Is Democracy Dying in Clarington?

Last December our Clarington Council passed a new Procedural By-Law designed to limit participation by residents in council or committee meetings. Well, they say the reason was to enable a smoother "flow" to the meetings, but in reality, it appears to have been a not-so-subtle attempt to quell the rising tide of public voices speaking out against the EFW (which has been strongly supported by our 3 Regional representatives: Abernethy, Trim and Novak).

There have been voices speaking up about the unfairness and bullying tactics of our Regional Chair, Roger Anderson (and they were banned from speaking at Clarington Council in the future). We wonder if he has been bullying our 3 into submission or has simply convinced them that Clarington will reap untold benefits from the siting of an INCINERATOR in Clarington. Yes, just like the Water Pollution Control Plant built in Courtice, where Clarington will receive less than half ($183,000) of what was expected ($400,000) in tax income from that Regional project. Tax income from the EFW Incinerator has been estimated to be similar to the WPCP, but now even Regional Councillor Charlie Trim, Chair of Regional Works and strong supporter of the incinerator warns not to count any chickens (or money) before they're hatched.

No matter what the income from that proposed incinerator though, is it worth the risk of increased asthma in our children, increased cancers, untold health risks in our residents, or to contributing an increased toxic burden to our already overtaxed, overburdened airshed? Watchdog says an emphatic "NO!"

But will the voices of residents be heard? Residents have been told they can write a letter instead of making a public statement that would be heard by Council directly or on TV when meetings are televised. I've heard that when the clerk receives a letter to council stating concerns about the incinerator, it is summarized as a letter of 'concern' about the proposed EFW incinerator, and then published with a list of names of other residents who have written of their objections to this proposal. They don't deserve separate mention like the other correspondence to council? It appears not.

Not only did the new Procedural By-Law which came into effect in January 2008 limit citizens to 5 minutes (from the previous 10 minute limit) for a delegation to Council, but it also specifies that no clapping is allowed, unless the Mayor asks for it for something he approves. And you cannot use the words "bully" or "sheep" or "cronies" or goodness knows what else the Mayor may decide is offensive to his weak sensibilities.

The new By-Law also limited residents to speaking only at the Monday morning General Purpose and Administration Committee meetings, having to miss work or get a sitter and take time out of a busy day to get to Town Hall to speak (signing up the previous week first, of course). If they bring up a topic of concern to them at the GP&A meeting, then they are not allowed to speak to it at the evening Council meeting the following week. If they want to speak only at the evening Council meeting, then they can only do so if their topic is already listed on the Council Agenda. They cannot bring a concern to Council if it is not on the Agenda. Hmmmm. Nothing like doing all in their power to limit the voice of the public.

Now they have decided to put further limits on the public by limiting Presentations (different from delegations) to a maximum of 10 minutes (down from unlimited). This will only apply to the public, as staff or consultants or upper levels of government are excluded from this limit. It appears that the Mayor invited a citizen to make a presentation on waste matters to Council at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. The Mayor specified that this presentation would take approximately 1 hour, and the rest of Council voted to approve the presentation. AFTER Mr. Doug Anderson's timely and appropriate presentation, our intrepid Council decided to introduce this new amendment to their already citizen-limiting By-Law so that they could limit the public from speaking for more than 10 minutes, and that is ONLY if they are approved to give a presentation rather than a delegation (5 minutes).

Silly me. I thought part of Council's job description is to listen to the concerns of their residents. But it appears that only applies if we agree with them on the big issues. Otherwise they don't want to hear us. They can come up with all the excuses in the world, but what they are doing is intentionally shutting down the democratic process and limiting our free speech.

Clarington, leading the way toward the death of democracy. Shouldn't that replace the present signs we see upon entering this municipality? Sadly, yet another sign of the times.

How do you feel about the methodical annihilation of democratic processes designed to encourage the public to have a voice in decisions affecting our community?