Incineration - good choice or bad for Clarington?

There are pros and cons regarding incineration, and we only seem to have been provided with the pros, to date. It is time to consider some of the cons as well.

Health concerns must be at the top of the list, especially if the incinerator is to be placed in our community. 4 of the 5 sites on the short list are within Clarington (one is in York Region). None in the rest of Durham Region - all Clarington, and all 4 are located between Hwy 401 and the lake. 2 are near Courtice Road and 2 near Bennett Road.

Here is an excerpt from "Ontario's Waste Management Challenge - Is Incineration an Option?" - a new report just released by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP). You can download the full report here.

In 2005, the British Society for Ecological Medicine released its report on the "Health Effects of Waste Incinerators". This report drew a number of conclusions suggesting that even incinerators employing more modern technologies may have adverse health effects, including the following:

• Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistent with the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiological studies support this
interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses produced by incinerators may be much wider.

• Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens, mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentified compounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the case with dioxins. Since the nature of waste is continually changing, so is the chemical nature of the incinerator emissions and therefore the potential for adverse health effects. A March 2006 report by the BC Lung Association found that even relatively low levels of fine particles (2.5 microns and smaller) have the potential to affect human health.

• Present safety measures are designed to avoid acute toxic effects in the immediate neighbourhood, but ignore the fact that many of the pollutants bioaccumulate, can enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses over time and over a much wider geographical area. No official attempts have been made to assess the effects of emissions on long-term health.

• Incinerators produce bottom and fly ash that represent 30-50% by volume of the original waste (if compacted), requiring transportation to landfill sites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of
dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.

These studies offer many contradictions and leave a number of uncertainties about the health effects of these technologies. Prior to introducing more incinerators in Ontario we would need to be sure that technologies have improved and don’t offer undue risks to human and environmental health. The MOE should again review the health implications of these technologies to update its 1999 assessment.

No one wants another landfill as we all know the problems with that. And we know something must be done with all the garbage before the 2010 closing of the Michigan border to our garbage. But is incineration the answer? It well may be, but there are also disadvantages that must be seriously considered, especially when planning to plunk an incinerator so close to populated areas. Why plan to locate it so close to residents? They would prefer to locate it closer to where most of the waste is produced, and also close to major highways so that cost of transporting it will be reduced. Is that cost a valid trade-off for possible health concerns of residents? We must also look at traffic congestion and wear and tear on roads with all the heavy truck traffic this will generate. What about future development in the area?

Jobs? There will be very few jobs produced by this incinerator since it is mostly an automated process. It is projected that fewer than 40 or 50 jobs will be required to run the incinerator. Could the space be better used to improve our industrial/commercial tax base by having more commercial/industrial development on these lands by companies requiring more workers?

While more and more people and businesses in Durham Region are working hard to reduce, reuse and recycle, will the introduction of an incinerator reduce the priority placed on municipal waste diversion? Any negative impact on this priority would be a huge step backward as recycling leads to lower energy consumption and environmental burdens than waste disposal.

The short list of sites seems to put costs and convenience above other concerns such as health, traffic, infrastructure degradation and other problems we could see with an incinerator placed locally. It is something our regional councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) must consider seriously, but we are afraid that even if they decide to push to have the preferred site be the one in York Region, Anderson, Regional Chair, will be pushing to have it located in Durham Region, as will many of the regional councillors from the other lakeshore municipalities since they will have the convenience, lower costs, but not the problems inherent with siting an incinerator within their own municipalities. We have only 3 votes. Our local municipal council is not really consulted on this. It is the Region, once again, that makes the decision, and will most likely convince our 3 representatives that it's a good thing for Clarington residents anyway.

Will they listen to residents on this issue? Why change their spots now? They can make a big show of public consultation (which is required, not by choice of our council), but as usual they will do what they decide in spite of public input.

Please contact your mayor and council with your views on this important issue. A public meeting is set for April 12 at the Beech Centre in Bowmanville, 7 - 9 pm. Another meeting is scheduled for Saturday morning, April 14 at Town Hall in Bowmanville from 9:30 - 11:30 am. Please try to attend.

Clarington will be incinerator dumping ground - wanna bet?

A couple of stories this week have pegged Clarington as the likely place for the proposed waste-to-energy incinerator. The Toronto Star article "Waste not, want not, for new power" (March 24) states that 4 of the 5 sites on the "short list" for the incinerator are in Clarington. Big surprise. You should also read the Metroland story, "Clarington takes four spots in energy-from-waste site short list" (March 23).

It is no secret that York Region would prefer to have this incinerator in Durham Region. Durham Regional Council would prefer to have it out of the way in Clarington, and funny thing, that's where the sites on the short list are located. Two in Courtice, and two in Bowmanville. We'll take bets on where it eventually ends up. Odds are it will be Courtice, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which the fact that our Council will be easily convinced by Durham Region that the plant should be located within Clarington, to begin with, and the fact that the water pollution control plant is located there and there is room, plus it is a bit closer to the other municipalities to the west for them to dump their garbage there. Still, the Bennett Road area in south Bowmanville is an attractive site for the incinerator too.

We're not worried about it though, since Chairman Anderson has declared that, "the smoke that comes out of the top is as clean as possible". So, as clean as possible? What does that mean? Sure it's cleaner than the old incinerators, but then again, we have no idea yet which technology will be used. Will it be the very latest and best, most efficient? Or will it be the most financially attractive type? Chair Anderson also says it will be "attractive and an addition to any area". Then why push it out to Clarington, when we're sure Pickering/Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa are all clamouring to host it themselves. Lucky Clarington.

From the Toronto Star, "I'm surprised that Clarington has been isolated as the only location in Durham," Clarington Mayor Jim Abernethy said yesterday. (March 23)

Why would he be surprised? No one else who lives in Clarington is.

Though he is on the record as favouring incineration, he said there will need to be "extensive public consultations" in the next while. "We have to really understand what is involved with being a host community," he said. "No one really wants this in their backyard."

Public consultations? Like those that have taken place regarding the funding request for Bowmanville Hospital? Public consultations like those refused by Council on the issue of direct election of Durham Region Chair? They will make up their own minds, regardless of what the public has to say about it - we already know that.

A public meeting is set for April 12 at the Beech Centre in Bowmanville. Why not at Garnet Rickard and Courtice Community Centre where previous public information centres were held? Why have one in Bowmanville (two sites on the short list) but not one in Courtice where there are also 2 sites on the short list? And will anybody really listen anyway?

Regional councillor Charlie Trim, who also backs incineration, expressed similar surprise. "I just thought there would be three sites in each region," said Trim. "We haven't seen the detail. The detail is what is important."

No, what is important is the rhetoric put forth by our powerful Regional Chair, and those regional councillors who want the incinerator, but not in their backyard. They will fairly easily convince our 3 regional representatives (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) that hosting it will be oh so beneficial for Clarington. They will be convinced of how desirable it will be to build it in our municipality, whether at Courtice Road or Bennett Road. Our regional councillors will fall for it hook, line and sinker. Just like they fell for the arguments made by the region to keep the status quo on election of the chair.

And who will host the ash (waste from the incinerator)? Clarington again, or will one of the other municipalities step up and take on that responsibility? I know, silly question.

The report detailing the sites is supposed to be released to the public Monday morning (March 26) at www.durhamyorkwaste.ca. It's not there yet, but there are other bits of information available at that site.

So, are we confident that what is best for Clarington will be done? No, we are not. Not when we have a council that is not accountable to the public (so far) and has shown itself, in its very short time in office to date, to be unwilling to seriously listen to both pros and cons of any issue. They will listen to those who say what our Council wants to hear. They will find a way to ignore what they don't want to hear. They are a huge disappointment so far (the majority of council, save just a couple). They are being manipulated by our region and don't even realize it. By the time they wake up and listen to the residents of Clarington, we hope it will not be too late.

All we are asking is that this council wake up and take notice of what its residents have to say for a change. By all means, get all the information, all the facts. But do not be swayed by those with an agenda that may benefit themselves but not be best for Clarington. Do we want this incinerator in Clarington? Do we even have enough information to make an informed decision? We hope that this time our councillors will do some real fact finding instead of being convinced by those who do not have the best interests of Clarington at heart. We remain hopeful, but not confident at this point.

Fiscally Responsible? I don't think so.

So, apparently our Council did not direct Municipal CAO Franklin Wu to seek public opinion on whether to support a $2-million request from the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation, but it was done nonetheless, whether by council direction or not. The money would be used as part of a much needed $10-million proposed renovation. (See Metroland editorial: Survey may not hold the answer, March 16). At a cost of $4000, there was a phone poll of 400 residents of Clarington. That works out to $10 per person questioned. Pretty expensive poll, especially when it is ignored by Council.

The formal request for money was made weeks ago by Dr. Benjamin Fuller, Medical Director, Lakeridge Health Corporation and Department Chief of Emergency Medicine at Memorial Hospital on February 26. Now Council says there was not enough time for a public meeting, they could have held one on March 5, couldn't they? Or simply asked for those interested to email the clerk's department, write in, or phone in their opinion - yes or no. Or they could have also had a web poll on the municipal website, advertised in the local newspapers. Would that have cost an extra $4000.00? And now that Council has decided to delay their decision another two weeks, they still are not providing a public meeting on the issue. They seem to have some irrational fear of public meetings!

Why is it so important for them to have input from the public on this issue when they refuse to listen to the public on the governance issue of election of the regional chair? When they refuse even to entertain a public meeting on the issue? Is it because this is a direct money issue, and since our taxes are going up so much this year, they want to be able to say they asked the public on this one issue? Believe it or not, election of regional chair is also a money issue, but that's another matter. What hat are they wearing when they decide not to listen to the public? That of a democratic, responsible council? Or a dunce cap? You decide. Or are we the dunces for trusting and electing them?

It really doesn't matter, however, since they didn't listen to the people once again - the poll resulted in 74% being in favour of funding for the hospital. That's a pretty wide margin, yet our indecisive, vacillating, less than stellar council has decided they still can't make a decision. The numerous delegations were also extremely supportive of this initiative. It is obvious they (Council) do not want to give funding for our local hospital, and were hoping the poll would support their preference. It did not, so they need another two weeks to try to come up with a good enough reason not to do so (one that might be accepted by the public who use that hospital).

This new council is making increasingly questionable decisions. And they are loathe to give substantial reasons for the unaccountable, feckless direction they are taking. Pretending to listen to residents on some issues, and totally ignoring them on other issues. They are arbitrary, erratic, capricious and undemocratic. And getting progressively worse. This is an alarming progression since they have only just begun - only 4 months into a 4 year term. How much damage will this bunch inflict on Clarington over the next 4 years?

Democratic Deficit? I would say yes. An apt description of what is happening in our municipality.

BIG mistake - No public meeting allowed

At the Monday morning (March 5) GP&A meeting of Clarington Councillors, 3 delegations requested that a public meeting be held so that Clarington residents might have the opportunity to give their input on direct election of the Durham Region Chair - an opportunity they were denied at election time when previous council refused to include the question on the ballot. Residents of Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering had a referendum question included on the election ballot last fall.

On February 14th, our 3 representatives on Regional Council (Novak, Trim and Abernethy) all voted against endorsing Bill 172 (for direct election of regional chair), even though that motion to endorse did pass, so they lost their bid on that day.

So on February 19, at the GP&A meeting of council, a motion was made by Councillor Foster to "vehemently oppose" Bill 172, and all our councillors except Woo and Hooper agreed. The motion passed. It was also asked that this declaration be sent forthwith to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, rather than even waiting another week for ratification at Council. That passed too, so it was sent right away. The following week, on February 26, Council ratified that original vote, again with only Woo and Hooper wanting to let the public have their say before taking an official Clarington position on it.

On March 5th, at the next GP& A meeting (General Purpose and Administration), 3 delegations stood up to request that a public meeting be held so that Clarington residents could have their opinions heard by council. Once again Council voted to disregard any public input, and again deny the residents of Clarington the opportunity to even speak to the issue. This time though, after listening to the 3 delegations, Councillor Robinson made a motion to hold a public meeting to hear public input on the issue. He said that he may not change his mind, but that at least the public deserves a chance to have their say on direct election of regional chair. The vote resulted in a tie - Robinson, Woo, Hooper in favour of allowing the public meeting, and not surprisingly, Foster, Novak and Trim voting against. It was up to the Mayor to break the tie, and he made a huge mistake. He voted to not allow any public input on the matter. In speaking with someone present at this debacle, I was told the Mayor started to give his reasons for his vote and Councillor Foster shut him down, as he had done with Councillor Woo earlier. There was no more discussion on the issue. Who is running the show, anyway?

There WILL be more discussion on this issue though, as those wanting a public meeting will not give up. It was surprising and extremely disappointing that this council doesn't care to hear any public input on such a major governance issue. These 3 delegations were not asking that they rescind their original motion. They were only asking for a belated opportunity for the public to give their input. Only after hearing all sides to this issue, and hearing from the public (who this council was elected to serve), should council make a decision of this magnitude. Indeed, only after public input can council make an informed decision. But is all it's wisdom, this council and mayor decided they don't need public input for they know better than we do. They are all-knowing and are impatient with these less intelligent beings who elected them, who want to be heard. Of course, since they were elected, some of these people suddenly have become omnipotent beings, above us all.

Thank you to Councillor Robinson for at least believing now that the public should be allowed to be heard. Thank you to Councillors Woo and Hooper for trying to do the right thing, and for listening to the people and believing the public has a right to be heard.

Shame on the disgraceful behaviour of Foster (for leading the charge), Novak, Trim and Abernethy for the indifference they are showing to the opinions or requests of residents and even contempt for our input on a governance issue, where we have every right to speak.

They should consider that we, the voting public, are good enough to give them our votes and to choose a council and mayor, but it seems we couldn't be trusted to choose the person who heads the region? Should we begin to lobby to change the Municipal Act so that we elect a council, and then those 6 people choose a mayor for us - someone unelected at all? Do they really think that would be better than an open election for top spot in the municipality? Perhaps this bunch would think so, as then they could put in one of their old friends, or someone booted out by voters in the last election. The range of possibilities would be endless. This is what happens at the regional level. 28 elected councillors choose the head of the region. What is so different?

The public should be allowed to choose regional chair, and there are many more reasons for a direct, open election of the chair. This includes the nomination process for one, which absolutely favours the incumbent, or at the very least a present member of regional council. Remember that the chair is chosen at the first meeting of regional council after an election, where those 28 who were just elected/re-elected will do the choosing. That doesn't give much time at all for "outsiders" to get nominated (must be by a regional councillor) or to lobby those special 28 for election. How fair is that?

Yes, we do have a democratic deficit in Clarington. And it is increasing. Shame on this Mayor for giving up the chance to make things right by allowing a public meeting. Shame on Foster, Novak and Trim for not wanting to listen to the public who elected them.

Whether you agree with direct election of the chair or not, we should all be very concerned about the lack of interest shown by this council for public input on a huge issue that affects us all. Not just lack of interest, but absolute denial of the democratic process. What are they so afraid of? That someone may make a lot of sense and make them look mentally deficient for taking such a stand against democratic procedure? Sorry to inform them, but that has already happened. And it is only escalating. They can try to cover it by saying they want input on this or that, but we have already seen their behaviour when they have a political issue that benefits them (or they think it does) and do not want anyone to spoil their little party.

Benefit of the doubt for a rookie mayor and partial rookie council? I don't think so. It is the rookie councillors (Woo and Hooper) who have shown the most sense throughout. And Robinson at least trying to give residents a chance to have a say has been a little bit redeemed. But the rest are digging themselves deeper and deeper and deeper...

So, in the end, No public meeting for Clarington residents, thanks to Abernethy, Foster, Novak and Trim.

If you want to have your say, sign up to speak to Council as a delegation, write a letter, and/or comment here on this blog. Some of them surely know about this blog and may take the time to read some of your opinions here too. Or they may not bother. Best to give a deputation at Council or GP&A so they at least have to sit there, whether they listen or not. With a couple of them, that is debatable. We are asking only for a publicized public meeting for the public. Is that such a difficult thing for them to grant? Apparently so!!!

Budget choices

The Sunday, March 4 edition of Clarington This Week headline: "Clarington residents may see 8.89 percent tax hike".

As the municipality grows so quickly, so grows the need for funding of all those new arenas, ice pads, recreational facilities that were approved over the last two council terms. Also the great residential growth without corresponding industrial/commercial growth over all those years has resulted in a horrible 91/9% tax split. 91% of tax revenue comes from homeowners and only 9% from businesses. So the addition of $100,000 to an economic development reserve fund seems to be a necessity. Besides attracting more industrial and commercial development, which will have the added benefit of adding badly needed jobs to the mix, we must also stop mollycoddling the development industry with low development charges, or waiving them altogether when it's not necessary. When approving all those subdivisions, the town must charge development fees that will support and sustain infrastructure needed for the increased population. Increasing DC's won't scare the residential developers away. They have the land and they want to build, more and more and more. Or perhaps a discount could be given for green development. Not just in name, but actual green development that will benefit us all in the long run. But growth just for the sake of growth has to be curbed or made to pay for itself.

One concern I do have with this budget is the $86,000 reduction to the municipal advertising budget. This means that the municipality will only advertise the information and notices it is required to by law (such as public meetings, for example). Now don't get me wrong - I was no fan of the "Mayor's Corner" which seemed to be of no real benefit to the municipality. I'm glad Mayor Abernethy has not continued that silly little goody. However, by not keeping that space for local group community event announcements, those groups will have to increase their grant requests from the municipality to cover those costs. OR they won't be able to advertise at all and the entire municipality loses out in that case. Take, for example, the Clarington Museum Board's ads when they have new exhibits or programs open to the public. Must they increase their advertising budget now, or will we simply miss out on all these opportunities? Or the community happenings at the Clarington Older Adult Association? Or Big Brothers/Sisters, Lakeridge Health, etc? Advertising once a week in the Orono Weekly Times and Canadian Statesman, and possibly a bit more in Clarington This Week isn't something I would have cut back on. Maybe a little (Mayor's corner is gladly gone and not missed), but not sticking to a maximum of 1/2 page for each ad. There may be more some weeks than others, and why not use whatever space is needed each week? Some weeks may need only 3/4 of a page, or 1/2 page. Others may need a full page due to events or the number of required ads. I just wonder about the wisdom of making this such a structured by-law rather than simply cutting a specific amount and going with the flow. A little more flexibility might have been a better move.

Grants will be done tomorrow morning at the GP&A meeting. That will be an interesting exercise. Some groups seem to just increase their grant requests because last year maybe they didn't get as much as they asked for. So if they increase the amount requested and get the same percentage of that amount, they will get what they originally wanted. While most of the requests seem reasonable, a few always seem a bit outrageous, and I hope they have to justify those amounts to Council. Many of these groups should look to doing more of their own fundraising instead of depending on Council for funding.

This Council has to deal with increased costs to the municipality but have to try to be fair to the taxpayer too. There are certain areas where the money will do more good than others. Lakeridge Health Bowmanville is one area. They are raising a lot of money on their own for badly needed hospital upgrades and improvements. But they have now asked Council for a substantial amount of financial help - Hospital requests $2 million from Municipality (over the next 4 years) - and I for one would be willing to pay a few more dollars a year to have those hospital improvements instead of more staffing for "Total Hockey" or giving ever-larger grants to local groups who could do a little fund-raising on their own.

I may sound harsh, but remember that this council has to make some difficult decisions. I'm sure they would love to give each and every group the full amount of their grant request, but that is not possible. And remember that on top of our 8.89% tax hike from the municipality, we will also have the big regional portion added on to our tax bill. And user fees. We have education taxes. Then we have of course provincial taxes and federal taxes. It all comes from the same taxpayer, and that is us.

Blogger criticisms addressed

The editorial in the February 28 edition of the Orono Weekly Times had some comments and criticisms of this Clarington Watchdog blog which I felt should be responded to. We all have a right to our opinions and this editorial is no different.... I'm not complaining as I don't have a problem with that. In the case of this blog though, there were specific reasons for not revealing my name or those of my contributors, and that was threats from the municipality regarding the criticisms levelled at previous council and mainly the previous mayor. But that doesn't make my opinions or statements of fact any less valuable than those of an editorial writer in any newspaper. So there you have it. As for the rest, I'll respond below. Before responding, however, I must reveal that the Orono Weekly Times is a favourite of mine, and I look forward to my weekly fix which includes the articles, letters to the editor, and yes, the editorials. It's not what I would call a "politically correct" newspaper, but that is one of its greatest charms!

Excerpts from "Blogging" - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - Orono Weekly Times Editorial

"There is a local blog called claringtonwatchdog@blogspot.com, that calls itself a watchdog on Clarington council. To date, it has been relatively refined. That blog worked hard during the past election in calling for change. The blog was most critical of our past council."

Actually, that should be http://claringtonwatchdog.blogspot.com/

"More recently, that blog has been expressing faint praise, and strong criticism, of our new mayor. The blog claims that Abernethy is missing meetings, failed to support the "elect the Regional Chair" campaign, and is not working hard enough."

Those "claims" are all true. Did the editorial writer read Clarington This Week's February 16th editorial, "Mayor has to take job more seriously"? As for not supporting the "elect the Regional Chair" campaign, that is also fact. Is he working hard enough? That remains to be seen. I believe he is, but must get is priorities in order. Those missed meetings were important, and to my knowledge no good reason was given for missing any of them.

"We can understand impatience. There are huge problems for Clarington, many of which can only be resolved by the Region, or the Province. However, we think that blaming all that on the mayor, could become counter-productive."

We're not blaming everything on the Mayor. That most certainly would be counter-productive. We are, however, blaming him for missed meetings and for changing his position on election of the Regional Chair, and without input from Clarington residents.

"Anyone who took the time to learn about Mayor Abernethy during the election, concluded that he is honest, fair, methodical an understated."

And we agree with that. It is part of the reason we supported Mayor Abernethy during the election campaign. We (writers of this blog) also voted for Mayor Abernethy.

"That is exactly what he is showing now. If voters wanted a superman, who would dynamically revise council, and immediately solve all problems; they should have voted for such a person. Unfortunately for Clarington, no super hero ran in the election."

Again, agreed. He is not expected to immediately solve all problems. He is expected to set priorities and realize the importance of the meetings that were missed. He was expected to carry through on his campaign promise to support direct election of Regional Chair.

"It appears that the mayor is being slowed down further by council. This could be due to the fact he promised openness, and consultation. He seems to be delivering on that promise, but it is time consuming. To our mind, that is a huge improvement over what we had in the previous council."

Agreed, once again.

"Blogs, at their best, encourage debate, and so far, "the watchdog" has achieved that. The downside of a blog site is that uninformed people can put forth any claim, and one person can write dozens of blogs, using different names."

We are glad to encourage debate, and that is a large part of the purpose of this blog. But I hope the editorial writer is not calling watchdog "uninformed", as I can document my claims, and then provide my opinion on what is happening in Clarington (and the Region). I can also assure you that this is the only blog we write, and do not use "different names".

"We ask the bloggers to now remember the other possible candidates for Mayor, and think about the terrible consequences that might have befallen us had we elected someone other than Abernethy. He is showing us a fair, open and intelligent approach. We should support him as he faces huge challenges. Criticism is, of course, easier than constructive action, but we should leave the criticisms to closer to the next election. Now, we need to work together to get things done in this frustratingly complex area of civic politics."

Oh, we do remember the other possible candidates, and that is why we supported Mr. Abernethy for Mayor. We agree he is showing us a fair, open approach, except for refusing to delay voting on the motion put forward by Councillor Foster that "vehemently opposes" direct election of the Regional Chair, in order that members of the public might have their say. We don't feel the approach to that issue was either fair or open. We also don't believe we should allow the mayor or council to have a free ride for the next nearly 4 years and only bring up objections or concerns or criticisms at that time. What kind of "constructive action" would you have us take? Yes, we do need to work together, but we must be allowed to work together by having council listen to residents not only on issues they will agree with the majority on, but also on issues they know they may be taking an unpopular position on. That would be constructive action and fair and open. We, as taxpayers of Clarington, have little control over what this new council decides they will listen to or not. The mayor as leader will have to try to convince those on council who don't seem to care what residents think (unless residents support their position). This is not an easy task, and the job of mayor is not an easy job. But it is the job Mr. Abernethy asked us to elect him to, and we did just that.

Mayor Abernethy has our support in general, but we will criticize when we feel criticism is warranted. If we only gave praise and never any complaints, how would he or council ever know when we are displeased, or when we feel something could be improved upon, or when we have ideas they may be interested in but are not listening?

We do appreciate comments from media and from residents who want to give their own comments in response to our blog entries. We also welcome constructive criticism. There are guidelines for comments in the sidebar. And although we do prefer people to sign their names, it is not mandatory. We want to make it easy for people to comment. We do, however, reserve the right to not publish comments that are defamatory or personal in nature. We want comments on the issues that affect us where we live. Clarington.

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.

Mayor to have salary rolled back?

During the campaign leading up to our November municipal election, Jim Abernethy spoke often of fiscal responsibility, and made a promise to have a look at the large mayoral salary and possibly have it rolled back, if elected.

This process is now taking place, and our new Mayor is living up to his campaign promise. There were earlier rather sizable salary increases, but the most recent included not only a council voted (in 2004) mayoral salary increase from $54,640 in 2004 to almost $67,000 effective January 2005, another increase up to $69,043 effective in January 2006, and then a further increase to $71,460, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2007. Gee, how would the average voter/taxpayer in Clarington like to be able to vote him/herself that type of yearly increase?

In addition to the outrageous salary increases, and even more outrageous (in the opinion of most taxpayers) were the flat-rate mileage rate increases for both the mayor and councillors. The Mayor's rate more than doubled from $570 per month to $1,293 per month! And remember that the mayor (and regional councillors) also receive a nice additional minimum salary of $40,725.49 from the Region and another $5,979.41 if they chair a committee. They can also claim additional money for attending conferences and meetings and additional mileage.

Clarington Council will only be able to alter the municipal portion of the Mayor's salary and not the Regional portion, but the entire package must be considered when looking at any rollback to the total, which is what is now being done.

Staff has been directed to review the Mayor's annual remuneration, with a view to not alter the compensation for any Councillors. Councillors in Clarington earn 40% of the Mayor's salary rate, but of course Regional Councillors also earn that extra hefty package from the Region in addition to their salary. Some of the new Regional Councillors (from other municipalities) have remarked at how generous that Regional package is, some with a bit of surprise and embarrassment!

I would suggest that the local councillors for Clarington should not have their salaries rolled back at all (and that is not being contemplated). In 2005, basic pay for a Clarington Councillor was 17, 788.67. With all the extras (Expense allowance, Omers Equivalent, mileage, conferences, etc), the salary runs around $35, 000 per year. They deserve at least that amount, and I don't think most people would fret if their salaries are increased a bit each year. However, our local councillors who also sit on regional council already have an additional $40,000 plus and most of us don't feel their base Clarington salaries need to be increased at the same rate as the local councillors.

Regional remuneration is higher than it should be, in our opinion, since all regional councillors already receive their base salary from their municipality. The base regional salary for councillors is higher than most municipal salaries, and regional salary is in addition to that municipal salary. Sure they have some extra work to do, but most of us don't believe it is more than double their local council work. And they get all those extra perks again at the region. So when there is a council increase, let's look at the overall package, just as the Mayor is having done for his remuneration. Local councillors need the increase, regional councillors don't, at least not at this present time. There is no reason the rates must be exactly the same.

We are grateful that Mayor Abernethy has taken a stand against fiscal irresponsibility (to the taxpayer). There are other areas he will be looking at as well, I'm sure. But this is a good start and shows that he means to live up to his campaign promises, and that is very encouraging.

For more on this topic, see Jennifer Stone's Metroland (This Week) column, Clarington's mayoral salary up for discussion.

New Blogs and getting involved

There are two new blogs from our neighbours to the west - Oshawa.

#1 - A group called VOTES (vote to eliminate self-serving politicians) has been organized in Oshawa by Bill Longworth, Founder and Chair of Ward System Now, the activist organization that brought the ward system to Oshawa in 1985. Mr. Longworth personally designed and presented the winning case to a 21 day OMB hearing, the longest of its kind in Ontario history. The official website of VOTES is http://www.oshawaspeaks.ca/ which is expected to become the major clearinghouse for Oshawa political news and commentary over this term of council. The objectives of VOTES are 1) to fight to retain ward voting for Oshawa, and 2) to organize citizens to defeat Oshawa politicians who prove to be self serving by continuing to vote for a return to the general vote...a system that serves the politicians but not the people.

#2 - There is another blog set up by Oshawa Councillor Brian Nicholson called Ward System Oshawa. This group and the blog was set up to represent "the vast majority of Oshawa residents who support local representation in municipal government". They urge all those who agree with that view to contact them and work with them to make sure that local representation remains a vital part of municipal government in Oshawa.

Political activism does have an effect, as we witnessed with the Greenbelt issue before Durham Region. The overwhelming majority of Planning 'Committee' was pushing hard for Council to include an attachment with the Official Plan that would have alerted everyone officially of their intention to remove certain parcels of land from the Provincial Greenbelt at the earliest opportunity (which won't be until 2015, unless there is a Provincial loss and a new government changes the rules). So this issue isn't completely dead, but it is put on the shelf for the moment. The point is, there was a tremendous public outcry about this and Regional politicians were made to listen. Of course there were some on Council who were opposed to Planning Committee's recommendation even before the public became involved. But I sincerely do believe that letters to newspapers, to politicians, and those who spoke to the issue at local and regional committee and council meetings had a positive effect in the end on those who would have (and did, earlier) sided with those wanting to change the greenbelt boundaries to allow for more development.

So, it is important to become involved, whatever the issue, large or small. And while this ward issue is on the front burner in Oshawa, let us not forget the "Elect the Chair" issue, which is the drive to finally have the position of Regional Chair an elected (by the public) position rather than an appointment of a totally unelected person (and that includes appointment of someone who failed in an election bid) by Regional Councillors. There has been much talk about this issue and we can't let it be forgotten. We must get the province to change our process/procedure for anointing Regional Chair within Durham Region before the 2010 election.

We have plenty of other issues too, but remember that your involvement in local matters does matter.