Ontario which is expending $6.8 billion in informing the public about the Provincial referendum on Election Reform.

And yet Mayor John Gray states emphatically, "city council had no responsibility to inform the public!" Amazing.

And now, at the behest of city council, civic officials with police and a locksmith in tow and armed with a search warrant enter private student housing often while the students were in class snooping for evidence of bylaw infractions …incredulous!

What will they think of next?

Doesn’t this remind you of some Nazi actions or those of other despots who slash and burn through their citizenry?

I wonder if the university students in Kingston, Toronto, London, Guelph, Hamilton, Peterborough, North Bay or the many others across Ontario and the rest of the country get their residences ransacked by civic administrations accompanied by police and locksmiths at the direction of politicians…simply to look for housing rental agreements.

We could understand such police raids if they were to pursuing criminals or criminal activity…but student housing documents? NEVER!

Will your house or my house be next? Can't we expect sanctuary in the privacy of our Oshawa homes?

Yet the Mayor says it’s okay! And this is the same guy who said city council had NO RESPONSIBILITY to communicate details of the plebiscite question to city voters.

We have to start questioning Mayor Gray’s judgment and his connection with the people. Is he a heartless mindless bureaucrat blinded to the rigid routine of administrative details without exercising any judgement?

Our Mayor cannot be a cheerleader for these un-Canadian actions.

Under the Mayor's leadership, our city fathers are undermining the reputation of our university and this city for potential non-resident students. This will jeopardize the quality of the institution for our own Oshawa born students.

These strong arm tactics may motivate UOIT/Durham College students to rise up and organize to take over city council which they will have the power to do under the general vote.

It’s hard to believe all of this is happening in Canada!

So I wonder what’s next for our city council gang under the leadership of Mayor John Gray.

Will they put out a call to hound you or me?

It seems nothing is beyond this Mayor and his gang of followers!

Video---We have a serious democracy deficit in Oshawa

Bill Longworth
Presentation to Oshawa City Council
April 10, 2007

We have a serious democracy deficit in Oshawa

Democracy absolutely requires an informed public You have followed a strategy to keep the public uninformed---to deny them the information they needed to make the plebiscite decision.

You have refused to provide public information…so as a concerned citizen, I have stepped into the breach



I am working to keep the public informed on my website www.oshawaspeaks.ca that you all are aware of.

Since I feel more information has to be provided, I have requested city partnership funding for a professional brochure written by political science professors about this electoral change and had planned for this to be distributed to all Oshawa residents.

This information is important because the public has to know that the general vote takes the real and meaningful vote that can make a difference away from the public

You are stealing their vote.

And amazingly we are discussing this loss of the real and meaningful vote One day after Canadians celebrated our WWI victory at Vimy Ridge where thousands of Canadian soldiers died trying to preserve freedoms for the world and for those back home in Canada…we are today fighting to save the “Real Vote” that is the basis of our democratic freedoms…the very thing our troops were fighting for…and they are continuing to do that in Afghanistan today…to bring real votes to people so that they have some control over their political destiny.

We have huge populations in Oshawa of Eastern European Heritage. Their forbearers came here to obtain freedoms like the Real Vote that could make a difference…We have some councillors whose ancestors came here for that freedom…and surprisingly, these Councillors with this Eastern European heritage are today voting to take away the real vote that their ancestors cherished.

Council defeated a motion ”that staff be directed to prepare an information brochure on the pros and cons of ward system vs central vote methods of election and that a copy of the brochure be circulated to each household in the city of Oshawa prior to any public meetings on this issue.

This motion sounded perfectly sensible and wise to me but it was defeated on negative votes of councillors henry, Kolodzie, Marimpietri, Parkes, Pidwerbecki, Shouldra, and mayor grey…Why? Why don’t you want people to have information?

Your failure to provide necessary information to the public was undemocratic and irresponsible and completely invalidates the plebiscite result.

Oshawa’s history with the general vote shows all change took place through death or resignation of members…not the vote therefore the vote itself was meaningless in bringing change.

Why are we getting no information.

Are you trying to hide something?

Do you have some hidden agenda?

Are you afraid that people will discuss and analyze the change and discover that you, our members of council, are the only beneficiaries of the change since it will guarantee you a lifetime seat on the "gravy train" of city council.

Doesn’t council respect the people enough to provide information to them

Do you think the Oshawa people are stupid and don’t deserve to be informed?

Aren't voters entitled to know why the plebiscite question was asked when there was not one whimper of dissatisfaction expressed with ward voting?

Aren't voters entitled to know what was wrong with the ward system when it seemed to be working so well?

Aren't voters entitled to know the benefits council expects from the general vote?

Aren't voters entitled to be reminded of Oshawa's history with the general vote when all of council came from a few of the wealthier areas leaving most of Oshawa unrepresented?

Aren't voters entitled to know that all political change under Oshawa's general vote took place through death or resignation of members?

Aren't voters entitled to know that the general vote is virtually unused in Canada and is not used in any city as large as Oshawa without the use of political parties?

Aren't voters entitled to know all these things?

So why does council continue to deny us the information?

Council's actions hardly remind us of the way governments are supposed to act in Canada.

So how I wonder how Oshawa voters feel being taken for patsies and fools?

I think they are damn mad and this will become more pronounced as they become fully aware of what you’ve done

This will culminate in their absolute repulsion at the next election of those responsible when their attention will be focused on a huge general vote ballot where it will be impossible for them to make intelligent choices.

I know I am damn mad and am doing something about it---and I am determined to keep this focus over your entire term of council to keep your irresponsibility front and centre with the public.

I am determined that you will pay a price at the next election.

"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!”

The Ontario Referendum

Ontarians on October 10th will make an important choice between the existing first-past-the post (FPTP) electoral system and the proposed replacement, MMP (mixed -member proportional). It has been said that FPTP has problems. We are democratic reformers, but the proposed system is more flawed and will create even more problems.

How we cast votes and elect politicians are more than technicalities. Election rules reflect significant values and create incentives for politicians. Changing an electoral system requires us to think about what we value. What incentive system do we really want?

Ontario’s FPTP system appeals to those who desire stability, accountability, effectiveness, and simplicity. MMP appeals to those who seek proportionality and power-sharing.

Politics requires ideals. But good design is essential. When asked to change a fundamental institution such as our electoral system we must consider issues of both values and design.

With MMP, we will cast two votes. One, as now, will be for our local MPP (but with a total of 90 instead of the current 107). The other will be for our preferred party, leading, after complicated calculations, to the election of 39 “party list” parliamentarians. In theory, we will have a legislature reflecting the votes for parties (proportionality), and, it as assumed, more women and visibility minority MPPs.

Proportionality will mean the end of majority governments and create a legislature composed of many parties preoccupied with power-bargaining and gaining short-term advantage. Parties will find it hard to plan.

Consider the threshold for the election of party-list MPPs. A party needs three percent of the total vote to win a seat, a threshold at the low end of the range for MMP systems: most are at five percent. Our concern is MMP - in such a diverse and large province as Ontario – creates an incentive for people to form new parties in order to advance their interests. Political entrepreneurs will see that they can win seats without making a heavy effort to appeal to many voters. A multi-party legislature means that small and single-issue parties will be more important than their voting strength would otherwise warrant. The minority governments of the future will be much different from the ones of the past.

In terms of promoting diversity, there are two fatal flaws in the party list idea. First, where people are placed on the list is crucial: placed first means election, last means defeat. So, having 30 women on the list is meaningless if the top nine are men.

Second, Ontario is one constituency for the party-list candidates; parties are not required to list people from Ontario’s various regions. It is entirely possible for most party-list MPPs to hail from one region. This is great news for people living in, say, the GTA, but bad news for rural residents or Northern Ontarians.
There should have been provision for regional party-list elections so no region is seriously under-represented in the legislature. As it is, the proposed MMP system may encourage the formation of regional parties.

The MMP proposal contains a new theory of representation. Instead of having MPPs in Queen’s Park who are locally-elected and expected to represent their district’s concerns there will be 39 MPPs who have no direct connection with or accountability to electors. This creates two classes of representatives, one known and responsible to their electors, the other answerable to party leaders who place people on the list and their ranking.

Party leaders are very powerful in our parliamentary system and it is unfortunate that the MMP designers did not require that party members (in regional conventions) choose the party list candidates. Citizens would have an incentive to join parties, thus invigorating an important part of our society.

What are the party-list parliamentarians doing? Political science literature suggests the following: Constituency MPPs will be busy with local issues and dealing with concerns of constituents; party-list MPPs will be preoccupied with the legislature, doing party work, and meeting with interest groups.

MMP’s new theory of representation will radically change politics in Ontario. Perhaps it is a good idea that Queen’s Park has one group of MPPs who are directly connected to constituencies and other MPPs passing laws and imposing taxes who do not have to worry about personal re-election or even being re-nominated by local party members. For our part, we oppose a system of “representation without location.”

Have we adequately debated the issue? We believe that the referendum process is flawed. The Citizens’ Assembly’s Report was released on May 15th. With two months lost during summer, we will make a monumental decision in too short a time, and when we are pre-occupied with the provincial election.

MMP advocates point to New Zealand as an example of a parliamentary system that has adopted MMP. They do not mention the lengthy decision-making process: a Royal Commission reported, followed by a referendum on electoral systems, then a second referendum on MMP. We should have had the same opportunity to learn, reflect, and decide.

We urge Ontarians to retain FPTP knowing that it has provided for stable, effective, and accountable government since before Confederation. The voting process is simple and the counting of votes is straightforward. And the electoral system is responsive to new issues, ideas, and parties, leading to governments being formed and being defeated.

Peter Woolstencroft, Department of Political Science,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Rob Leone, Department of Political
Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo

Mark Yaniszewski, Department of
Political Science, University of Western Ontario, London

Bill Longworth's comment

For what it's worth---my basic belief is that every member of governing institutions should be elected and accountable to voters who elect him/her. I don't believe we should have a second class of politicians (appointed like Senators) without any accountability whatsoever to voters. In the MMP system it is conceivable that the powers of government will be handed to non-elected party bosses leaving elected members to simply look after constituency concerns and hold up their voting hands when told to do so by the unaccountable and unelected party bosses. In a democracy, voters have to have the power to remove individual members from the governing institutions. In undemocratic nations, members of governing bodies are appointed and imposed on the people by the governing party and its leaders. We shouldn't go this route in Ontario!

As stated in the Toronto Star Editorial on Sept. 26, "This referendum is simply too important for people to cast their ballots without really knowing what it is all about."---It's too bad that Oshawa City Council did not heed this warning about the importance of public information when even Oshawa's Mayor stated that the city had no responsibility to inform the public about its own referendum.

Open Letter to the Premier of Ontario

Hon Dalton McGuinty,
Premier of Ontario
dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

cc. Hon. J. Gerretsen,
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Mayor and Council
c/o Oshawa City Clerk
clerks@oshawa.ca

Local Media

Dear Premier McGuinty:

I am aghast at the huge $6.8 million provincial expenditure that is devoted to funding the provincial referendum information and awareness campaign which will swamp the media and the public prior to the Octobert 10th provincial election.

I would suggest that the Province follow the “cost-free” process followed by Oshawa City Council leading up to Oshawa’s referendum regarding changing to the general vote for the election of city and regional councillors.

Following Oshawa’s model would free significant tax dollars for other Provincial priorities.

Oshawa councillors voted to not provide any information to the public and the mayor in remarks at city council stated that the city had no responsibility to provide any details or information related to the referendum question. He said this was the responsibility of individual taxpayers who should fund and organize an independent information campaign.



The mayor’s comments were in profound conflict with statements made by Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer, John Collins, who states that Elections Ontario’s mandate

"is to ensure that Ontario voters are not only aware that a referendum is occurring on October 10, but believe they are adequately prepared to make an informed decision"

While both Elections Ontario and Canada’s Supreme Court believe that an informed public is a right in a democracy and that elections are fair and equitable only if all citizens are reasonably informed of all possible choices," that is not a belief that is shared or practiced by Oshawa City Council.

Oshawa voters were kept in the dark about why the referendum question was asked since no dissatisfaction was ever publicly expressed about Oshawa’s ward voting. The term “general vote” was never defined for voters. The pros and cons of ward vs the general vote were never defined.

The result? Oshawa voters were confronted “cold” in the ballot box having to consider the difficult, convoluted, and complex question for the first time--no prior information, no prior consideration, no prior discussion or debate, no understanding of the meaning of the question they were asked, and no definitions of the technical terms used in the question.

Further the referendum question was revised by council a number of times so that voters were required to vote “NO” to maintain the ward system and “YES” to replace it with the general vote.

In short, Oshawa politicians wanted and expected Oshawa voters to make uninformed choices with a question worded in such a way so as to skew the results the way council wanted.

Oshawa Council's deliberately flawed referendum process makes a mockery of democracy.

Following the referendum results, all councillors received public comments that the question was confusing. Many citizens stated they did not understand the question. After explanation, many citizens stated that they had voted the wrong way.

Despite this, council plunged ahead to implement a bylaw to revert to the general vote making Oshawa at 160,000 people the largest city in Canada to utilize the general vote without also having civic political parties.

This is in spite of the fact that Ontario Municipal Affairs and Housing officials have publicly stated that populations of about 20,000 are the upper limits for a general vote.

The flawed process and the convoluted question combined to give Oshawa Council the "self-serving" result they wanted…the result that would guarantee them their council seats until death or resignation.

The bylaw approved by Oshawa City Council provides for both a general vote and keeping the present ward structure purely to avoid any appeal to the OMB. I'm sure this is an unexpected and unanticipated outcome of recent amendments to the Municipal Act which gives more authority to municipalities.

Oshawa Council has implemented a system that serves them rather than the people they are supposed to serve—a system that makes them less accountable, removes them further from the people, takes away local community representation, insures that vast areas of the city will go unrepresented as time progresses, and insures that only the rich or incumbents who can fundraise through the development industry will be able to mount a viable city wide campaign.

The general vote for Oshawa will mean that city council politicians, who should be closest to the people, will have constituencies about twice the size of our Provincial and Federal Politicians.

Mr. Premier, If you feel that Oshawa was undemocratic in failing to insure an informed public and didn't meet the fairness expectations of Elections Ontario, or of the Supreme Court of Canada, I might respectfully suggest as premier, you’d roll back council’s decision and tell them that the only valid referendum result is from an informed public.

Invalidate Oshawa’s general vote bylaw and tell Oshawa City Council that if they feel the general vote is best for Oshawa, then they should fully inform the public and hold another referendum at the next city elections but only after they have satisfied the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they are implementing systems to promote public debate and provide sufficient information to fully inform the public.

Democracy is too important in this country for it to be mocked by members of Oshawa City Council for their own self-serving purposes.

You can see further background on this issue at www.oshawaspeaks.ca.

Sincerely,
Bill Longworth,
Chairman and Founder of VOTES---Vote to eliminate self-serving politicians

September 13, 2007

Councillor Sholdra says she has been threatened and slandered!

At the April 30, 2007 Oshawa City Council meeting when the general vote was adopted, Councillor Sholdra accused me "according, she says, to her "legal advice" of "threatening and slandering her both verbally and in writing.



I believe that these unsubstantiated, ridiculous, and juvenile comments were made over the public airwaves to undermine my credibility and I believe that we should expect more responsible behavior of our public officials.

You be the judge!

From: Bill Longworth (bill_longworth@hotmail.com)
Sent:April 16, 2007 10:26:44 AM
To: mshouldra (msholdra@oshawa.ca)

Hi Maryanne...You will be interested in the following excerpt from a recent oshawaspeaks.ca post.

"Councillor Maryanne Sholdra says she believes that ward voting is best. But she wants to take it away from everyone including our many residents whose ancestors, including Maryanne’s, came from Eastern Europe for the freedoms characterized by the “real” vote where people have a “real” say in determining their political leaders and their political destiny. Maryanne has always been a strong supporter of the ethnic community and its values, even chairing Oshawa’s “great” Folk Arts Council for many years. Why is she now turning her back on the Eastern European community and taking away their meaningful vote that they came here to cherish?"

Shame Maryanne!

I'm sure that the ethnic communities you strongly supported for many years will feel "let down" and "disappointed" at your votes to remove ward voting, the system that ensures them a "real voice" at the polls. Their ancestors, and yours, in the old country had enough of feeling powerless to choose their political leaders. You know that is a key reason why they came here...and why they've continued to be so interested in getting politically involved over the years.

Why not change your vote in recognition of the extremely flawed plebiscite process put in place by the last council. You know that democracy cannot function without an informed public. You also know that the kind of "trick" question (re funding the partnership grant for VOTES) that stumped and confused some councillors at the last council meeting was the same kind of question that confused the public voting on the plebiscite question.

Your vote for the plebiscite result is not at all upholding the public will...but is supporting a flawed process that is not democratic at all.
If you changed your vote, I would like to put you down in my site as one of the "stars" upholding and "saving" democracy in Oshawa in future posts.

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

I believe that the following email sent to Councillor Sholdra is the one that she says threatened and slandered her!

As a courtesy, I was informing Councillor Sholdra that I had initiated a new FACEBOOK SITE aimed at the Oshawa multicultural communities and that I was going to use the site to inform this community that she was voting to take away their local ward politician thus making city politicians less accountable to the people.

An internet site of interest to you
From: Bill Longworth (bill_longworth@hotmail.com)
Sent:April 28, 2007 3:07:46 PM
To: mshouldra (msholdra@oshawa.ca)

Hi Maryanne...just started this new site for members of Oshawa's multicultural community and thought you might be interested in checking it out. Let Joe and Nester know also as they will get some face time in this site as well.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2321057994

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

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 Oshawa multicultural community and I think Fiesta Week would be a great week to start...don't you?

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

If you change your vote, you will save me the trouble of working on this site and you the loss of support.

Isn't the internet great?

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

The preamble to the FACEBOOK entry is...

Oshawa Councillor, Maryanne Sholdra is voting to take guaranteed local area political representation from Oshawa's many communities. This will mean that the south end of Oshawa will likely have no residents on council but it will also mean that no matter where you live, you will have no city council politician responsible to you and your neighbours. Councillor Sholdra is failing to protect the "real" vote that many ancestors of Oshawa's multicultural communities came here to have. Her vote is eroding democracy in the City of Oshawa.

Democracy requires an informed public. When we want to inform the public about the votes of Councillor Sholdra, she calls it threatening and slander...isn't it amazing that she doesn't want her supporters to know about her vote on this issue.

I wonder why!

Certainly any politician would want voters to know of their votes if they thought the vote reflected the view of the majority of their constituents!

Maybe Councillor Sholdra feels that her vote to take away local representation to protect the seat of incumbent politicians would not be popular with her supporters, many of whose ancestors migrated here for a freer, more open and democratic government.