Plenty to talk about

I will apologize - I've been missing in action since after the election. Just taking a break but there is plenty to discuss re our new council and especially about the antics at regional council, which seem to never cease.

A little break for everyone for the holidays, but I'll be posting again very soon and I hope you'll join me and join in with comments (keep it clean, please).

Our council certainly has a new look and a new feel as well. So far it seems to be an improvement and we hope that will continue. I'm sure they know, as we do, that you can't please all the people all of the time. But an honest effort to actually listen to residents and try to help will go a very long way in gaining the approval of the general electorate.

Regional council, on the other hand, has obviously not listened to the people. At the end of the last term, there were many residents who spoke to the greenbelt issue - so many who were upset by regional council's actions in that regard. So what was the first action of council in this new term? They unceremoniously and without even trying to hide it, got rid of the best voice on Planning Committee - that of Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, who has been on that committee for many years. He has a stellar reputation for looking out for environmental issues and having common sense when it comes to planning issues. But he is no longer on Planning - obviously his voice was too strong and too much at odds with the wishes of Regional Chair Anderson and others on regional council. Who will speak for the residents, for the greenbelt, for common sense on that committee now? We can hope there will be a champion among the newer members of Planning Committee, but whoever tries to take on that role (if indeed, anyone makes the attempt), will have a difficult time of it. This will be one committee to keep a close watch on.

There is much more, but this is a start. I do hope that residents will take a strong interest in issues that affect all of us in Durham Region and Clarington in particular.

New leadership, new faces

First of all, we want to congratulate all the winners and to thank all candidates who ran in this election. Not all of our "preferred" candidates were elected, but several were and we look forward to a new year and a new council. And we hope that many of the candidates from this election will continue to attend council meetings, to present ideas, and to keep this group honest and accountable to the residents both in Clarington and in Durham Region.

All our new councillors will have a bit of a learning curve, and none more than our new Mayor, Jim Abernethy. But my hope is that he will be given some time and some leeway for getting up to speed before people begin criticizing or hounding him. It's a big job, but remember that this is a man who felt strongly enough about the previous leadership and the issues facing Clarington that he put his hat in the ring months before ex-Mayor Mutton's personal problems came into the picture - long before the assault charges were laid. So Mr. Abernethy deserves to be given a chance to address the problems Clarington has faced over the last several years, including the "democratic deficit". He will address the financial state of Clarington and will work hard on our economic development. He will be courteous to residents who make delegations to council and allow them to have their say. We will be watching of course, and while encouraging him in his new position, we will also hold his feet to the fire when necessary. But we welcome him as our new Mayor and look forward to good changes in Clarington.

While we hope that our new council will get along with each other, we also hope to see some much needed debate over issues, instead of the rubber-stamp approach that seemed to be the norm during the last term or two. We hope input from residents will be seriously considered and that fewer decisions will be made behind closed doors.

There will be much to discuss in the months to come and we hope voters in Clarington will attend council meetings and become involved in the process. The first meeting of the new council is on December 4, at Town Hall in Bowmanville, council chambers on the 2nd floor.

We want to thank all the campaign workers too, for helping the candidates to get their issues and faces out there, get their signs (ugh!) up, help with canvassing (door knocking and phone calls), and all the other duties that are necessary in a campaign. Without campaign workers and supporters, our candidates wouldn't get far!

And lastly, kudos to the voters of Clarington, who did a pretty credible job in voting for most seats, and who voted in higher numbers than in the previous election, and higher percentage turnout than any of the other lakeshore (urban) municipalities in Durham Region. Let's keep up that trend and stay involved.

Sticking around? Or time to go?

Is this the end for the Clarington Watchdog blog, since the election is now over? Is there any further need for it or will there be such an interest since we don't vote again for another 4 years?

We think that even though we have several new faces on Clarington Council, including a new Mayor, and a few new faces will be showing up at Regional Council as well, there is still a need to keep their feet to the fire. There are campaign promises to be fulfilled and there will always be new issues arising that will affect our municipality, which in turn affects our quality of life (and rate of taxation!).

We will do our best to report on issues, give opinions and try to help to keep Clarington residents informed. We plan on opening up for comments again shortly, but please be careful not to libel anyone. We had numerous threats awhile ago and had to close down the comments or close down the blog. Now that the election is over, hopefully that will no longer be a problem.

So for the next couple of weeks we'll be commenting on the election results, voter turnout, upcoming issues, the appointment of the Durham Region Chair, and anything else that happens to come to mind. We've had a lot of support from voters over the last several months and hope to keep informing you and also making you think a little about what is happening around us. And hopefully to encourage you to become involved in our wonderful community.

ELECTION RESULTS 2006

Election Results for Municipality of Clarington

Nov 13, 2006
x - denotes incumbents

Mayor

Jim Abernethy - 11,204
John Mutton-x - 5,968
Jim Schell - 4,596
Richard Ward - 495
Wayne Chaskavich - 291

Regional Councillors

Ward 1 & 2
Mary Novak - 3,081
Kevin McAlpine - 2,877
Don MacArthur - 2,718
George Van Dyk - 2,523
Arnot Wotten - 1,073

Ward 3 & 4
Charlie Trim-x - 5,120
Linda Gasser - 3,079
John Buddo - 1,660

Local Councillors

Ward 1
Adrian Foster-x - 3,978
Oudit Rai - 1,988

Ward 2

Ron Hooper - 3,176
Colin Argyle - 930
Terry Lynch - 835
Mike Slocombe - 490
Steve Rowland - 259
John Sturdy - 186
Blair Smyth - 137

Ward 3
Willie Woo - 2,284
Kevin Anyan - 1,706
Kyrke Innis - 590
Lou DeVuono - 130

Ward 4
Gord Robinson-x - 2,743
Wendy Partner - 1,330
Paul Jones - 1,071

Trustee English Public

Cathy Abraham - 10,107
Steven Cooke - 7,536
Karen Hills - 6,108
Todd Shrigley - 3,405

Trustee French Public

Sylvie Landry - acclaimed

Trustee English Separate

Maureen Day - 1,909
Granville Anderson-x - 1,337
Barbara Malone - 1,325
Andrew Bennion - 433

Trustee French Separate

Adrien Lamoureux - acclaimed

*****************************************

And our informal Mayoral Election Poll wasn't too far off:

Jim Abernethy - 43.4%

John Mutton - 23.4%

Richard Ward - 18%

Jim Schell - 12%

Wayne Chaskavich - 3.3%

We had a total of 1768 votes tabulated. Richard Ward and Jim Schell traded places in the actual result, but Abernethy was the leader from the start.

More Mail-in Misgivings

Much has been written about our mail-in ballot system, in local papers, blogs, letters to the editor. Candidates have been ridiculed (as have their scrutineers) for wanting to watch the process closely, to identify problems so that they may be corrected or improved upon before the next election. Having these scrutineers at Town Hall is a good thing (thanks Martha).

"Clarington's ballot problem relatively minimal, says ministry spokesman" - Some areas much higher - so reads the headline today for the Clarington Metroland on-line paper. I guess that makes it okay, since our rate of rejected ballots is smaller than some other municipalities? A rate of 3 to 4% seems to be acceptable to the municipality and to the ministry, but remember that there will almost certainly be many more when ballots are actually counted as there will be spoiled ones. How high will that raise the rejected ballot total?

"An array of issues led to the rejections including failure to sign or include the voter declaration and placing the voter declaration inside the secrecy envelope."

Failure to sign or include the voter declaration - fine. I can see that being a problem. But I'd like to know how they know that the voter declaration was placed inside the secrecy envelope? Don't you have to open that envelope to know that? I thought those secrecy envelopes couldn't be opened until the polls officially close at 8 pm on November 13.

"Some municipalities are making efforts to lower the rejection number using methods such as opening the end of the secrecy envelope to see if the declaration form has been included there, said the Ministry spokesman. Others are calling people who neglected to sign the declaration, to help increase the number of accepted ballots."

Again, I thought the secrecy envelope HAD to remain sealed until polls close. Is this actually permissible? What happened to the "secrecy" part of that equation? Wouldn't/shouldn't an unsealed secrecy envelope not conform to protocol and therefore once again be grounds for not being accepted? And wouldn't a "secrecy envelope" that had been opened already be more susceptible to fraud? What is the difference between "opening the end of the secrecy envelope" and opening it at the flap? In either case the contents can be taken out, viewed, corrected (?), replaced within the envelope to be counted days later when polls close. What happens with those envelopes - are they taped up after being opened so that ballots don't fall out? Is premature opening of these ballots legally allowed???

We have been critical of this mail-in ballot method of voting since 2000. There are still "issues" with it and people have a right to be concerned, especially the candidates.

There are plenty of other problems as well, including non-delivery of voting kits to voters, delivery to the wrong address, no verification of the signatures on the voter declaration form. Anyone could have extra votes if they picked up discarded voter kits from apartment lobbies, blue boxes, etc. Just sign that form because there is no verification on it other than the signature. Anyone who knows how to write can sign a name, and the voter's name is printed on the form itself so you know who's name to sign.

Voter turnout doesn't seem to be much heavier than it was in the last election, when we had all those acclamations and very few (seriously) contested seats. With the very large number of candidates in this election and the voter anger over a number of issues, you would think there would be a huge voter turnout this year. But so far (even though there are a few days left) it doesn't seem to have increased much, if at all. Hopefully there will be a large surge on Election Day of voters who choose to deliver their ballots in person. Or maybe there are a lot of voters who have decided, "What's the point"? Our Council doesn't seem to listen to us, there is never any "debate", and everything seems to have been decided before Council meetings even take place. Will new councillors show any more backbone in standing up to an intense, hard-ball Mayor? Will we have a new Mayor? We can hope for the best in this election. The call for "change" has gone out. It remains to be seen whether voters have heeded the call.

Every vote is important and must be counted. But for any municipality to open the secrecy envelope prior to election day is just plain wrong. And if they're not doing that, how do they know the voter declaration form is inside the secrecy envelope instead of in the outer, yellow envelope?

We are interested only in the integrity of the election process. But some of the statements made bring cause for worry. The chance for mail-in mishap is too great at the present time for our liking. Yes, we have voted, but we are not confident everyone's ballot will be able to be counted, or that some unscrupulous people have not had the opportunity to vote multiple times. It's the system, not the municipality we are criticizing. At least it is good to see that some of our concerns are being publicized this time around and are being taken seriously.

Total Hockey Museum- hit or miss?

There was much hype surrounding the new Total Hockey Museum which opened in Bowmanville last weekend. There has been much discussion among Clarington residents, and what I've heard has been mostly con with few pro comments. Many have been worried that after the grand opening, or after one visit to Total Hockey, that would be enough and people won't return, making it a bust as far as covering overhead expenses year to year. People are afraid this "tourist attraction" forced upon Clarington by our illustrious Council will end up costing residents in higher taxes. There is a much bigger hockey museum, the Hockey Hall of Fame, just 80 km west of here. What would make people make return trips to Bowmanville for Total Hockey, unless the Prime Minister and hockey greats such as Frank Mahovlich, Red Kelly, Johnny Bower, Bobby Baun and others continue to come here on weekends (as they were a major part of the attraction this past weekend)?

Media coverage was interesting. One newspaper (Canadian Statesman) reported that along with Prime Minister Harper, thousands attended the Total Hockey opening...

"He was among thousands who attended the event to see the new hockey museum, which is not without its detractors in Clarington. In fact, some candidates in the Nov. 13 municipal election have made it one of their lead issues, saying the $2 million spent was money wasted on a facility neither wanted by Clarington residents nor likely to generate any income."

Were there actually "thousands" who visited the Total Hockey museum? Director of Community Services Joe Caruana commented that a capacity crowd filled the Arena (which seats 1,400) to watch the big game in which NHL Alumni faced off against the Bowmanville Eagle Alumni. Yes, the game was a big hit.

However, according to Total Hockey curator Brian Shea, not nearly so many people actually visited the Total Hockey museum. The Orono Weekly Times (Nov. 1 edition) reports:

"According to Shea, 321 people took advantage of the grand opening half price special, $3 admittance fee, to Total Hockey on Sunday. In addition to touring the facility on Sunday, visitors also had the opportunity to get autographs from hockey legends Red Kelly, Senator Frank Mahovlich, Mike Palmateer, Bobby Baun and Johnny Bower."

Only 321 people paid to visit the museum for the grand opening, with all the pomp and circumstance, the "celebrity" hockey guests, the Prime Minister of Canada, Bev Oda, John O'Toole, and the Alumni Hockey Game. Regarding cost to the municipality (taxpayers), the Orono Weekly Times also reports,

"The Municipality purchased the hockey collection from former hockey broadcaster Brian McFarlane in October 2003, for $225,000. A 4,000 square foot stand alone building to display the collection has been constructed adjacent to the Garnet B. Rickard, Recreation Complex in Bowmanville, for a total estimated cost of $1.8 million. Half of that cost will be debentures for the next 15 years."

We would say that in light of the costs of this project and all the hype prior to the "grand opening" to lure visitors to the Total Hockey museum, it was a "miss". It may have been a "hit" for incumbent mayor John Mutton and the incumbent Councillors, as one more media event and campaign opportunity which was paid for by the taxpayers, rather than by the (incumbent) candidates, but it was a "miss" for the taxpayers. When will our council realize money doesn't grow on trees?

The timing of this grand opening, during an election campaign and shortly after voters received their mail-in ballots in the mail for this election, is certainly very suspect. But whether it will help the incumbents because of the free publicity, or hurt them because of the lack of interest in the museum itself even at it's grand opening, and the realization that it will cost us all in the long run - is a question that might only be answered on November 13.

Be careful with your ballots

Mail in ballot system - good or bad? I suppose that depends on your point of view. Personally, I'm not all that crazy about it. I actually enjoy going to the polling place, filling out my ballot, and dropping it in the box. I like that I have to make a small effort to actually go and vote. It is a privilege to be able to vote in elections.

When Clarington decided to change to the mail-in format there were a number of people who warned that this may not be the best way to go. The municipality argued that it would increase returns substantially if they made it easier for everyone to vote. Well, in 2003 we had a return of only about 35% of ballots (with mail-in voting). Perhaps if people had been made to travel all the way to a polling station (for most, within a few minutes drive of their home) we would have had an even more pitiful turnout?

The difference here is that one wonders what happened to the 65% of ballots that were not mailed back to the municipality. Today, with the very visible animosity among some of the candidates and all the sign vandalism, the intimidation tactics taken by some - it makes you wonder how many of the discarded ballots could possibly be picked up by an unscrupulous person, filled out and mailed in. I am not accusing any candidates of doing this, but there are some "supporters" out there who it seems will stop at nothing to try to 'help' their candidate to win. Not everyone is as honest as you or me.

There seems to be ample opportunity for this type of ballot stuffing and I seem to remember there were extra ballots in the election 3 years ago that could have changed the outcome for some of the candidates, but I don't believe anything was done about it.

This time around, there are still concerns that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of quite a few people. Although the municipality and clerk's office have tried to address these problems, we still feel there is room for improvement. People are being asked to shred or otherwise destroy ballots "or put them in the garbage, rather than recycling them", Patti Barrie said in a This Week article. That could be a lot of ballots ending up in the garbage.

As well, there have been discussions with Canada Post "and we've been assured that the kits that are addressed to a box are not dropped in the lobby," said Ms. Barrie. Any that aren't addressed to a specific apartment are to be returned to the municipality."

The point isn't only where Canada Post delivers the kits to. I lived in an apartment for quite some time, and I know that people who get "junk mail" or unwanted ballots simply drop them in the lobby when they find them in their box. That is a great place for unscrupulous people to pick up plenty of unmarked ballots. The municipality, to my knowledge, does not check/verify the signatures on the forms, so anyone could be filling those out, couldn't they?

This all begs the question... Just how accurate is our system of mail-in ballot voting in Clarington? There are other areas of concern as well, such as how/where ballots are stored for weeks on end after they begin coming in from voters.

If you care enough to vote, then you care enough to make the effort to vote in person. Internet voting may be the next step, and I'll be in favour of that if it can be made secure. I do not feel that our mail-in system is secure at all.

So, PLEASE... if you are not going to vote, DESTROY your ballot when you receive it. Shred it. Mark it up so as to spoil it. Rip it up. Then put it in the garbage, not the blue box. But please be sure to destroy the ballot, for the sake of the integrity of this election.

The signs are up - the race is on

Candidates signs have been up for just under a week now, and campaigns are getting into full swing. Now is the time to watch the newspapers, blogs and candidates websites for notices of upcoming "Meet & Greet" events, debates and other events where you can meet the candidates and ask questions. Visit campaign offices of mayoral candidates and make it a point to try to meet or even email candidates running in your local ward, for regional council, and for mayor and not only ask questions, but let them know what issues are important to you.

We have a chance to make a difference when it comes time to vote, and we have to live with the results for another 4 years after this, so please take the time to learn all you can about the candidates and to find out where they really stand. Do this by not only asking questions, but by finding out what their past record is if you are looking at an incumbent.

What issues are important to you? Of course quality of life in our community must be an important issue. That ties in with development, transportation, sprawl, accountability and a host of other issues you may find important if you think about it. Please think about it and be proactive in this election.

See "Who is Running in November" for help in knowing who is running in your area and how to contact most of them (those who had the information on the Municipal website as well as additional e-mail or website information is included). For information on who is running a developer-free campaign, if that is an important consideration, which we feel it is, see "Candidate Information".

We'll try to give you more help as time goes on, but for now, just be aware, think about the issues, and try to meet or ask questions of as many of the candidates as possible. Don't be intimidated and don't be afraid to disagree. Listen to what they have to say, and take your time in making a final decision. This matters to all of us who live in Clarington.

Candidates and Issues

Jennifer Stone (Metroland newspapers & durhamregion.com) gives an overview of issues the 5 candidates for Mayor feel are most important to them and/or to the residents of Clarington in her Oct. 3rd article "Mayoral candidates speak to the issues". It's important to know the issues facing Clarington residents and to figure out what the candidates will do about them, so we hope you will take the time to read her article and to ask questions of the candidates. And not only those running for Mayor, but those running for ANY council seat.

It's no surprise that taxes, growth and accountability are the top issues. Taxes are always an issue, and especially when they have been steadily rising over the last few years - at a faster and higher rate than many feel is really necessary. Taxes will always be a sore spot with most residents, but especially when they face the large increases in property tax that some are facing this year.

Growth is always a hot topic for politicians - most of whom seem to feel that the more the better. The faster the better. The bigger the better. In a rural municipality like Clarington, where many have come to escape the "city life", traffic congestion, noise, pollution, etc., seeing what appears to be a developer-friendly council who can't wait to pave over paradise makes us crazy. Intensification within urban boundaries has to occur, but should be done in stages and in a way that will keep our communities user-friendly and safe. Expanding urban boundaries to accommodate the developers without a "need" for more space for development is something that has been done in the past and should be mitigated, and something that should not be allowed to happen in the future. Keeping infrastructure and services in step with development does not mean keeping artificially low development charges or waiving them altogether for certain developments. Clarington is a very desirable place to build, and we feel that there is no reason to keep development charges low to attract developers! As infrastructure ages, it is the residents who must pay for upkeep and replacement through their taxes. The same goes for all the recreation facilities within our communities. Yes, we need them especially for the youth in Clarington. But what about the Total Hockey Museum? Couldn't that money have been possibly better spent on a skateboard facility for Orono, for example? The lack of consultation with the public on some of these things makes people wonder whether our views even register at anytime other than leading up to an election.

Accountability is very important to us as residents of Clarington and as citizens of Canada. That means our politicians are accountable to us for their decisions. That means we are free to ask questions, criticize decisions made by any level of government, including our municipal council, expect to be treated with respect even when we disagree, and have the freedom to complain when we think huge raises in salary and mileage or taxes are not warranted nor deserved. We have the right to complain if we feel we have not been treated fairly or have been treated rudely. If politicians can't take criticism from constituents, then they should not run for public office nor put themselves in the public eye. If they try to shut down free speech or freedom of expression, they should be held accountable for that. We need an open and accessible municipal government and residents need to feel they can speak up when they have an objection or concern about something, rather than feeling afraid to speak.

Candidate Information

Some candidates have websites that may help voters to understand what the issues are, or which issues the candidate finds important. There usually is also background and contact information. A few candidates have declared or contacted us to state they are running "developer free" campaigns (meaning they are not accepting funding from developers). Some have also stated they are "corporate-free" as well, or accepting donations only from individuals.

As I have more information from candidates, I will add it here. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have a website or a developer/corporate-free campaign. Also see "Who is Running in November" for contact information for all candidates.

Race for Mayor:

Jim Abernethy - developer/corporate-free campaign
http://www.jimabernethy.ca/

Richard Ward - developer/corporate-free campaign
richardward2006@gmail.com

Jim Schell
http://www.jimschellformayor.net/


Regional Wards 1 & 2 Race

George Van Dyke - developer/coporate-free campaign
http://www.georgevandyk.com/


Regional Wards 3 & 4 Race

John Buddo
http://www.johnbuddo.com/

Linda Gasser - developer/corporate-free campaign
http://www.lindagasser.com/


Local Ward 1 Race

Adrian Foster
http://www.adrianfoster.ca/


Local Ward 2 Race

Ron Hooper - developer/corporate-free campaign
ron.hooper@sympatico.ca

Steve Rowland
http://electsteverowland.blogspot.com/


Local Ward 3 Race

Willie Woo - developer/corporate-free campaign
willie.woo@rogers.com


Local Ward 4 Race

Wendy Partner - developer/corporate-free campaign
http://www.wendypartner.ca/


And don't forget to check in frequently with the Vote Clarington (Metroland) blog as reporter Jennifer Stone follows the Clarington campaign trail.

Campaign Donors continued

Please click on images to enlarge.

Clarington Local Ward Candidates:
Gord Robinson, presently local Ward 4 Councillor, is running for the same Ward 4 seat in the upcoming election. In 2003 he received a total of $1000.00 from 3 contributors, with no individual donations of $100.00 or less. Mr. Robinson was unopposed in 2003 so did not need to raise the funds to run an active campaign.

Adrian Foster is the Ward 1 local Councillor and is running for Ward 1 again in this election. This is the only seat that so far has no challengers. In 2003, of a total of $3589.92 in contributions, $300.00 came from individuals who contributed $100 or less, and Mr. Foster contributed $2674.92 to his own campaign. Update: Mr. Foster now has one challenger (Sept.28).

Not nominated to run to date:
Pat Pingle is presently the local Ward 2 Councillor, and is not nominated to run in this election to date, although there is still time and I have not heard that she is definitely not running. Ms. Pingle's total contributions received in 2003 were $1375.00 with no contributions of $100.00 or less, however since she ran unopposed, there was no need to raise substantial amounts of money for a campaign.

See previous post for Campaign donors for Mayor Mutton and Councillors Schell, Trim and MacArthur.

(Source: Clarington Clerk's Department)

Campaign Donors - No 'Developer-free' candidates in 2003

There are no declared 'developer-free' incumbents in this election, and only 3 challengers who are 'developer-free so' far - 2 in the Mayoral race and one in the Wards 3 & 4 Regional seat race.

Please click on images for a larger view.

Clarington Mayoral Candidates:

By far the largest campaign war chest was amassed by John Mutton in 2003, which is not surprising since he was running for the top job as Mayor, even though he was the incumbent an had only one challenger. Of the $40,140.00 in campaign contributions, he raised only $344 from single contributors who donated $100 or less. You will see on the list of contributors developers and corporations who put forward applications that the Mayor (and Council) were then asked to approve over the last 3 years. He certainly has the support of developers. Rarely is there debate from other Councillors over applications the Mayor supports. Much has been said about the lack of opposition or debate on anything the Mayor supports over the last several years. Why?

Next is Jim Schell, who was Regional Councillor for Wards 1 & 2 in 2003, and in 2006 is running for Mayor. Jim had no contributions of $100 or less. Jim's total contributions received were $1375.00. However, since Mr. Schell was acclaimed in 2003, he didn't need to run a full campaign or raise money to do so.

So far there are 2 declared 'developer-free' candidates for Mayor in this election - Jim Abernethy and Richard Ward.

Clarington Regional Candidates:
Charlie Trim is next. Charlie was/is Regional Councillor for Wards 3 and 4 and is running for that same seat in this election. From individual donors who contributed $100 or less, Mr. Trim received $70.00. Total contributions to Mr. Trim were $4920.00.

Linda Gasser is a "corporate-free candidate" running for the Regional Wards 3 & 4 seat and is accepting campaign contributions from individuals only.

The next incumbent is Don MacArthur, who is presently local Ward 2 Councillor, but will be running for Jim Schell's vacated Wards 1 & 2 Regional seat. From individual donors who contributed $100 or less, Mr. MacArthur received $50.00. Mr. MacArthur's total contributions amounted to $2875.00.

We'll cover the last 3 councillors in our next post.

(Source: Clarington Clerk's Dept.)

Former Mayor Hamre drops out of race

So, the poll changes once again. After entering the race only 1 week ago, former Mayor Hamre has decided to withdraw from the Mayoral race in Clarington. She didn't give any reasons for her withdrawal, but we suspect she may have overestimated the amount of support she still has here after an absence of 6 years. Our poll at the time she withdrew (see left) indicates not a lot of support, but she was a late entry into the race and was slowly moving up a bit.

She may have other reasons for withdrawing. She may simply have decided she doesn't still have the desire needed to mount a full campaign once again. No doubt there will be plenty of speculation.

Will she throw her support behind one of the candidates? We doubt it but we've been wrong before! We will just have to wait and see what happens.

See today's Metroland story online "Former mayor reconsiders bid for top job" and also Jennifer Stone's Vote Clarington blog entry - And with that, she was gone... - which shows our former Mayor has not lost the quick trigger temper or become more gracious during her 6 years of retirement. Yes Jennifer, we'll miss her just as much as you will!

We're back to 5 candidates for Mayor, so please update your vote on the poll (to the right) if you had previously voted for Diane Hamre. The other Clarington races are heating up too, so stay tuned for more.

Development Dollars in Campaigns - Why is it important to us?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan - 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

When you look at the amount of money donated to candidates by those in the development industry, and then at resulting future development decisions, you have to wonder. Especially when you see all the political machinations in trying to give a boost to land speculators or developers who already have bought up cheap farmland in anticipation of being able to change zoning to suit their desire to add yet more money-making (for them) subdivisions to the ever-increasing sprawl.

Knowing who contributes to campaigns and understanding the interests of those contributors may help to explain the candidates views and the directions they take in municipal governance. If those willing to contribute money to candidates are few and share common interests, such as the development industry, and those common interests are not necessarily shared by a wider public, they may be able to influence what candidates come forward, what views those candidates hold and what chances they have for election. If elected, these large contributors appear to hold more influence over the elected than the average citizen. Could this be why average citizens are shouted at, ridiculed, and badgered when speaking in opposition to Council's (Regional or local) position on some of these issues? Our "apparently" pro-development Council has produced urban/suburban sprawl that is automobile dependent, unfriendly to mass transit, lacking density to support other services and dependent on infrastructure outside the boundaries of our smaller municipalities.

Durham Region's choice to proceed with their ill-advised "Option 3", to designate "Future Growth Areas", signaling their intention to allow more sprawl in these areas as soon as allowed to do so, is just such an example of pandering to special interests rather than the public good. Their attempts at removing more lands from the Provincial Greenbelt for future development is another signal. And they are still trying to remove lands but have put it off until after the election (no doubt because of the strong opposition by voters!). Once the election is over, however, they will have 4 years to try to get voters to forget what they're doing. Their own planning staff have told them that there is enough land designated within present urban boundaries to last until 2031 for development, but still this group wants to give a leg up to developers, who really don't need that extra help. It's your average citizen who needs help in trying to control "sprawl".

The importance of the development industry in municipal campaign funding is substantial. The development industry is by far the largest segment of all contributions in Durham Region in general and Clarington specifically. This is not surprising given the political economy of the development industry and the vital role that municipal politics plays in the creation of profit for developers.

How does developer money help certain candidates? That money helps give a candidate publicity and profile. When voters know little about the candidates, those with more election signs, more brochures, more backing may appear to be more credible while those with smaller campaign chests may seem to be "fringe" candidates, representing "fringe" views. Untrue and unfair, especially when it comes to new candidates, but there it is.

We do have some (very few) candidates who are not accepting corporate or developer dollars. Ask them when they knock at your door or you attend an event where candidates are present (both incumbents and new candidates). Hopefully they'll be truthful because that information is available to the public. Speaking of which, through being given that information for the 2003 election campaign, we found that EVERY SINGLE Clarington Candidate in 2003 did accept/receive money from the development industry.

What can we do to change this? Look at the record of incumbents and find out all you can about the challengers. Remember that incumbents have a head start - they already have signs and campaign literature. They have a "base". They have free advertising in the form of speeches at council that are reported in the local newspapers (along with name/face recognition). They have more opportunities to attend functions in an "official" capacity and carry some "clout" (or they think they do). Look at their true record, not the spin that accompanies campaigns in the form of literature and sound bites.

You may want to support 'developer-free' candidates with contributions - financial or time or simply our votes. Ask questions about all the "issues" and make informed decisions. Try to get local groups to host debates and 'meet and greet' type events for all local candidates. Go and meet the candidates and ask a lot of questions. Don't just depend on "name recognition" when you receive your ballot. And be sure to vote after doing your research.

Why so many candidates? Are we dissatisfied?

Why are there so many candidates in this election for Clarington Mayor and Council seats? Could it be because of higher than normal voter dissatisfaction with our present Council? Even ex-mayor Hamre has declared she is running in this election because she wants to get Council "back on track to the station called democracy" (source Orono Weekly Times Sept. 13 article). She retired in 2000 and has not been happy with the direction our municipal council has taken. And she's not alone.

There has been much discussion (and complaining) by voters over the last couple of years about all the "in camera" sessions by this council. Then they come out and vote but you don't know what they are voting on. There seems to be far too much of this when it should be an open and transparent council. Then again we don't know what goes on behind closed doors so we don't know what is being voted on. Sure there are things that must be discussed "in camera" such as some personnel matters, but there seem to be SO many private sessions these days and people wonder why.

Then there are the complaints about the fact that there is little debate on issues - it seems most things are just rubber-stamped by council. The greatest debate comes from residents who come as delegations before council to speak on issues. But too often they are interrupted and intimidated if they disagree with a council position or if they dare to criticize any of council's actions. Or they are acknowledged and thanked for their input, the Mayor asks quickly "Are there any questions" for this speaker and rapidly "There are none so thank you". And then on to the next delegation. Even when questions are asked, it seems the resident's concerns too frequently fall on deaf ears. When lawyers or agents for the development industry get up to speak, however, they seem to be given greater attention as well as respect. Correct or not, that is the perception.

Then we have the unprecedented salary increases. The average pay for local councillors prior to 2000 was $17,000. Last year Clarington's four local councillors were paid $35,000, with the two regional councillors taking home $85,000 depending on what committees they sit on. Regional Councillors prior to 2000 were paid $46,000. (This includes Regional pay).

Add to that the incredible mileage rate increase. This council more than doubled their mileage allowances. The new flat rate increased the mayor's mileage allowance from $570 a month to $1,293. Councillors' mileage rates jump from $228 to $564 per month.

Collecting on a per-kilometre basis would be a complicated procedure for councillors who make numerous trips a day, said Regional Councillor Jim Schell (who is running for Mayor in this election)

Now, if it's too difficult for our politicians to keep track of mileage (and these are the people who are running our municipality???), then why not simply use a trip odometer?

There is also the perception of council being "developer friendly" in their decisions, which ties in with the fact that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. There are already a couple of new candidates who have declared that they will NOT accept donations from the development industry or companies who do business with the municipality. And there is much support for this action from groups such as the Sierra Club of Canada, Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition, Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, Ontario Smart Growth Network and many individual Clarington voters. Taking this step makes it more difficult for these candidates without the deep pockets in that sector, but makes for a candidacy that is not beholden to any of the developers and candidates who won't feel pressure to do any reciprocal favours for anyone if elected.

Incumbents already have an advantage over new candidates with name recognition, previous literature to hand out and signs from previous campaigns. They also have the restrictive Clarington sign by-law that gives them another advantage over those who would run against them, and while it could easily have been changed at any time over the last few years or even in the lead-up to this election, it has not been done. They already have abundant vehicles for "campaigning" including speeches made at council meetings leading up to an election, their pictures being featured in the local newspapers without having to put in "ads", their seats on various boards and councils within the region and public appearances in the official position of mayor or councillor at local events.

Some Clarington residents have commented that they have observed how council's attention to the wants or needs of the voter changes when an election is imminent. Suddenly the mayor is more cordial to delegations. Suddenly there are more "speeches" by councillors at council meetings. Suddenly there is more of an attempt, whether superficial or sincere, to accommodate the wishes of voters. Still there is little debate among this group of municipal officials and still they seem to rubber-stamp most motions.

Clarington voters are increasingly speaking up about their dissatisfaction with the current council on a number of issues, which might be the reason there are more candidates for all seats in this election than usual. Except for Local Ward 1, where there is still only one candidate (the incumbent) but there are rumours that there will be additional candidates before nominations close on September 29th.

Is it a good thing to have so many candidates? Perhaps not, as it dilutes the votes and may allow for someone who is not really the best candidate for the position to slip through and win. Or those wanting change may dilute the vote to the extent that the one incumbent for a position will win over challengers simply because there are more choices for "change" and only one incumbent. It is always good to have more than one candidate for each seat as it affords the voter a choice. But having too many may not be a good thing either. We'll have to wait and see how this election turns out.

We will also have to wait and see whether there are any withdrawals of nominations by October 2nd which is the last date for withdrawals for this election. And we will all have to take a good, long, hard look at the candidates in our wards and the mayoral candidates. We'll have to try to learn all we can about each one and then make an informed decision when we vote.

Candidates are welcome to comment here if they wish, and may let us know whether they have put any restrictions on their own campaigns regarding who they will accept donations from. They can also comment on any other issues they would like to speak up on.

There is much interest in Clarington leading up to this election, and with good reason. We do deserve better.

Greenbelt primary focus of Official Plan vote

Durham Region's first full council meeting after the summer break saw the main issue being the contentious Durham Region Official Plan the main focus of delegations and Council.

The majority of delegations spoke in support of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan as well as Provincial Places to Grow. Two candidates for Clarington Council spoke in support of the Greenbelt as it stands with the Province - Richard Ward (candidate for Mayor) and Linda Gasser (candidate for Regional Wards 3 & 4). Ms. Gasser was badgered by Oshawa Mayor John Gray but she stood her ground and gave good answers. She was also questioned by Councillors Emm and Nicholson and Chair Roger Anderson, who tried to fluster her but didn't succeed. Mayor Parish, a member of the planning committee, asked numerous questions of Ms. Gasser and supported her efforts, as well as others. A welcome change in attitude from the nastiness especially of Mayor Gray. Chair of the Planning Committee, G. O'Connor looked plenty perturbed by most of the delegations, but took out her angst on Terry Nuspl from Pickering. There were some excellent speakers in support of the Greenbelt legislation and included lands and very few against it. Not at all reflective of the majority of regional councillors.

Last May Durham Region designated 2,200 hectares of greenbelt land for future development (to satisfy developers who supply the majority of election campaign funds for Durham politicians, perhaps?). An attempt to have council rescind its May decision on Wednesday failed on a vote of 15 to 9. This in spite of the fact that Durham planners say that Durham Region already has enough land designated as "urban" for development to accomodate the next 25 years of growth. But council agreed to postpone further discussion of the details of greenbelt intrusions until January 2007 - after the election - likely because of all the opposition to it from residents who showed up at Council chambers for the meeting.

This is typical of the Regional Council. Their very capable planning staff did support the greenbelt and did not support trying to change it - the Greenbelt legislation is LAW and the Province has made their intentions clear - they will NOT change it for the next 10 years But Regional Planning Committee (made up of some of the mayors/regional councillors) directed planning staff to do a report that would include removal of the subject lands from the greenbelt, or find a way to signal that if that was not possible, these lands were preferred for future development (pending studies, of course). Typical back-door approach that happens when they can't get what they want directly.

Good news though for Clarington. The west Courtice areas that the Region wanted removed from the Greenbelt so they could be slated for future development - were removed from the "Future Growth Areas" as per Clarington's wishes. But their inclusion in the Provincial Greenbelt will still be under assault by Durham Region in January when it comes before them again (after the election).

This is an important issue and should be an "election issue" for voters of Clarington. When your candidate comes around to your door or phones you or you have any opportunity to meet any of them, ask them their position on the Greenbelt. Don't be fooled if they say "they support it" - ask whether they will keep the Greenbelt boundaries intact until it is reviewed by the Province in 2015, or whether they agree with the attempt by Durham Region to remove some of the lands from the greenbelt designation. You may also want to ask them if they are accepting campaign contributions from developers. Don't let them double-talk you - get solid answers to your questions. Don't be afraid to ask.

So, bottom line is that Regional Council is still "developer friendly" and doesn't even try to hide it anymore (at least most of them). And here is one more good reason why the Regional Chair should be ELECTED by the voters, not appointed by a vote of Council.

It is also true that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. For example, in the last election, Mayor Mutton raised over $40,000 in campaign contributions. Approx. $1600 of it was from private individuals, and the rest was from corporations - mostly developers and contractors! No wonder our council and Durham Region is perceived as being "developer friendly".

And after the shouting down and nasty reception of several resident speakers at Regional Council on Wednesday (along with similar actions in Clarington Council chambers over the last while) - it's no wonder that these Councils are NOT seen as being "resident friendly".

For more, see "Bastard Child of the 905" in the Oshawa Metroland blog, along with the Globe and Mail's John Barber's Column in that same blog entry. See text below. Emphasis/bold is mine.


Don't mess with Durham

JOHN BARBER

Linda Gasser, an organic beef farmer aspiring to municipal office in Clarington -- an urban-frontier amalgamation of what used to be the few small towns and many farms and forests of Clarke and Darlington townships -- prepared meticulously for the presentation she made this week to Durham Region council, the body she hopes to join Nov. 13.

Standing at a lectern facing an oval-shaped parliament of stiff and comically sober incumbents, she offered a detailed, thoughtful critique of the region's latest retrograde attempt to prepare supposedly protected land for more of the same sprawl that is threatening to ruin the last of its old towns, farms and forests.

Despite six years of review, she said, the new official plan currently before council is a mess. "I lay responsibility for this official plan mess at the feet of the chair of planning committee, and [Durham Region] Chairman [Roger] Anderson."

At that, the oval went electric. Oshawa Mayor John Gray, chairing the meeting at the time, began shouting at Ms. Gasser. "You can't lay allegations here!" he bellowed, while fellow councillors rose to decry the monstrous offence in tones equally aggrieved and indignant. "Don't lay allegations!" he bellowed again and again.

"It's not an allegation," Ms. Gasser, shaken by the sudden uproar, replied quietly. "It's an opinion."

Mr. Anderson, the usual chairman of such gatherings, is more sophisticated than ludicrous Mayor Gray is in his mistreatment of constituents, preferring facetious mockery to clumsy intimidation. Thus, he contrived to mispronounce the perfectly phonetic name of one meek citizen he faced down, Terry Nuspl of Pickering, half a dozen times before she was able to begin her plea to preserve the farms and forests.

Chairman Anderson was all charm and jocularity as he insulted his constituent by mangling her name every way he could think of. Then he turned the proceedings over to attack-dog Gerri Lynn O'Connor, mayor of Uxbridge.

Mayor O'Connor mercilessly berated Ms. Nuspl for not knowing the precise name of the particular instrument that Durham had invented to punch holes in the Greater Toronto greenbelt -- and whether it is an attachment, schedule or appendix to the official plan.

The rules of procedure allow councillors to question citizens who come to speak in the chamber. But Mayor O'Connor made no pretense of asking questions as she viciously laid into the quaking citizen for not knowing the difference between an attachment and an appendix. After uttering one insincere, ineffective protest on behalf of the rules, Chairman Anderson just let her rip.

"It's a tried-and-true tactic in Durham," candidate Gasser reflected after the ugly meeting ended. "I try to be prepared for it but it still takes me aback."

Two themes dominate her doorstep discussions with voters during the current campaign, according to Ms. Gasser. One is strong support for the provincial greenbelt and new provincial policies restricting the sprawl so beloved of Durham council. "They see that it is really important to maintain the rural character of this region, this municipality in particular," Ms. Gasser said. "I hear a lot about that."

The other theme is disgust at self-serving politicians who abuse their constituents. "People don't really want to be shouted down at town hall," she said. "They are looking for politicians who treat them fairly."

In truth the two issues -- the greenbelt and political thuggery -- are perfect reflections of one another, both potent proofs of how isolated and unaccountable local politics has become in Durham, bastard child of the 905. Still scandalously dependent on the development industry to finance their campaigns, incumbents can afford to ignore public opinion while they serve vested interests. The reason? Hardly anybody bothers to vote.

The few citizens who do step up dare not mention in council what they all know to be obvious. Oh, how the politicians howl, how prickly and pompous they become when some meek voter dares to notice their slavish dependence on developer dollars. Like contrary opinions, the plain truth about local politics has no place in the perfect echo chamber of Durham council.

Consider the case of Clarington Mayor John Mutton, a notorious shouter who is campaigning for re-election while facing criminal assault charges. Mayor Mutton raised more than $40,000 to contest the 2003 election, of which individual constituents -- four in total -- contributed $1,600. The rest came from corporations, the vast majority of whom were developers and contractors from everywhere except Clarington.

Are the results of the official-plan debate any surprise in such circumstances? Of course not. Even though Durham planners say that the region already has enough designated urban land to accommodate another 25 years of sprawl, council voted to prepare another 15,000 acres for development -- lands specifically protected by provincial law as agricultural forever. Cowed slightly by mounting opposition that even they can't fail to notice, the Durhams courageously delayed their attempt to punch holes in the actual greenbelt until after the election.

Despite some "dumb political acrobatics," the result is clear, according to Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, the only council member who refuses corporate contributions. "They basically are still committed to the private interests that support them," he said. "This was really the triumph of private interests over the public interest."

Chairman Anderson blames his council's increasing notoriety on meddlesome Toronto newspapers. I hope he's right about the effect of the novel scrutiny, but nothing will change unless Durham voters start to meddle themselves.

And then there were SIX

So, as of September 12 we now have six candidates for Mayor, so I'll have to change our poll.

Former Mayor Diane Hamre has now officially declared, so it's heating up even more. Will any drop out prior to the last day of withdrawal from Nomination (October 2nd) in the Mayoral race or any of the other races? Will anyone else be nominated to run in Ward 1 before September 29 (last day for nominating) - the only council seat race with only one candidate?

We'll just have to wait and see. Let's just hope that the increased interest by candidates will also translate into increased voter interest, and ultimately voter turnout.

We need to have debates, now more than ever. Who will step forward to host debates for these positions? We hope to see some scheduled sooner rather than later. There certainly is more interest than usual for this election so lets help people to get the information they need to make informed decisions.

Candidates are always welcome to give their comments on this blog. If voters have specific questions they're welcome to ask them here too. Or voice beefs, suggestions, support. The more the better.

Old poll results:
Who is your preference for Mayor at the present time?
John Mutton 10.5%
Jim Abernethy 57.0%
Jim Schell 22.8%
Richard Ward 6.1%
Wayne Chaskavich 3.5%

Go ahead and change your vote if you wish, or keep the same vote (Poll to the right)

Candidate's feud spotlighted in Star

On the front page of the GTA section of the Toronto Star today, the top story outlines the bickering between Clarington mayoral candidates John Mutton and Jim Schell. They challenge each other's versions of an e-mail sent by Schell to Mutton, allegedly, according to Mayor Mutton, an attempt at vote-splitting in the upcoming election. Seems the two former political allies have had a falling out.

Durham councillor enters mayor's race

Plans to challenge Clarington incumbent instead of retiring
Decision influenced by assault charges against current leader

Aug. 28, 2006

STAN JOSEY
STAFF REPORTER

The mayor's race is heating up in Clarington, where a veteran councillor and long-time ally of two-term mayor John Mutton has entered the contest.

Local and regional councillor Jim Schell, who was planning to retire from politics after the municipal election in November, now says uncertainty caused by criminal charges filed against Mutton in June caused him to rethink his plan.

Mutton, 39, is seeking his second term under a cloud of two charges of assault now before the courts. A publication ban on evidence surrounding the charges has created an air of rumour and innuendo that could affect the outcome of the election, Schell said.

Through his lawyer, Mutton pleaded not guilty to the assault charges last week in an Oshawa courtroom and is scheduled to stand trial in January.

Schell, a 61-year-old retired business executive, said he wants to give voters in Clarington, on Durham Region's eastern border, a candidate they can trust and respect.

"I saw that a lot of inexperienced candidates are running in this election and I feel an experienced hand should be at the helm for the coming term."

Mutton, however, accused Schell of "dirty politics," citing emails from his fellow councillor saying he would only enter the race to help re-elect Mutton.

The mayor has released an Aug. 9 email he received from Schell saying: "Lots of people are pushing me to run. I'm worried about your ability to win. The numbers don't look good. If I run, I'll take votes from Ab (candidate Jim Abernethy), not you. Your votes look solid, but I don't think you have enough at this point. We'll wait and see."

Mutton said Schell appeared to be trying to split any "dump Mutton" vote to allow the mayor to keep his job.

"I don't want to be a part of anyone trying to rig the election for anyone else," Mutton said on the weekend. "I just want people to know where Jim is coming from."

But Schell, who brings the number of mayoral candidates to five, said the email was taken out of context, and he was simply pointing out what could happen in the election.

Schell said he has great respect for the current mayor, but noted that if Mutton is defeated, it should be by someone who has experience on council.

He said he faced pressure from segments of the community to postpone his retirement and spend more time as a lay minister in the Anglican Church. "I'll still do some of that, but I am ready to work full-time as mayor for the next four years."

While Mutton has a strong electoral base in the community, where his family has lived for five generations, Schell is expected to split any anti-Mutton vote with Abernethy, a 54-year-old businessman.

Also in the race for mayor are auto salesman Wayne J. Chaskavich and Richard Ward, who has run for the post before.

While the previous Toronto Star story (August 24, GTA section) had opined "Mutton is not facing a serious challenge for his job so far", it appears someone was worried that one or more of the challengers (Jim Abernethy, Richard Ward or Wayne Chaskavich) IS mounting a serious challenge to Mutton, and I would agree with that second assessment.

However, having Schell in the race now could be a blessing for the other candidates, as it could be more likely that he will draw votes away from Mutton than from Abernethy, since Mutton and Schell have such a long history together, and would likely have the same voter base. As well, those voting "for change" would be more likely to vote for one of the challengers, rather than for the mayor who has served 2 terms or Schell who has been on council even longer.

Political allies turned foes!

Oh my. The race heats up and the excrement hits the fan. The present mayor and the present regional councillor for Wards 1 & 2 will face off against each other in the race for the Mayor's seat.

We really don't have much to say - you can read it for yourselves. See Clarington This Week's front page headline "Political allies turned foes" in the Sunday, Aug 27th edition.

Schell enters mayoralty race

Aug 25, 2006 By Jillian Follert
CLARINGTON -- Longtime Clarington councillor Jim Schell has abandoned plans for retirement and thrown his hat in the ring to run for mayor, saying he wants to provide voters with a viable leadership option.

"It is a crucial time in Clarington's development, which will require strong leadership, commitment and experience to guide it over the next four years," he said in a recent statement announcing his candidacy.

He began his political career in 1997 when elected as local councillor for Ward 2, and was elected in 2000 as regional councillor (Wards 1-2), a position he has held to date.

Mayor John Mutton, who is seeking a third term, said Coun. Schell was a member of his campaign team until just last week, and believes his colleague suddenly decided to run, because he fears strong candidates may prevent the incumbent mayor from regaining his seat.

"He told me he was going to enter the race to take votes away from Jim Abernethy so I can win," Mayor Mutton said. "That isn't democratic. I don't want anyone in the public to think I have any part in vote-splitting or anything undemocratic...this is a decision Jim (Schell) made on his own."

Mayor Mutton said he has e-mails from Coun. Schell confirming these motives.

One such e-mail, written to the mayor from Coun. Schell on Aug. 9 reads, "lots of people are pushing me to run. I'm worried about your ability to win. The numbers don't look good. If I run, I'll take votes from AB (Abernethy) not you. Your votes look solid, but I don't think you have enough at this point."

Coun. Schell was quick to defend his ethics, saying he is running to win.

"I don't know what John's on about," he said. "My motivation for running is quite simply that I have had a lot of people come to me looking for an alternative candidate with some experience."

He added the e-mails have been taken completely out of context, explaining that the Aug. 9 correspondence was written to pacify and reassure Mayor Mutton, after he had asked Coun. Schell not to run against him.

Coun. Schell began his political career as a local councillor for Ward 2 in 1997. Earlier this year, he announced plans to retire from politics, but said events of this summer have changed his mind.

In June, Mayor Mutton was charged with two counts of assault, the details of which are protected by a publication ban. He has pleaded not guilty and will go to trial in January.

The incident has left voters to choose between inexperienced candidates and a mayor facing criminal charges -- a situation Coun. Schell said he had to address by running.

"There are a lot of disappointed people out there and I want to give them an alternative," he said. "There is no hidden agenda here."

According to the clerk's office, Coun. Schell filed to run for mayor on Aug. 24. Also vying for the seat are Jim Abernethy, Richard Ward and Wayne Chaskavich.

So there you have it. Still questions to be answered - whether we'll ever get the straight poop is another matter. Mutton and Schell have different versions but one thing is clear. Something is stinky in this campaign.

We need more than just a good, honest, ethical mayor. We also need the same in all those elected to council, so do your homework and learn all you can about ALL the candidates in this election.

Improve municipal leadership

The Wednesday, August 16th issue of the Orono Weekly Times had a very interesting editorial (as it usually does). It talks about the relationship of the media to politicians, both past and present, and how things are looking today. It talks about our responsibilities as voters.

Federally and Provincially, things seem to be looking fairly good at the present time, according to the editorial, and I would agree to some extent. But when we look to the municipal scene (in the GTA), there are not many strong, effective leaders. There is the odd one, but certainly not many. Hazel McCallion (Mississauga) is one who is mentioned, and I'd certainly agree. I would also add Steve Parish (Ajax) is another.

"The voters of Toronto are slowly recovering from years of embarrassment. Their habit of returning well known politicians, regardless of scandals and of poor record in council, left them with the $100 million computer scandal, a declining transit system, polluted beaches and more. Those citizens deserved their fate because they repeatedly took the easy way out at election time and either failed to vote, or simply rubber stamped well-known politicians."

Sound familiar? Voter apathy equals low voter turnout. And many who do vote simply vote for the most familiar name, without really knowing anything about the candidate or the issues facing Clarington. This is important as this is where we live. It's important to have the best possible people in the positions that affect our very lives in this municipality.

"The time has come for us - the voters - to put in the time and effort to improve municipal leadership. First we must encourage good, honest and intelligent people to get involved. We should help such candidates with work and financial contributions."

Yes, yes, yes! We do have some excellent new candidates running in this election already, and they deserve our help. It is always difficult to go up against an incumbent, especially with the shortened time frame because of our vote by mail scheme in Clarington. With the old sign by-law not being changed when the voting method was changed (an oversight that benefits the incumbents), the new candidates are at a distinct disadvantage.

"Then we need to do personal research to determine who are the best people for the jobs."

This is important. Read all you can about the candidates. Attend the debates if at all possible, or watch them on TV. Ask questions. Ask more questions. Find out what the issues facing our municipality are, and how they will affect you.

"Once we have done that, we need to vote, so the effective people are elected."

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain when our municipal government ends up being less than stellar. Do your part and get out there and vote, but only if you know who you are voting for, and why. Don't just rubber-stamp the known names.

"Even then our job should continue as we must consider municipal affairs to be seriously important, and provide hard-hitting feedback to elected officials. Good government is up to us!"

Truer words have never been spoken! What do you love about Clarington, and do you want to keep it or have substantial changes made to where we live, sometimes not for the better? It is up to us to become involved. Just as simple an act as writing a letter to the editor, or sending your thoughts on a subject to Council, or appearing before them as a delegation to speak to an issue can be the beginning of change.

So follow this election carefully. Listen to the candidates and ask questions. This is YOUR municipality, and you have every right to speak up. Without your input, how do the politicians know what you really want?

What do I want? I want ethical, accountable, fiscally responsible good government. I want to know what is going on and to have a say in it. And to be listened to. I want to be treated as if I matter. I want some respect. I want the politicians to remember that they are working for us, and should treat us accordingly.

What don't I want? I don't want scandal. I don't want rudeness or to be bullied. I don't want to see tax increases and at the same time see politicians give themselves excessive salary increases. I don't want to have a politician complain that he has been subsidizing the municipality out of his own pocket to justify an enormous mileage rate increase. I don't want to be shut out of decisions that affect me such as being able to elect the head of Durham Region.

There are many more things I want or don't want. How about you?

A New Name!

We've changed the name of this blog to avoid any confusion with the Municipal webpage dealing with the November 13 municipal election.

Please update your bookmarks and spread the word!

Clarington Watchdog (formerly Clarington Votes 2006)

Finally, a plea and court date for Mayor

Yesterday John Mutton was absent from this court date just like he was on the last two dates (July 11, and August 8), so there wasn't a lot to see. But this time his agent entered a not guilty plea for him. Postponement had been granted on the two previous dates with no plea entered. So now the case will proceed to trial on January 29th. Yes, that's right - 2 1/2 months after our municipal elections.

The Mayor was charged with 2 counts of assault in June, but there is a court ban on any further information on the matter. The mayor's agent entered not guilty pleas for both charges. The Mayor has declined to comment on the case so far.

See the Metroland News story about this latest court date.

Money, mileage, trust - some election issues

Opinion piece reprinted from the Orono Weekly Times (August 16, 2006 edition) - some things to consider.

"JUST MY OPINION" by Luke Prout, Kendal

Sara Evans recently released a beautiful song about an ex-lover that ran off with another woman, and now wanted Sara to take him back because he realized that she was what he really wanted all along. To sum the song up, the answer is "NO", with a hard driving chorus that goes "Maybe you should have thought about that when you were cheating".

This should be the theme song for the 2006 Clarington Election. Every single member of the Council has a job that most people in the region would die for. Excellent pay for all positions, work hours are basically at the councillors discretion - with the exception of one 3 hour weekly council meeting there are no required hours of work for local councillors. Expenses including gas and meals are reimbursed, and you're invited to all major events. You're paid extra when you sit on additional committees. Your work can make a difference. You're respected, you're a somebody and well paid for it.

Instead of treating this position with the dignity it deserves, the first thing the council does is to give itself a WHOPPING big pay increase. When Mayor Mutton was first elected in 2000 his job paid $79,000. Now he's paid $164,000 per year, or 207% of what he made when he was originally elected. Who else gets this kind of raise? Then, they give themselves a gas mileage allowance that exceeds any comprehension and change the rules so that now they're not reimbursed for mileage driven, but get a flat rate - they don't have to show they drive at all! They get paid even when they're sick now, and this allowance is big enough to make monthly car payments on a BMW, buy gas, AND buy insurance!

The mayor's automatic monthly gas allowance exceeds $1,200! Just for an idea $1,200 divided by the 47cents per km (or worse) the rest of us get means that the mayor must drive over 2,500 km per month in Clarington, or roughly the distance to Florida. Add trips to Russia and China (with an entourage) at the tax payer's expense. How about a reserved street parking spot for the "Mayor"? Millions are spent on expensive outside consultants. Meanwhile the local taxes have gone through the roof to fund these excesses. Mine are up over a thousand dollars.

On a moral level we have criminal charges against the mayor during this term of office. I wrote some recent letters to the Orono Weekly Times relating to Councillor Robinson's use of farm plates on the same vehicle that he argues he needs for council and gets the huge gas allowance on. No good reply yet. I still have NOT received any facts on the money stolen from the Bowmanville Arena other than "it's under control" (ask your councillor about that - it's a perfect example of council's belief the taxpayer is inherently stupid).

The recent shouting down of Mrs. Racansky in her scheduled ten minutes of presentation to councillors about the tax increase was so ridiculous (and televised) that any councillor in that room that did not lift a hand to stop the mayor's juvenile tirade should have resigned by the end of the week if they had any dignity (none stopped him) Sitting on your hands when the people who elected you are abused; that badly indicates cowardice or ineptitude.

In spite of this, most of the current councillors are singing one of two tunes: The first is my favourite: "Look at my track record". OK. Based on their track record, the Town is heading for serious financial difficulties if we are stupid enough to elect the current crowd. Is it actually possible that the current council thinks 200% raises and these tax increases are normal? The second tune is even stupider: "There have been mistakes - but give us a chance to fix it by re-electing us" Does anyone actually fall for this?

I think "REVENGE" is the right word. You want to be re-elected? NO. Maybe you should have thought about that when you were cheating.

(Permission to reprint from author)

Suzanne Elston drops out of Clarington's Regional Race

August 9th, 2006

Suzanne Elston drops out of Clarington's Regional Race

Award-winning journalist Suzanne Elston has dropped out of the Clarington race for Regional Councillor, Wards 1 and 2. Elston, a well-known environmentalist and community activist, placed second in the 2000 and 2003 municipal elections, without the benefit of election signs.

Elston has cited family health reasons for her withdrawal and hopes that this year's candidates will follow her lead and not pollute the landscape with unnecessary lawn signs.

I've never met a ditch or a public boulevard that can vote, said Elston. Election signs should only be placed on private property to show electoral support.

Elston notes that since Clarington adopted the mail-in ballot system in 2003, lawn signs have become redundant. According to a local by-law, election signs cannot be put up until October 1st. Election ballots are mailed out to voters the following week.

By the time the signs go up, a lot of people have already made up their minds and may have already sent back their ballots, said Elston. This system favors the incumbents. Challengers have very little time to have an impact with their signs.

For further information, contact:
Suzanne Elston phone: 905-434-6865 email: selston@gmail.com

Greenbelt safe from Region for now

Province says NO to Region

Durham Region submitted a request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make changes to the Greenbelt Plan to delete certain lands near the Courtice Urban Area in north Courtice (2 parcels), a parcel in Pickering and one in Ajax. They also wanted to add lands into the Greenbelt south of Hwy 2 in Courtice. My comments on this can be found here: "Greenbelt a Goner in North Courtice?"

The Honourable John Gerretsen, Ontario's Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has now given his answer to the Region - "NO".

In his letter to Regional Chair Roger Anderson, Gerretsen wrote, "The Act is now law and the Plan boundary is final. No further changes to the Greenbelt boundary and policies are being considered at this time."

In May, Clarington Council followed Clarington Planning Department's recommendations and voted to NOT support amendments to the boundaries of the Greenbelt Plan at this time. The vote, however, was not unanimous. Councillor Jim Schell voted against recommendations of Clarington Planning Department and against the motion. Jim Schell was also a member of the Regional Planning Committee who came up with this plan to remove lands from the Greenbelt and supported the removal. The Region (and Jim Schell) wanted to include these lands as "future development area", but Clarington voted against the changes. See "Kudos to Clarington Council" and "Clarington disagrees with Region on Greenbelt" for more on this. Thanks to the rest of Clarington Council for their vote to keep the lands within the Provincial greenbelt designation.

Yet another adjournment for the Mayor

Just like the previous court date of July 11, when John Mutton's lawyer asked that his appearance be postponed to August 8, this time (August 8) his lawyer asked once again for an adjournment, this time until August 22nd. Both times Mayor Mutton was absent from court. He was arrested on June 24th for an offense which took place on June 10th, and was granted bail on June 25th after spending the night in jail.

The story of the arrest has been carried in a number of newspapers, including the Toronto Star.

Mayor's assault case postponed to August 8

Mayor Mutton himself wasn't in court this morning but instead had representation for the very brief appearance in a west Oshawa courtroom. His case was postponed until Tuesday, August 8th. There is still a publication ban on the case so Durham Regional Police and court observers aren't able to give any details.

Cops mum on mayor's charges

See Clarington This Week's article "Clarington Mayor charged with assault".

Also there was a story on page 5 of today's Toronto Sun: Cops mum on mayor's charges

By BRODIE FENLON, TORONTO SUN

Durham Regional Police are refusing to release any information about assault charges laid against the mayor of Clarington, citing concerns about identifying victims.

John Mutton, in his second term as mayor of town council, faces two counts of assault and will appear in an Oshawa court July 11, a local newspaper reported yesterday.

Dave Selby, spokesman for the police service, said the report is accurate but he refused to elaborate.

"That is fact. That is factual. But we never released that," Selby said of the charges.
"We're not revealing or releasing any information with regard to that investigation to be consistent with how we've dealt with cases like this is in the past."

"The main focus is the concern about the identification of victims. That's why we did not release the information."

Mutton, who was in Toronto yesterday, declined to comment on the charges.

His page on the town's website says that he is a fifth-generation resident of the area and lives in Newcastle Village area with his wife, Jennifer, and their two children.

Durham Regional Chairman Roger Anderson, who sits on the police services board, also declined comment yesterday. "It's before the courts and I'm sure the courts will deal with it appropriately, as will Mayor Mutton," Anderson said.