Sellout crowd at Regional Council meeting

Yes, the room was full for the meeting. That was Regional Council chambers on January 24th. It was so full there were people sitting on the stairs, and in extra chairs behind Council itself. There were two major issues to be dealt with at that meeting - The Lord's Prayer and the Greenbelt issue that has been plaguing this Council for many months.

Greenbelt - The great majority of this Council finally came through (see issue in the January 23 posting below). They voted 29 - 1 for the best compromise option, which was Option #1. Option #2 would have been best (to rescind), but there was no way they would support an option that said outright that they were dead wrong. So politically, the best result we could hope for was Option #1, which was to simply receive the Planning Committee report (which signalled the intent of Durham Region to remove lands from the Greenbelt at it's earliest opportunity, which wouldn't be until at least 2015 when the Greenbelt is revisited) - to receive the report for information. That effectively lets it die a quiet death.

The *recommendation* of Planning Committee had been to attach a supplemental attachment to the Official Plan to let developers and landowners know who the lucky few were who had their lands singled out for "future growth" plans by the Region. That would have been Option #3, the one that had been recommended by Planning Committee. Remember that this was a purely political recommendation, not supported by Planning Staff (the experts) or the majority of residents nor by some of the municipalities. It appears that Regional Council did see the light, and showed that they actually MAY have the best interests of the region, the environment, and the people at heart. We certainly will be watching closely to see what they do in the future, as will the media (including the dreaded Toronto Media).

The Lord's Prayer - The Ottawa-based group, Secular Ontario, has lost this round with Durham Region. This organization has complained that saying prayers at any municipal council's meetings, including Durham Regional meetings, is against the law. Since the 1999 Ontario Court of appeal ruling against prayer, individuals and groups like Secular Ontario have used that ruling to force councils to stop the long-held tradition of praying at the beginning of meetings.

This issue has caused quite a stir in the region, with many residents speaking at Finance and Admin Committee meeting, and following up with another 13 delegations signed up to speak at Council on Wednesday (24th). Most were strongly in favour of keeping the Lord's Prayer, with 3 speaking against it. Durham Region came up with a "compromise", sort of. They will still say the Lord's Prayer, but it will be *before* the meeting is officially opened, rather than after the meeting is called to order. Council voted 21 - 4 to approve this change in "procedure".

Those speaking against the proposal gave valid reasons for their position, such as prayer should be a personal thing, a matter of conscience. They felt prayer has no place in a political forum. On the other hand, those who were staunchly in support of continuing the tradition also had their valid reasons, and Council attempted to come up with a compromise.

It remains to be seen whether this action will hold up if challenged in a court of law, but it was evident that the vast majority of both Councillors and residents wanted to continue with prayer prior to meetings. The new "procedure" of saying the Lord's Prayer (and allowing anyone else to silently pray on their own, or not) prior to calling the meeting to order was begun that very day with the Chair (Anderson) entering the meeting, Council and the public standing, the Lord's Prayer recited, and then the Chair calling the meeting to order afterward. This is how meetings will begin in the future at Regional Council. Most people were quite happy with the solution. This may or may not be the end of it and we'll see what happens in the future.

These two issues show that community involvement can make a difference. Becoming involved in an issue that is important to you and to the community is an approach more and more people are taking. Durham Regional Council is listening, at least part of the time. With media and individual pressure and speaking up, it is possible to get them to change their minds (in the case of the Greenbelt) and to support an action many of them originally wanted to support in the first place (retaining prayer). So please continue to "get involved". If you can't attend a meeting because of work or other obligations, then write a letter. Or lots of letters. It is the only way you will be heard.

Will you be there?

Who will be attending the Durham Regional Council meeting tomorrow (January 24, at 10:00 a.m.)? Will it be as wild as the September 13 Regional Council meeting when so many residents got up to speak against removal of lands in Durham Region (including 2 parcels within Clarington) from the Provincial Greenbelt? Where several were berated by Councillors for their opinions? Or will it be a slightly quieter meeting, but again with a large number of residents from across Durham Region speaking up as delegations to Planning Committee on January 9, where the Greenbelt issue took up the majority of a very long meeting?

Will you be there to witness the hypocrisy of some on Council who continue to try to convince us of how supportive they are of the Greenbelt, yet they want to attach a supplemental document to the Official Plan which spells out which lands they will try to remove from the Greenbelt at the earliest opportunity? And that opportunity won't even present itself for at least another 9 years. So why make future councils conform to the wishes of this present council, when so many things can change in that period of time. They will tell you it is their "vision" for the future. But their "vision" is truly short-sighted in the overall scheme of things.

Durham Region has the worst reputation in the GTA for being environmentally unfriendly. Will they try to change that perception with new "spin" on what they are doing, or will they truly try to become a friend to residents and the Province and discard this silly (and destructive) plan?

The public is watching closely. The media is watching too. Why wouldn't this Planning Committee (not STAFF - the Planning Committee is made up of politicians, not experts) listen to the advice of their staff (the experts) and the pleas of their residents, and requests from Municipal Councils such as Clarington and Ajax? They won't even let the municipalities do their own planning, which is a shame. Is this Planning Committee so all-knowledgeable, so infallible that they know better than the Provincial Government, planning experts, and municipal staff and councils? Do they not have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of the majority, rather than try to give the advantage to a few while causing damage to our environment as well as to their own reputations with the public? That reputation as a "retrograde, developer-friendly" bunch is reinforced more and more each day. They will try to put a new spin on it but nobody is buying.

Come out to the meeting at Durham Regional Headquarters, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, in Council Chambers on the main level to support Clarington's request that all Clarington lands be removed from the "Supplemental Attachment" that Planning Committee wants attached to the Official Plan. Come out to let Council know that you don't agree with Planning Committee. Come out to support the Greenbelt and Provincial Legislation. The meeting begins at 10:00 a.m. Come and enjoy the show. Or participate in it. Tell your own Regional Councillors and Mayor that you support the Greenbelt and they should support "Option #1".

Time to get involved

We hope you all had a very Merry Christmas and we have hopes for a very good New Year with our New Council this year.

We have a very busy week coming up this week, and I hope there will be enough interest for people to attend 3 important meetings, as well as the Mayor's Levee.

January 7 (Sunday) - This is the day of our Mayor's Levee. The Levee will take place on Sunday, January 7, from 12:00 noon to 2:00 PM. As the year 2007 marks the 175th anniversary of Orono, this years Levee will be held in the historic Orono Town Hall, Main Street Orono. "Mayor Jim Abernethy & his wife Cathy invite you to join them and other members of Council at the Mayor's Levee."

January 8 (Monday) - 9:30 a.m. in Council Chambers, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville. GPA (GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE) Meeting. You can find the agenda for this meeting here. The "GPA" meetings are held every other Monday morning at 9:30 am. Decisions made at these meetings are ratified or discussed at a regular Council meeting the following Monday (7:pm). This is the protocol for regular meetings. The General Purpose and Administration Committee is made up of our Council and Mayor as well as municipal heads of departments. The Agendas for meetings (GPA or Council meetings) are posted each Friday preceding the Monday (am or pm) meeting at the link I posted above. You can also get copies of the reports by contacting the municipal department in charge of any of these issues brought forward at the meetings (planning, operations, clerks, etc). Because the GPA meetings are on Monday mornings, it can be difficult for many people to attend, but if possible do try.

January 9 (Tuesday) - 9:30 a.m. Durham Region Planning Committee meeting (open to the public) at Regional Headquarters Building (LLC - Lower Level Boardroom), 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby. You can find the agenda for this meeting here. One of the Commissioner's Reports to be presented and discussed is 2007 -P-4 Motions Referred to Planning Committee by Council on September 13, 2006 - Approach to Addressing Region’s Request for Greenbelt Plan Changes in the Regional Official Plan Review, File: L14-03-06. This is important for residents of Clarington and especially Courtice as Durham Region wants to remove parts of the Courtice Greenbelt so that the land can be developed. The Province has said no, but that hasn't stopped the Region from trying to find a way around it. Clarington Council voted against the Region's attempts to amend the boundaries of the Provincial Greenbelt in Clarington and that report and result of the vote was sent to John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Municipal Affairs and Housing, Greenbelt Group; the Greenbelt Council; and of course the Region of Durham Planning Department and area municipalities. Still, Durham Region has ignored Clarington's decision on this CLARINGTON land, and continues to try to back-door changes to the Plan. Anyone who has an interest at all in this issue should try to attend this meeting. It would also be helpful to contact our municipal Council, and especially our Regional Councillor Mary Novak, who is our representative on the Regional Planning Committee. Mary has not been on Council for the last 6 years so may not be completely up to speed on this, and it is up to us to help her dig through all the political-speak going on at the Region to get around Clarington's and the Province's wishes on this subject. We do hope Mary will concur with the previous Clarington Council's vote and the Clarington Planning Department Report # PSD-061-06.

January 10 (Wednesday) - 7 - 9 p.m. in Clarington Council Chambers, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville - an information session on Pesticide Use in Clarington. "In an effort to allow the Municipality of Clarington to develop a program to preserve human health, and environment quality, at the same time respecting the concerns of the residents of Clarington, the Municipality of Clarington is hosting a Lawn and Garden Care Information Night and has developed a short questionnaire for residents to submit. Also see Metroland News Article for more information.

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)