Ombudsman needed for Clarington?

Seeing the lack of accountability, lack of respect, and lack of desire on the part of most of our Council to hear what the public has to say, to hear any ideas on direct election of the chair other than those put forth by politicians (at the regional level) who have their own reasons for wanting to retain control over who becomes Chair - perhaps it is time for Clarington to appoint an ombudsman for the people. Or even an integrity commissioner since there is no one to police them other than that same public who is not consulted on major issues such as election of the Chair, nor respected for their opinions, since those opinions and ideas are clearly not wanted by this council.

Isn't it possible that some members of the public might have valid and even compelling reasons for wanting direct election of the chair? Why were we all good enough and smart enough to elect our municipal politicians, but apparently not smart enough to be heard on electing the top position in the region?

The new Municipal Act, Bill 130, gives more powers to both upper and lower tier municipalities. To promote accountability and transparency, municipal councils now have the power to establish codes of conduct for members of council and members of certain local boards. They can appoint an integrity commissioner, an ombudsman, an auditor general and a lobbyist registrar. Since this council voted on Monday night to ratify their "vehement" objection to Regional Council's decision to support direct election of the chair, and so far have refused to hold a public meeting on this issue but went right ahead and made the decision without any public consultation at all, then we could reasonably assert that an ombudsman is sorely needed. How else to get them to listen?

Since this is an issue that will not just go away since they have voted on it, and is a major issue confronting the entire region, we may have to begin serious pressure and lobbying to have that ombudsman or integrity commissioner appointed (or both, preferably). I would venture to guess this will not be a popular issue with this council, but are we not deserving of having a government official to hear and investigate complaints by private citizens against our municipal politicians when there is apparently no other way to be heard?

Yes, we have heard arguments for the status quo.

1. Only three of eight municipalities which included the referendum question on the Nov. 13 ballot -- represent well over half the total population in Durham. Yet, no more than a quarter of those worthy citizens bothered to vote for the officials who will guide their communities for the next four years. Why would the voting turnout be any greater to choose just one person as chairman, especially when the candidates are just as likely to come from far-flung communities such as Brock, Uxbridge or Scugog?

A. Why does voting turnout have to be any greater? What counts are the actual votes cast. Those who want to have a say in who runs our municipalities or our region do make the effort to vote. Those who don't care, don't have a say if they don't vote. What is the problem here?

2. Regional council can now say, after asking just 25 per cent of people in three of eight municipalities, that the "majority" of Durham residents want to elect their chairman. If this is really about catering to the will of the people, then let them hire a consultant to conduct a proper region-wide poll that will be accurate within a few percentage points.

A. Why did the other municipalities in Durham Region refuse to put the question on the ballot when it wouldn't have cost much to add the one question to the November Election ballots? Did those councils not care what the people thought about this issue, or were they afraid to hear it, knowing it would not jive with the position they wanted to take (and have taken)? So sure go ahead and conduct a region-wide poll, but make the question CLEAR (remember the Clarity Act?). A simple straightforward question. No push polls.

3. If the regional chairperson position is direct-elected, north Durham municipalities may be at a disadvantage because "all our votes together (from the north) doesn't compare to one municipality down there." The chance of having a northern candidate elected in a public vote, would be much less because they don't have the exposure, despite the fact that north Durham combined with Clarington represent the largest geographical area in the region. They do not represent the largest population centres.

A. What makes them think the entire population of Oshawa, for example, would vote for someone from Oshawa? Is the voting public (notice I said VOTING public) incapable of looking at contenders with a view to electing the best for the region, rather than being automatons and voting for the person who lives closest to them? We really don't get much credit, do we? And what makes them think that the decision made at the regional level by council as is done now is not a purely political exercise, with potential candidates lobbying the 28 who will make that decision, rather than taking their platform, ideas, concerns, qualifications for the job - to the public they will eventually be elected to serve?

4. The cost of running a campaign region-wide would be prohibitive, and will lead to large donations being needed and accepted by special interest groups.

A. What do they think happens right now, for municipal elections? For Provincial and for Federal elections as well. Yes there is "party" support for candidates now, although kept low-key. But look at who are the campaign workers for many of the candidates, and who donates money to them. There were a few "developer-free" campaigns in this election and most did quite well. A smart campaign is worth more than a big campaign. With the media exposure each candidate would have in the local publications as well as internet access, and candidate debates (local and televised), a successful, smart campaign could be run. It would not be for everyone as there would be a lot of foot-work to do, but give the voting public some credit. Presently, lobbying of 28 people is all it takes, and don't kid yourself that there are no promises made...

So why not make it less political and let the people decide. We were good enough to elect the present representatives, but not good enough to elect a regional chair?

I am sure that others could give many more compelling reasons than I have given here. But why not give them the opportunity to do so? Why not hold a public meeting on this issue if you really care what we have to say. Why just take the ideas of a few people at the region and not even bother to listen to others ideas that may be just as valuable, just as compelling, just as valid? We deserve to at least have these questions answered in a public forum. I'm hearing a lot of anger out there over this issue and our council's motion and vote. It's not going to just go away.

Maybe it is time to make that push for a municipal ombudsman. Think about it.

Double-dipping sullies councillors

Note that in Clarington, Councillors Foster and Novak, both from Ward 1, will be splitting the appointment to the Veridian Board with Councillor Foster taking the first two years (until the end of 2008) and Councillor Novak taking the next two years (until end of 2010). Share the wealth.

February 27, 2007 - Toronto Star Editorial

Municipal politicians across the 905 region surrounding the City of Toronto are engaged in a form of double-dipping that has been allowed to go on for far too long. In addition to their regular pay for serving on council, some 905 politicians pocket thousands of extra dollars for being on the board of electrical utilities owned or controlled by their municipality.

Mayors and councillors are cashing in, from Mississauga to Vaughan to Clarington and other communities in between. In fairness to ratepayers, these politicians should instead follow the standard set by Toronto and end this money-grab. In Canada's largest city, the three councillors who sit on Toronto Hydro's board are paid nothing for this position.

By contrast, in neighbouring Mississauga, such service is lavishly rewarded. Under existing rules, local politicians fortunate enough to be at Enersource, a company created in 2000 after Hydro Mississauga was incorporated, can expect an extra $33,000 to $44,000 on top of their city hall paycheque. Mississauga councillors get a base salary of $71,800 a year. The mayor automatically has a place on this board. And joining Hazel McCallion on the panel is Councillor Nando Iannicca.

Two more of their colleagues are set to sign on after council recently voted to double the number of politicians on the 10-member panel. But Enersource is not some outside firm that should have to pay for a local politician's expertise. It is 90 per cent owned by the City of Mississauga.

Newly elected Mississauga Councillor Carolyn Parrish has questioned the utility board payments, describing them as "a little bit out of whack." With McCallion's support, city council has agreed to review the practice.

It would be disappointing if that review were to confirm the status quo. Simply put, elected politicians, already well paid to serve in office, do not deserve a bonus for doing the city's business on a municipal utility board. Yet the practice is widespread, as revealed by the Star last weekend.

Councillors sitting on utility boards in Vaughan, Markham, Ajax, Pickering and Clarington get varying levels of remuneration even though the municipalities either own, or are the controlling shareholders, of these electrical corporations. Because of that ownership, councillors are in the questionable position of deciding how much they should be paying themselves to be on the board. And some are not shy about cashing in.

Politicians comprise eight out of 10 board members heading Powerstream, a joint utility serving Vaughan and Markham. Each receives $14,000 a year, plus $650 for every board meeting they attend. Six of Vaughan's nine councillors are fortunate enough to sit on that panel.

Veridian Corp., providing electricity to Ajax, Pickering, Clarington and Belleville, has 10 politicians on its 14-member board and pays each $9,800. Ajax Mayor Steve Parish sits on that board and has urged that fewer politicians be appointed, making more space available for people from the community. But some politicians on the board object to that.

If anything, Parish doesn't go far enough. This double-dipping must end.

Municipalities should either adopt the sensible approach used in Oshawa, where no politicians at all serve on the local electrical board. Or they should use Toronto as a model, where politicians do sit on the utility's governing panel, but are not paid to do so.

Mutton acquitted due to "reasonable doubt"

Feb 26, 2007 - Ex-mayor Mutton acquitted of assault charges - Metroland

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what occurred during a "rage fueled by excessive alcohol consumption" amounted to assault against Mr. Mutton's wife Jennifer and 10-year-old daughter Katie, said Justice J.J. Keaney in delivering his verdict.

More on acquittal:
Feb 27, 2007 - Ex-mayor doesn't rule out return to politics - Metroland

Asked how much impact the charges had in his loss, he was unequivocal.
"They were the total impact of the election loss," he said.

Feb 27, 2007 - Black cloud lifts on Mutton - Toronto Sun
Feb 27, 2007 - Ex-mayor not guilty of hitting wife, child - Toronto Star

Visit "The Mutton Trial" for a full recap of articles written on the trial.

Chairman should be elected at large

Last Monday, Clarington's General Purpose and Administration Committee voted 5-2 on a motion stating the Municipality will let the Province know it "vehemently" opposes direct election of the chairman. Though the motion will go to council Feb. 26 for final blessing, it was granted forthwith approval, meaning staff has been directed to prepare and send the letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs right away.

Why on earth would they send the letter to the Ministry "forthwith", without even ratifying the vote at Council this Monday night (Feb. 26)? What was the big rush? Was someone afraid that public pressure might convince some on council to change their minds prior to the ratification vote? Was it that important to them to get this out in the mail before the public could have a say on it?

Apparently residents in other municipalities who also were not consulted by their know-better Councils feel the same as many Clarington residents feel. Here is another view to "Elect the regional chairperson" from a Port Perry resident.

One of the reasons given by the politicians who want to keep the power of appointing the Chair to themselves is that that direct election would create a 'City of Durham'. Just why would that be any more so than it is right now? The Chair of Durham Region is a political appointment. It is a political position, whether councils like to admit it or not. It is the MOST political position in the region, to anyone who has witnessed the actions of Chairman Anderson at committee meetings as well as at council can easily attest to.

It seems that the smaller muncipalities have been convinced by those who want to keep the status quo, that they would be better off not having the people elect the Chair. Excuse me, the majority of councillors from the smaller municipalities, that is. Not the public. The public is tired of having elected politicians decide that they know better than the will of the people, that they are somehow smarter, better than the rest of us. That attitude resulted in a large turnover in Clarington's elected politicians (more than half are new on council including the Mayor). Perhaps it is time for our elected politicians to actually listen to the people of Clarington (and the other municipalities).

The Chair is not accountable to the people presently, and he should be. He not only carries out "the wishes of regional council", but he directs council, puts forth motions on committees, and speaks (very strongly) for or against recommendations to council. Contrary to what has been communicated to the taxpayers of Durham Region, this Chair advises and instructs council committees on his own preferences, rather than council directing him.

The Region spends approximately 50% of our tax dollars. Shouldn't the taxpayers have some say in who the Chair of the Region is? Shouldn't the Chair be accountable to the taxpayers, rather than to the 28 Regional Councillors? Did either of our Clarington regional councillors raise regional issues in their campaigns for election? How many other regional councillors did so in their own municipalities? How many are looking out for the best interests of the taxpayers of Durham Region overall, rather than for their own agendas? Didn't our new Mayor make direct election of Regional Chair a part of his campaign platform? Why has he now recanted that position? His published reasons are not at all convincing to any of us.

"Clarington Council is taking a position without putting the question to the people of Clarington, without holding a public meeting where the merits of various systems could be assessed, at which the public could make their views known to Council". Is that a good way to treat their electors? Is that a smart way to run our municipality? Are we to be denied our democratic right once again to make a decision that affects all of us? It seems so, unless our Council delays the vote on this issue tonight and lets residents have their say... and actually listens to us. Their actions at the Monday night council meeting will tell the tale.

Clarington's "vehement" opposition to electing Chair

What a ridiculous motion! Has anyone ever seen one use such wording as "vehemently opposes" especially in denouncing a straightforward democratic process? See Jennifer Stone's Metroland article, "Clarington 'vehemently' opposes direct election of Regional Chairman: motion".

Councillor Foster made this odd motion, and wants it sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What is even more disturbing than one councillor making such a preposterous motion, is that the majority of our councillors and our mayor voted in favour of it. With the exception of "rookie" councillors Ron Hooper (Ward 2) and Willie Woo (Ward 3). This makes me believe we should have maybe elected more rookie councillors.

"We've used a very powerful word here -- vehemently -- but we didn't put it on the ballot for the people and didn't ask their opinion," said Coun. Woo.

Exactly! The previous council never put it on the ballot to ask the people. In the only 3 municipalities in Durham Region that did put it on the ballot, the public overwhelmingly supported direct election of the regional chair position. Overwhelmingly being approx. 85 - 90% of the public. That is pretty overwhelming. In spite of this, the council of the day pushed forward their own agenda in saying that they opposed it. Now our newly elected council, which is minus the majority of that previous council members, once again reiterates, reintroduces and officially reestablishes previous council's unpopular, undemocratic and undesirable preference, without debate or public input. How arrogant is that?

There are many previous council decisions that should not or need not be revisited. This is not one of those. This was an ill-conceived decision made by a previous council and was one of the reasons the public was dissatisfied with them. This new motion, being even more strongly worded (vehemently???), goes even farther.

Another difference between the original motion of previous council and the reaffirmation of that position by today's council, is that when the original position was taken, it was prior to the referendum results by 3 municipalities, and prior to the decision of regional council itself, to support direct election of the chair. Those facts may possibly have changed the position of the previous council. However those facts seem to have eluded this council and they have just gone along with previous council's motion, even strengthening it, without consideration of these new facts.

It appears that this council doesn't want to make any real decisions on its own. Bravo to Councillors Hooper and Woo for their conviction in standing against the mayor and majority of council and voting against the ill-conceived motion.

Councillor Foster's assertion that the current system allows people to run "by virtue of qualification only" is absurd. What were Roger Anderson's "qualifications" when he was first chosen as regional chair, after being booted out of Ajax's council by it's residents? Shortly after losing the mayoral race to Parish, his friends appointed him, without election, to the most powerful position in the region. Does Foster really think there is no pressuring, no special interests, no "politics" in the appointment of Regional Chair? Has he ever watched the "vote" by councillors to choose regional chair? Does he think there will be no "qualified" people who might run for regional chair if the position were to be elected by the public?

"I'm not convinced it's more democratic" to hold an at-large election across Durham, said Coun. Foster. "The chair could be elected ... and be told they have a mandate from the people, not a mandate from council, but a mandate from the people" which would dramatically alter the dynamic of the position."

Please explain, Mr. Foster, how it would dramatically alter the dynamic of the position, other than making him accountable to the people he governs, instead of just to 28 individuals? How would it be less democratic? Why is a "mandate from council" BETTER than a mandate from the people? Please explain this supposition, Mr. Foster. During the last campaign, this topic came up frequently. Mr. Anderson repeatedly tried to make the case that if he were directly elected by the people, he could just ignore direction by regional council, regional committees, etc. and do what he liked. Huh? It was his way of keeping his position without having to campaign or bring any type of accountability to the people of Durham. He only had to campaign among the 28 mayors and councillors of regional council. And of course he has a long history with them.

Municipal Council still must ratify their decision to send their "vehement opposition" to the public having the opportunity to elect the regional chair to the Province next Monday night (February 26) at the regular council meeting, 7 p.m. at Town Hall in Bowmanville. Let's hope they make the right decision and rescind that motion. If they don't want to support the public preference and also don't want to support the decision of regional council, then the very least they could do would be to rescind this motion or at least table it and have a public meeting on the issue, and/or a public debate. There was no debate and no public consultation on this issue that affects all residents of Clarington. How short-sighted of this council. How arrogant this motion is. Let's hope they will reconsider before Monday night.

Preliminary Mayoral report card

Although we are only a few months into this new term, we felt it was time for a preliminary look at how things are going in Clarington. Clarington This Week's February 16th editorial, "Mayor has to take job more seriously" was blunt but was accurate.

We have been asking that residents give our new Mayor some time to get his feet wet, as it is a steep learning curve for someone coming in cold, without previous council experience. However, we did expect that the mayor would jump in and work overtime to get up to speed, not leave meetings early, fail to attend meetings, and not prioritize obligations well.

The Region's Growth Plan, as well as the Provincial Growth Plan, are important aspects of his life in Clarington. For these not to be a priority to our Mayor tells us that he may not understand the importance of the planning portion of his responsibilities. We realize his area of interest and specialization is administration and finance, but he must realize that that is just one part of his overall governance duties. When he left the Regional Planning meeting early, there was no on to put forward a motion on his presentation subject, nor to bring forward his comments about the Clarington greenbelt. Charlie Trim was not present and Mary Novak had declared a conflict of interest and was silent. Had it not been for the persistence of many citizens from all over Durham Region including Clarington, Regional Planning Committee would have had their way, against the advice of Regional Staff and against the wishes of the public.

Not attending the orientation session for new Regional Councillors was a big error. Sure, vacations are important, but the business of the municipality (and being able to correctly conduct that business and understand the role and procedure) is even more important. Priorities again. He must learn to juggle them better.

Not giving a reason for missing a meeting of the Greater Toronto Area Mayors and Chairs was another false step - and another seemingly lack of understanding of priorities. And forgetting about a live TV interview... when it is so important to have both the media and the public on your side - yet another miscalculation. Then there is the "tacit approval" of previous council's position on electing the Regional Chair (against direct election) without even discussing or having a public debate on the issue. This is something the public feels strongly about.

We supported Mr. Abernethy in the election, even though he was new to the world of municipal politics. We thought he would be more serious about learning the ropes, making priorities, working extra hard to bring himself up to speed.

We did not criticize his attempts to make the board/committee appointment process better. We feel he was actually doing what would have been best and it was somewhat misinterpreted by some. We do appreciate him keeping his promise as far as attempting a salary roll-back for the mayor's position. But he seems to be listening less to his constituents and more to, well, we don't know who. Perhaps he should have a personal assistant to help keep him up to speed on all the important issues. Not a secretary - he already has one who we are sure is very capable. But an executive assistant to help him put priorities in perspective.

This Week's editorial is correct - in politics, perception is reality. The public perception so far is declining. He can't continue to underestimate the importance of understanding what is going on in all aspects of this municipality, of missed meetings, of public perception.

Admittedly, we are only about 3 months into this 4 year term. Again we want to give our new Mayor a fair chance. But he must also work as hard as possible to take all these meetings seriously. Being Mayor of Clarington involves more than just this municipality. There is the Region too, and how we fit into that picture that has been drawn by Mr. Anderson and others. There is public perception that he seems now less eager to answer questions or be as accessible as he was prior to the election. Public perception that he isn't fully committed to this huge "new career" he has undertaken. No one ever said it would be easy, especially in the beginning. And we are still glad to have a new Mayor. We just hope he will live up to our expectations.

Region endorses direct election of chair

Even though our Clarington council voted against endorsing direct election of the Chair of Durham Region, at it's Feb. 14th meeting, Regional council voted 15 to 13 to endorse Oshawa MPP Jerry Ouellette's private member's bill calling for the direct election of Durham's regional chairperson. Now it is up to the Province to pass the bill. Let's hope that will be the case.

Mayor Parish , who has worked to change the way the Chair is appointed said,"Option two could be that (Municipal Affairs) Minister (John) Gerretsen might say they want this to go under the provisions of the triple majority act."

If that happens, five municipalities would have to vote in favour of direct election. In that case, Mayor Parish said the fate of the issue would rest in Whitby and Clarington. "Unless Whitby and Clarington change their position, you are not going to get a triple majority," Mayor Parish said.

Therefore it is important that Clarington take another look at it, seriously, without undue rhetoric or theatrics. Why not hold a public meeting on the issue, at an evening meeting so more people can attend. Or a web poll on the clarington.net website? Even a referendum is not binding unless at least 50% of the voting public responds, which never happens at election time and most certainly wouldn't even happen on a web poll. But why not let people have their say, or is this council afraid to do so? They seem to be listening on other topics, but for some reason just squirrel this issue away so it doesn't have to be dealt with out in the open.

Many residents of Clarington, and all over Durham Region, take this issue very seriously. Let's hope that the Province signs this bill into law so we don't have to depend on Clarington and Whitby to re-visit, re-evaluate, and re-vote and come to the logical and correct conclusion. However, in case we end up having to go under the provisions of the triple majority act, we should be prepared. Council should be prepared.

If this partially new council really wants to listen to the residents of Clarington, as they seem to want to do, then this is an issue they should bring back to the table, rather than just brushing it aside.

Please read "Electorate says yes to voting for Regional chairperson" (Metroland article) or the front page article, "Ajax seeks support for Regional Chairman motion" in the February 14th edition of The Canadian Statesman, by Jennifer Stone. Also see my previous blog entry and comments from the public.

Regional Chair choice, No choice

On Monday night, Clarington Council "received for information" an Ajax resolution calling for the election of the Regional chairman, rather than the present method of having Regional Council select Regional chair.

Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering each put the question on the ballot at last November's election - something that would have not cost anything for Clarington to do. Those three municipalities voted overwhelmingly to have direct election of the Chair. Clarington chose not to let the public have a voice. They believed, as they apparently do now, that they know better than the great majority of residents. Democracy NOT at it's finest.

On Monday night, rather than endorsing the Ajax resolution, they received for information instead. That basically means they do NOT agree with it. Councillor Foster commented that receiving for information does not mean tacit approval. We know that. We know receiving for information basically means it's put on a shelf and ignored. We also know that endorsement would have meant approval. Receiving for information certainly doesn't mean approval by our Council.

Why was Clarington afraid to put the question to the taxpayers in a non-binding referendum in November? Perhaps because they knew what the answer would be? Why not debate it in public so we can know their reasons for wanting to keep the status quo?

We would really like Councillor Foster to explain his comment that, "the ultimate in democracy is the lynch mob". That is a very shocking (and bizarre) comment from the Ward 1 Councillor. "Just because it's democratic doesn't mean it's a good idea," said the councillor. "I do not think, for Clarington and the smaller municipalities, that this is a good idea."

WHY does he not think it's a good idea for the smaller municipalities? Has he been present at Durham Regional Council meetings over the last 3 years of his term, or since being re-elected this term? Has he attended any of the regional committee meetings? He may not be a regional councillor, but that should not stop him from taking an interest in what is happening at the region, since it affects Clarington, and these meetings are open to the public as well as local councillors. Has he ever seen Chairman Anderson rule the roost, put forward his own opinions very strongly, even against regional staff recommendations? How about Anderson's hard push to remove Clarington (Ward 1, no less) lands from the Provincial Greenbelt?

No one can tell us that an elected Chair would have more power than the presently appointed (annointed) one. Conceivably an elected Chair would have to answer to the people, so might be less powerful than he is right now. Presently he has only Regional Council to answer to, and not the public. Not the taxpayers. He wields as much power and pushes as hard as our previous Mayor did in Clarington. He doesn't have to agree with the experts (staff) or bother to follow their recommendations. He can take the political route and the rest of us be damned.

Therefore, please explain to us why democracy isn't a good thing in this case. We've had our voices taken away from us enough during the last term. We did think this term might be different, at least in Clarington.

Councillor Foster should clarify his position and his remarks. The rest of Council and our Mayor should also weigh in specifically on their reasons for not endorsing the Ajax resolution (or Pickering or Oshawa resolutions).

My feelings on this subject are well known as I've written on the topic or made comments numerous times, including "Why can't we vote for Regional Chair?" last April. There are plenty of other posts and other people who outline reasons for electing Regional Chair. You might also want to have a look at the "Elect the Regional Chair Blog". I would also like to invite any or all of our Clarington Council (and anyone else) to comment here on this blog in the comments section.

We deserve better.

Highway 407 Environmental Assessment

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM

NOTICE OF MEETING

Highway 407 Environmental Assessment

A Joint Meeting of Planning and Works Committees will consider a report providing a Status Update and Regional Comments on the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment. The Provincial Project Team will be in attendance to address the Committees. The report is available at the Planning Department commencing 8:30 am Monday February 5. The meeting will be held on:

Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 shortly after 9:00 a.m.

Durham Region Headquarters
605 Rossland Rd. E. Whitby, ON
Lower Level Conference Room (LL-C)

For further information, please contact:

Ramesh Jagannathan

Manager, Transportation Planning & Research

Phone: 905-668-4113 Ext. 2555

Toll Free: 1-800-372-1102

John Gray - Chair, Planning Committee
A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. - Commissioner of Planning
Charlie Trim - Chair, Works Committee
C. Curtis, P. Eng., MBA - Commissioner of Works

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

Please try to attend if possible, as this report gives a status update and also, *Regional Comments*. The report is available from the Planning Department (contact above).

Are the Mayor and Regional Councillors keeping our Local Councillors and interested residents updated on these meetings? Charlie Trim is Chair of the Works Committee, and Mary Novak is a member of Planning Committee, so hopefully both are informing the rest of Council of an important Joint Meeting of these two committees both prior to and after the meeting. Prior to so that Local Councillors can also attend if they so wish, as this is an issue which affects Clarington residents. This holds true for many issues that come before these committees, as well as the Finance and Administration Committee, which our Mayor sits on. We hope there is a standard protocol in place for dissemination of information from our representatives at the Region to our Local Council.

The Mutton Trial

With so many people writing and asking about the trial of our former Mayor, I decided I will provide links to newspaper articles so they can follow the progress since the trial has begun. It is of interest to Clarington residents as Mr. Mutton was our Mayor for 2 terms and on council prior to that for a term. No one knows whether he will run for office again in the future, and the outcome of this trial may be a deciding factor. There was much pre-trial speculation, and now much interest in the trial itself.

Jan 30, 2007 - Former Clarington mayor's trial going longer than expected - Metroland
Jan 30, 2007 - Daughter wavers on alleged assault - Toronto Star
Jan 31, 2007 - Former mayor's wife takes the stand - Metroland
Feb 1, 2007 - Crown says fear makes ex-mayor's daughter change story - Metroland
Feb 15, 2007 - Ex-mayor claims to have 'blacked out' - Metroland
Feb 16, 2007 - `If she says I kicked her, I kicked her' - Toronto Star
Feb 16, 2007 - 'I've ruined my family' - Toronto Sun
Feb 26, 2007 - Ex-mayor Mutton acquitted of assault charges - Metroland
Feb 27, 2007 - Ex-mayor doesn't rule out return to politics - Metroland
Feb 27, 2007 - Black cloud lifts on Mutton - Toronto Sun
Feb 27, 2007 - Ex-mayor not guilty of hitting wife, child - Toronto Star

The trial was originally set for 2 days, January 29 and 31, but two additional trial days, Feb. 15 and 26, were set aside due to the amount of testimony expected.
Keaney reserved judgment until Feb. 26.