In communicating to city hall, you want to do it in a way that provides a permanent record of your concern, a way that documents the receipt of your concern, and a way that results in some "official" action.
This requires a letter addressed "To The Mayor and Council," c/o Oshawa City Clerk.
When you write to your local councillor, there is no official record of your letter. A councillor could simply look at your letter and then throw it in the garbage. He may or may not give you a call acknowledging your letter but there is no "official" evidence of you ever having communicated in the first place. In any case, the individual councillor, has no "official" authority outside of his vote on council.
So the basic principle is, "An individual councillor has no authority on his own. The authority rests with council and a majority vote there."
Politicians, may at times, have some moral suasion in talking to bureaucrats and in knowing the ropes of city hall, knows who to talk to.
Since political authority is vested in council, the most effective way to get "official" consideration of your letter is to address it to the Mayor and Council, c/o the city clerk...in the case of emails to clerks@oshawa.ca.
Such letters to the mayor and council appear on the council agenda and council moves to receive the letter. The letter is public and can be viewed by those checking city agendas. An example of some of my letters to the Mayor and Council can be seen on pg 4 of the March 19 Council Agenda.
When a letter is sent to the mayor and council, it is "official" and "official" action follows. At times that official action is only to "receive and file" but by so doing a permanent record of your concern exists in perpetuity in the council minute archives. At times, your letter may result in a motion of council in which council takes specific action which is firm and official direction for action by city staff.
No such "direction" to staff is ever possible from a letter to your local councillor unless (s)he takes the issue to council by presenting a motion which is subsequently passed by council. The councillor may do this if he feels strongly about the issue but is not compelled to do so.
Any letters sent regarding your demands that the ward system be retained by city hall should be sent to the mayor and council so that your concern and your demands are officially received and archived in the council minutes.
Hopefully you will take the time to send an email to the mayor and council demanding that they retain ward voting for Oshawa.
If enough letters are received so that the politicians know voters are concerned and serious about this issue, council members would likely be motivated to rescind their moves to the general vote.
If the people are silent, council will rush headlong into the self-serving general vote...and all of Oshawa will suffer.
Get active Oshawa! Let us hear your voice!
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Video...Stand up and be counted, Oshawa!
Oshawa has a serious problem with the city politician’s moves to bring us the general vote…the system that we turfed out in 1985 in favor of ward voting, the system used virtually everywhere in Canada.
The only place where the general vote is used in a city of Oshawa’s size is in Vancouver where they have a system of municipal political parties and people vote for representatives of the party and its platform. The party is important…not the individual candidate…sort of like provincial and federal elections where the candidate takes a minor role to the party.
The only way that the general vote could work in Oshawa is if we adopted a similar system to Vancouver and introduced political parties into our municipal political system. Political parties make sense with the general vote because without them there are too many candidates for people to get to know in order to make informed choices.
Political parties in a general vote system reduce the difficulty for voters in making wise choices. People simply vote for the representatives of the party whose platform they support.
Political parties are okay for efficient management of the city but they distance the local government from the people and remove your local council representative who can hear your local problem and work toward its solution in an informal way within the bureaucracy of city hall. All of this is lost with the general vote.
Even in Vancouver where the general vote and political parties are used, most of the politicians come from a few of the more affluent areas of the city leaving many of the areas without a local resident representing them on council
If you think political parties should be introduced into Oshawa and don’t care about personal contact with your local politician who is likely resident in your section of the city, by all means…support city council’s moves toward the general vote.
But If you think a local government should be close to the people, representative of the city population, inclusive of all neighborhoods and socio-economic levels, and have a local resident that you likely see in your neighborhood represent the interests of your community on city council, you need the ward system and should oppose city wide elections for all members of council.
So where do you stand Oshawa? We need you to stand up and express your view!
If you want to retain ward voting, it is important that you send an email to the mayor and council at clerks@oshawa.ca demanding the retention of ward voting.
The very future of Oshawa is at stake with the decision of council and your efforts to work toward the system that you think is best for Oshawa.
The only place where the general vote is used in a city of Oshawa’s size is in Vancouver where they have a system of municipal political parties and people vote for representatives of the party and its platform. The party is important…not the individual candidate…sort of like provincial and federal elections where the candidate takes a minor role to the party.
The only way that the general vote could work in Oshawa is if we adopted a similar system to Vancouver and introduced political parties into our municipal political system. Political parties make sense with the general vote because without them there are too many candidates for people to get to know in order to make informed choices.
Political parties in a general vote system reduce the difficulty for voters in making wise choices. People simply vote for the representatives of the party whose platform they support.
Political parties are okay for efficient management of the city but they distance the local government from the people and remove your local council representative who can hear your local problem and work toward its solution in an informal way within the bureaucracy of city hall. All of this is lost with the general vote.
Even in Vancouver where the general vote and political parties are used, most of the politicians come from a few of the more affluent areas of the city leaving many of the areas without a local resident representing them on council
If you think political parties should be introduced into Oshawa and don’t care about personal contact with your local politician who is likely resident in your section of the city, by all means…support city council’s moves toward the general vote.
But If you think a local government should be close to the people, representative of the city population, inclusive of all neighborhoods and socio-economic levels, and have a local resident that you likely see in your neighborhood represent the interests of your community on city council, you need the ward system and should oppose city wide elections for all members of council.
So where do you stand Oshawa? We need you to stand up and express your view!
If you want to retain ward voting, it is important that you send an email to the mayor and council at clerks@oshawa.ca demanding the retention of ward voting.
The very future of Oshawa is at stake with the decision of council and your efforts to work toward the system that you think is best for Oshawa.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Oshawa Report Lowballs "Real Cost" of Oshawa Politicians
An article headlining the March 28 issue of Oshawa This Week states that the total taxpayer cost of city politicians is $543,303.
What bunk! This is so far from the truth that the deception, gross misrepresentation, slight of hand, and less than honest and forthright accounting and reporting would even impress Harry Houdini, the master of deception, who was able to expose most of the mystics, charlatans, sorcerers and fraud artists of his day.
This report is so deceiving that if politicians used it in their income tax reporting they’d be jailed for tax evasion.
Don’t be fooled, Oshawa, by City Politicians hiding and misrepresenting their real costs to the taxpayer. They have only published what they want you to know. It’s deceptive information supported by creative accounting.
To Oshawa City Hall, accounting is an art, not a science! I wish I could buy a car with the sales guy lowballing the figures this way!
Didn't Enron, Nortel, Worldcom, etc. use these same deceptive methods? Their CEO's are now behind bars.
We have written in our posts on this site that the total costs to the taxpayer of each politician over the 4 year term approaches ½ million dollars…and we stand behind that figure.
We believe the minimum total annual cost to Oshawa taxpayers for Oshawa City Politicians is almost three times as high as reported or a minimum of $1.375 million.
But City Staff at the direction of politicians have designed a reporting system that makes it hard to determine their total salaries because total renumeration is made up of monies coming from a number of sources not listed in the public record.
Some expenses and honoraria are determined not to be salary…that’s great for income tax reporting, isn’t it?
A big payoff for politicians is from Durham regional council. This pay is about the same as their pay for sitting on Oshawa council. And this is a cost to the Oshawa taxpayer isn’t it? Why is it not mentioned as a cost of our politicians? Certainly Oshawa taxpayers pay handsomely about half their property taxes to fund Durham Region and our politicians there.
I note that the article did say that defeated councillor Mike Nicholson got a windfall in his loss with giant severance and retirement allowances. The much larger windfall for defeated Cathy Clarke from both the city and region were not reported. Why not? Where in the city accounting are these accumulating taxpayer costs indicated? It’s not! Why? After all this is a taxpayer cost for our politicians isn’t it?
Total postage costs for politicians were reported as $762….yeah, right! Some costs like politician's "self-promotion" mass mailings are not counted in politician costs. They are hidden in more general accounts so they cannot be traced to politicians. But this is a political cost to taxpayers isn’t it? Many “additional political” costs are hidden within other budgets to hide the real costs from taxpayers--and that is the way council wants it.
How about political honoraria costs to have politicians anointed as chair or vice chair of city or region committees ($46,704.90--about $5000 more annually). Where is that mentioned? That is a cost of our politicians isn’t it?
How about politician costs of having some anointed for sitting on non-city boards and agencies like CLOCA, Downtown Action Committee, Heritage Oshawa, Oshawa Public Library Board, or Senior Citizen’s Centres board of Directors, Parkwood Board of Directors, or Art Gallery Board of trustees. A complete listing of these is available…unfortunately the honoraria (tax free pay) attached to each is not. Politicians don’t accept these jobs for nothing. All of these are indirect costs to the taxpayers that comes from City Council funding of these organizations. City Hall puts the money in the organizational pocket where it is withdrawn by the politicians...It's called indirect pay I guess! And this is only a start of all of the “extra and hidden pay opportunities" since an equal number exist at the Regional Level.
In some jurisdictions with public reporting agencies, giant payoffs are available and these do give a clue to some of the giant payoffs available to politicians…which again are a cost of our polititicans aren’t they?
How about benefits costs such as pensions, health care, mileage allowance, retirement (defeat) allowance. They’re not mentioned . Why not? Or how about the cost of providing blackerry’s for all of council? Where is that political cost of the blackberry’s alone at approximately $1000 per councillor per year factored in?
And hey...I haven't even mentioned city charge cards, car allowances, food allowance, travel and conference costs, etc., etc., etc.
Now I wonder how many city politicians will be going as Oshawa representatives to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing or to the Vancouver Olympics in 2010? After all, Oshawa does need to be represented at these events doesn’t it? I think our representatives should have the best seats in the house for all the events of their choosing, the best hotel accommodation, travel throughout China and British Columbia while they are there, and to top it off…first class air travel. After all, our politicians are here to serve the interests of Oshawa…and we must provide them the first class opportunity to do that, musn't we?
This article demonstrates a great manipulation of the press by the politicians and Oshawa City Hall. I think it's time for a little in-depth investigative reporting about the "real" salaries of Oshawa politicians. It is hard to believe that the press could be so naïve as to fall for City Hall's political ruse.
You can’t take what Oshawa City Hall tells you at face value. We are learning that it has to be proven before it can be taken as truth!
What bunk! This is so far from the truth that the deception, gross misrepresentation, slight of hand, and less than honest and forthright accounting and reporting would even impress Harry Houdini, the master of deception, who was able to expose most of the mystics, charlatans, sorcerers and fraud artists of his day.
This report is so deceiving that if politicians used it in their income tax reporting they’d be jailed for tax evasion.
Don’t be fooled, Oshawa, by City Politicians hiding and misrepresenting their real costs to the taxpayer. They have only published what they want you to know. It’s deceptive information supported by creative accounting.
To Oshawa City Hall, accounting is an art, not a science! I wish I could buy a car with the sales guy lowballing the figures this way!
Didn't Enron, Nortel, Worldcom, etc. use these same deceptive methods? Their CEO's are now behind bars.
We have written in our posts on this site that the total costs to the taxpayer of each politician over the 4 year term approaches ½ million dollars…and we stand behind that figure.
We believe the minimum total annual cost to Oshawa taxpayers for Oshawa City Politicians is almost three times as high as reported or a minimum of $1.375 million.
But City Staff at the direction of politicians have designed a reporting system that makes it hard to determine their total salaries because total renumeration is made up of monies coming from a number of sources not listed in the public record.
Some expenses and honoraria are determined not to be salary…that’s great for income tax reporting, isn’t it?
A big payoff for politicians is from Durham regional council. This pay is about the same as their pay for sitting on Oshawa council. And this is a cost to the Oshawa taxpayer isn’t it? Why is it not mentioned as a cost of our politicians? Certainly Oshawa taxpayers pay handsomely about half their property taxes to fund Durham Region and our politicians there.
I note that the article did say that defeated councillor Mike Nicholson got a windfall in his loss with giant severance and retirement allowances. The much larger windfall for defeated Cathy Clarke from both the city and region were not reported. Why not? Where in the city accounting are these accumulating taxpayer costs indicated? It’s not! Why? After all this is a taxpayer cost for our politicians isn’t it?
Total postage costs for politicians were reported as $762….yeah, right! Some costs like politician's "self-promotion" mass mailings are not counted in politician costs. They are hidden in more general accounts so they cannot be traced to politicians. But this is a political cost to taxpayers isn’t it? Many “additional political” costs are hidden within other budgets to hide the real costs from taxpayers--and that is the way council wants it.
How about political honoraria costs to have politicians anointed as chair or vice chair of city or region committees ($46,704.90--about $5000 more annually). Where is that mentioned? That is a cost of our politicians isn’t it?
How about politician costs of having some anointed for sitting on non-city boards and agencies like CLOCA, Downtown Action Committee, Heritage Oshawa, Oshawa Public Library Board, or Senior Citizen’s Centres board of Directors, Parkwood Board of Directors, or Art Gallery Board of trustees. A complete listing of these is available…unfortunately the honoraria (tax free pay) attached to each is not. Politicians don’t accept these jobs for nothing. All of these are indirect costs to the taxpayers that comes from City Council funding of these organizations. City Hall puts the money in the organizational pocket where it is withdrawn by the politicians...It's called indirect pay I guess! And this is only a start of all of the “extra and hidden pay opportunities" since an equal number exist at the Regional Level.
In some jurisdictions with public reporting agencies, giant payoffs are available and these do give a clue to some of the giant payoffs available to politicians…which again are a cost of our polititicans aren’t they?
How about benefits costs such as pensions, health care, mileage allowance, retirement (defeat) allowance. They’re not mentioned . Why not? Or how about the cost of providing blackerry’s for all of council? Where is that political cost of the blackberry’s alone at approximately $1000 per councillor per year factored in?
And hey...I haven't even mentioned city charge cards, car allowances, food allowance, travel and conference costs, etc., etc., etc.
Now I wonder how many city politicians will be going as Oshawa representatives to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing or to the Vancouver Olympics in 2010? After all, Oshawa does need to be represented at these events doesn’t it? I think our representatives should have the best seats in the house for all the events of their choosing, the best hotel accommodation, travel throughout China and British Columbia while they are there, and to top it off…first class air travel. After all, our politicians are here to serve the interests of Oshawa…and we must provide them the first class opportunity to do that, musn't we?
This article demonstrates a great manipulation of the press by the politicians and Oshawa City Hall. I think it's time for a little in-depth investigative reporting about the "real" salaries of Oshawa politicians. It is hard to believe that the press could be so naïve as to fall for City Hall's political ruse.
You can’t take what Oshawa City Hall tells you at face value. We are learning that it has to be proven before it can be taken as truth!
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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!
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!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Video...Bill Longworth explains politician's strategy to avoid an OMB appeal re Oshawa's change to the general vote
Oshawa City Council has adapted a motion to change to the general vote for the election of city council members but to keep the existing wards simply as a way to try to avoid an OMB appeal to have the OMB take a sober second look at whether the general vote is advisable and beneficial for Oshawa.
If council thought they had a winnable case for the OMB, they would not resist an appeal to support their decision for the people of Oshawa particularly in light of the controversy and debate sparked by the change.
They know, however, that a change to the general vote is indefensible.
By taking this tact solely to avoid an OMB appeal, they raise serious questions among the voters about the change to the general vote...and why the politicians want it.
If they thought they were doing the right thing for Oshawa, wouldn't they savour a look by the independent snd objective OMB to confirm for the people that they are doing what is best for Oshawa? You bet they would!
It's hard, however, for the politicians to take this to the OMB when they are the only beneficiaries of the change.
The political system should serve the people, not the politicians!
If council thought they had a winnable case for the OMB, they would not resist an appeal to support their decision for the people of Oshawa particularly in light of the controversy and debate sparked by the change.
They know, however, that a change to the general vote is indefensible.
By taking this tact solely to avoid an OMB appeal, they raise serious questions among the voters about the change to the general vote...and why the politicians want it.
If they thought they were doing the right thing for Oshawa, wouldn't they savour a look by the independent snd objective OMB to confirm for the people that they are doing what is best for Oshawa? You bet they would!
It's hard, however, for the politicians to take this to the OMB when they are the only beneficiaries of the change.
The political system should serve the people, not the politicians!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Old Abe's Observations...video
Oshawa City Council gerrymandered a ward/general vote plebiscite question that went through a number of revisions until they came up with one heavily weighted in a way likely to produce the result council wanted.
Council then kept the question secret to avoid any public debate or discussion of the issue so they could catch voters "cold" in the voting booth considering the complex and convoluted question for the first time...a question where voters had to vote "NO" to retain their present ward system of voting.
Two doctors I spoke with did not understand the concept of the general vote. While experts in the medical field, they understood little about the details of politics...and I suspect many citizens expert in their fields are equally uninformed about political terms.
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.
Oshawa Council does not understand that democracy requires an informed public and it was very undemocratic for council to refuse to provide information to all households about the issue, despite my written request for them to do so.
It is not democratic to gerrymander a plebiscite question likely to produce a result council wanted and then keep the question a secret from the public to stifle any public debate and discussion. Nor is it democratic for those councillors who are voting to support the plebiscite result insisting they must uphold the will of the people.
To Oshawa City Council, democracy is only a word...it is not a practise.
The will of the people has not yet been expressed but will speak loudly come the next municipal election
Council then kept the question secret to avoid any public debate or discussion of the issue so they could catch voters "cold" in the voting booth considering the complex and convoluted question for the first time...a question where voters had to vote "NO" to retain their present ward system of voting.
Two doctors I spoke with did not understand the concept of the general vote. While experts in the medical field, they understood little about the details of politics...and I suspect many citizens expert in their fields are equally uninformed about political terms.
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.
Oshawa Council does not understand that democracy requires an informed public and it was very undemocratic for council to refuse to provide information to all households about the issue, despite my written request for them to do so.
It is not democratic to gerrymander a plebiscite question likely to produce a result council wanted and then keep the question a secret from the public to stifle any public debate and discussion. Nor is it democratic for those councillors who are voting to support the plebiscite result insisting they must uphold the will of the people.
To Oshawa City Council, democracy is only a word...it is not a practise.
The will of the people has not yet been expressed but will speak loudly come the next municipal election
Monday, March 26, 2007
Councillor Piddleweepuddle Video
This is, of course...of course...of course...a fictional dramatization of the yesterday's post that tries to explain how and why the idea of returning to the general vote arose in Oshawa.
While the rationale quoted seems to be from outer space, they were the actual arguments used to raise the issue and the rationale given for carrying it forward.
All of the facts and ideas spouted by the chief architect and proponent of the idea were dead wrong and believable or factually correct reasons for the introduction have yet to be given. Nor has any rationale for how Oshawa might benefit from the general vote been offered. This, of course, is because a return to the general vote is completely indefensible by any sensible person and cannot be justified in any way.
The general vote makes a mockery of representative democracy. General Vote Politicians come to represent only a miniscule segment of the population (the rich and influential) who are resident of a few "upper scale" neighbourhoods in the city.
In addition, name recognition becomes the only criteria for political success...not service to the community.
Because politicians are virtually guaranteed their council seat until their death or resignation, they become less accountable to the people.
Because General Vote politicians are all competitors for the same city-wide vote, the council becomes unproductive as politicians jocky for press by name calling, backbiting, bitching, and grandstanding. They refuse to support even brilliant ideas arising from their fellow councillors who are all competing for the same city wide vote lest their competitors reap some good press.
The General Vote becomes a disaster for a progressive city.
We are left then to ponder the hidden agenda of council members who supported and are supporting the change.
We are particularly alarmed by those politicians who have publicly stated that they are going to vote contrary to what they know to be best for Oshawa simply to uphold the plebiscite result that resulted from a "secret" and "trick" question that council gerrymandered to achieve the result they wanted.
Since the general vote cannot be supported by any rational arguments, is it possible that it is desired by the politicians simply because it virtually guarantees them a lifetime council seat? The answer...a definite "YES".
While the rationale quoted seems to be from outer space, they were the actual arguments used to raise the issue and the rationale given for carrying it forward.
All of the facts and ideas spouted by the chief architect and proponent of the idea were dead wrong and believable or factually correct reasons for the introduction have yet to be given. Nor has any rationale for how Oshawa might benefit from the general vote been offered. This, of course, is because a return to the general vote is completely indefensible by any sensible person and cannot be justified in any way.
The general vote makes a mockery of representative democracy. General Vote Politicians come to represent only a miniscule segment of the population (the rich and influential) who are resident of a few "upper scale" neighbourhoods in the city.
In addition, name recognition becomes the only criteria for political success...not service to the community.
Because politicians are virtually guaranteed their council seat until their death or resignation, they become less accountable to the people.
Because General Vote politicians are all competitors for the same city-wide vote, the council becomes unproductive as politicians jocky for press by name calling, backbiting, bitching, and grandstanding. They refuse to support even brilliant ideas arising from their fellow councillors who are all competing for the same city wide vote lest their competitors reap some good press.
The General Vote becomes a disaster for a progressive city.
We are left then to ponder the hidden agenda of council members who supported and are supporting the change.
We are particularly alarmed by those politicians who have publicly stated that they are going to vote contrary to what they know to be best for Oshawa simply to uphold the plebiscite result that resulted from a "secret" and "trick" question that council gerrymandered to achieve the result they wanted.
Since the general vote cannot be supported by any rational arguments, is it possible that it is desired by the politicians simply because it virtually guarantees them a lifetime council seat? The answer...a definite "YES".
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Group blames Pidwerbecki for change in the system
Written by Bill Longworth and
Reprinted from Oshawa Express, Feb. 7, 2007
Oshawa citizens are becoming more aware of Oshawa City Council’s desire to return to the general vote and some anger has arisen at their self-serving actions. Council failed to provide voters information about the issue prior to the referendum vote and political action groups like VOTES (vote to eliminate self-serving politicians) have sprung up to fight the change.
Citizens are finally being provided information about the issue by sites such as www.oshawaspeaks.ca which is the VOTES website.
Some angry residents have asked who was responsible for the referendum question and who supported it.
The sole architect of putting this asinine referendum question was Nestor Pidwerbecki. This was despite the fact that there had been not been a whimper of public discontent for the ward system. It’s unfortunate that he was able to solicit council support to get the question on the ballot.
Voting for the ballot question were Councillors Nestor Pidwerbecki, Brian Nicholson, Mike Nicholson, Cathy Clarke, John Neal, Joe Kolodzie, and April Cullen. Voting against were Mayor Gray, Councillors Robert Lucyk, Tito-Dante Marimpietri, and Louise Parkes.
According to press reports Pidwerbecki’s rationale for introducing the issue was: 1) Oshawa was growing too large for a ward system, 2) that a ward system council was too divisive and, 3) councillors should have a city-wide mentality. Pidwerbecki is dead wrong on all counts and hopefully he brings less faulty thinking to his council votes. I suspect, though, that Pidwerbecki is smarter than this and that he is “stretching” to justify the unjustifiable.
Let’s analyze Pidwerbecki’s argument.
Oshawa is growing too large for a ward system---This is completely opposite from the truth. In reality, a general vote is only valid where the municipality is quite small and everyone knows each other. Using Pidwerbecki’s argument, Toronto’s council of 44 members representing 2.48 million people because of its vast size should be an obvious candidate for the general vote because he would argue it is too large for a ward system….ridiculous and absurd!
A Ward System Council is too divisive---How so? General vote politicians compete with each other at every meeting for press necessary to foster high name recognition.
Therefore, they hog the floor and backbite, bitch, and bicker to steal the press. Ward politicians are not election competitors and have to be far more co-operative with their peers in order to gain support for the needs of their ward
A general vote promotes a city-wide mentality---Not so! A general vote politician gets elected through high name recognition and thus promoting themselves at the expense of real productivity becomes job one for general vote politicians.
A ward vote politician gets elected through service to his/her constituents and so service to people becomes job one for a ward politicians.
Ward politicians have to develop positive relations with their fellow politicians to get support for any of their ward initiatives.
The very nature of co-operation leads to politicians working together to set priorities for the betterment of the city.
The general vote cannot be justified on any grounds for a municipality the size of Oshawa, It is obvious Pidwerbecki is stretching for straws trying to justify the unjustifiable…Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes.
When we got the ward system in 1985, Pidwerbecki was quoted in the press as saying, “They are going to have to break up the country club and it is going to be the best thing that ever happened to Oshawa. How can I describe our feelings,” he continued, “we’re elated.” He said up to now Council had been composed of people who have had enough money to afford the high price tag of a general election campaign. “Now people who are relatively unknown may figure they have a chance where there was none before,” he said. “Instead of spending a lot of money to cover the whole city, they can now concentrate on one area and reduce the cost factor.” Describing the then “General Vote” Council as an “elite group”, Pidwerbecki said he expects some new faces on council after the next municipal election in November.
Pidwerbecki knows the value of ward elections but has changed his tune now that he is a member of council.
His bringing up a return to the general vote can be no less than self serving in insuring his re-election.
Self serving politicians deserve neither our respect nor support. Councillor Pidwerbecki will undoubtedly be #1 on our hit list for politicians to be defeated in the next election.
We will organize his ward to ensure this. We are keeping our options open on other council members to see how they vote on the Bylaw that has to be introduced before a change.
We shall appeal this bylaw to the OMB and have every expectation of a “slam dunk” win.
Updated Comment by VOTES Chair…Council has moved to adapt the general vote but to keep the wards solely to avoid an appeal to the OMB. Their case there would be indefensible. While they are keeping the wards, they will not be used for voting or for any other "real" purpose. The votes group still plans to appeal to the OMB arguing that wards are associated with voting by practice and tradition and therefore insist that the 7 election wards are being folded into one ward for voting purposes…this is a change in wards that is appealable to the OMB. Two additional grounds of appeal, however, have been developed but cannot be released until the city bylaw is passed and we are ready to appeal to the OMB. If we release the information early, the politicians in their greedy and self-serving efforts to move to the general vote will simply try to word a bylaw to thwart our efforts. We think this is impossible but still do not want to disclose our case and our arguments prematurely.
Be sure to watch tomorrow’s post….We will present a humorous Video dramatization of the above that will both inform and entertain you.
Reprinted from Oshawa Express, Feb. 7, 2007
Oshawa citizens are becoming more aware of Oshawa City Council’s desire to return to the general vote and some anger has arisen at their self-serving actions. Council failed to provide voters information about the issue prior to the referendum vote and political action groups like VOTES (vote to eliminate self-serving politicians) have sprung up to fight the change.
Citizens are finally being provided information about the issue by sites such as www.oshawaspeaks.ca which is the VOTES website.
Some angry residents have asked who was responsible for the referendum question and who supported it.
The sole architect of putting this asinine referendum question was Nestor Pidwerbecki. This was despite the fact that there had been not been a whimper of public discontent for the ward system. It’s unfortunate that he was able to solicit council support to get the question on the ballot.
Voting for the ballot question were Councillors Nestor Pidwerbecki, Brian Nicholson, Mike Nicholson, Cathy Clarke, John Neal, Joe Kolodzie, and April Cullen. Voting against were Mayor Gray, Councillors Robert Lucyk, Tito-Dante Marimpietri, and Louise Parkes.
According to press reports Pidwerbecki’s rationale for introducing the issue was: 1) Oshawa was growing too large for a ward system, 2) that a ward system council was too divisive and, 3) councillors should have a city-wide mentality. Pidwerbecki is dead wrong on all counts and hopefully he brings less faulty thinking to his council votes. I suspect, though, that Pidwerbecki is smarter than this and that he is “stretching” to justify the unjustifiable.
Let’s analyze Pidwerbecki’s argument.
Oshawa is growing too large for a ward system---This is completely opposite from the truth. In reality, a general vote is only valid where the municipality is quite small and everyone knows each other. Using Pidwerbecki’s argument, Toronto’s council of 44 members representing 2.48 million people because of its vast size should be an obvious candidate for the general vote because he would argue it is too large for a ward system….ridiculous and absurd!
A Ward System Council is too divisive---How so? General vote politicians compete with each other at every meeting for press necessary to foster high name recognition.
Therefore, they hog the floor and backbite, bitch, and bicker to steal the press. Ward politicians are not election competitors and have to be far more co-operative with their peers in order to gain support for the needs of their ward
A general vote promotes a city-wide mentality---Not so! A general vote politician gets elected through high name recognition and thus promoting themselves at the expense of real productivity becomes job one for general vote politicians.
A ward vote politician gets elected through service to his/her constituents and so service to people becomes job one for a ward politicians.
Ward politicians have to develop positive relations with their fellow politicians to get support for any of their ward initiatives.
The very nature of co-operation leads to politicians working together to set priorities for the betterment of the city.
The general vote cannot be justified on any grounds for a municipality the size of Oshawa, It is obvious Pidwerbecki is stretching for straws trying to justify the unjustifiable…Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes.
When we got the ward system in 1985, Pidwerbecki was quoted in the press as saying, “They are going to have to break up the country club and it is going to be the best thing that ever happened to Oshawa. How can I describe our feelings,” he continued, “we’re elated.” He said up to now Council had been composed of people who have had enough money to afford the high price tag of a general election campaign. “Now people who are relatively unknown may figure they have a chance where there was none before,” he said. “Instead of spending a lot of money to cover the whole city, they can now concentrate on one area and reduce the cost factor.” Describing the then “General Vote” Council as an “elite group”, Pidwerbecki said he expects some new faces on council after the next municipal election in November.
Pidwerbecki knows the value of ward elections but has changed his tune now that he is a member of council.
His bringing up a return to the general vote can be no less than self serving in insuring his re-election.
Self serving politicians deserve neither our respect nor support. Councillor Pidwerbecki will undoubtedly be #1 on our hit list for politicians to be defeated in the next election.
We will organize his ward to ensure this. We are keeping our options open on other council members to see how they vote on the Bylaw that has to be introduced before a change.
We shall appeal this bylaw to the OMB and have every expectation of a “slam dunk” win.
Updated Comment by VOTES Chair…Council has moved to adapt the general vote but to keep the wards solely to avoid an appeal to the OMB. Their case there would be indefensible. While they are keeping the wards, they will not be used for voting or for any other "real" purpose. The votes group still plans to appeal to the OMB arguing that wards are associated with voting by practice and tradition and therefore insist that the 7 election wards are being folded into one ward for voting purposes…this is a change in wards that is appealable to the OMB. Two additional grounds of appeal, however, have been developed but cannot be released until the city bylaw is passed and we are ready to appeal to the OMB. If we release the information early, the politicians in their greedy and self-serving efforts to move to the general vote will simply try to word a bylaw to thwart our efforts. We think this is impossible but still do not want to disclose our case and our arguments prematurely.
Be sure to watch tomorrow’s post….We will present a humorous Video dramatization of the above that will both inform and entertain you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)