Mayor's assault case postponed to August 8

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

Cops mum on mayor's charges

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

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

By BRODIE FENLON, TORONTO SUN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political funding in 905 mainly from developers

The Toronto Star June 1st edition, gave us some insight as to why our councils may seem to us to be "developer-friendly". It's not all in our heads.

A study released Thursday by York University political science professor Robert MacDermid found that local councillors in the suburban cities and towns bordering Toronto get the bulk of their campaign funds — in one case as high as 96.7 per cent — from corporate contributions, primarily from developers. Oh my, what a surprise!

A detailed analysis of the money shows that across the 905 municipalities almost 70 per cent of all corporate contributions came directly from developers or companies that represented construction interests. In Toronto it's 44 per cent. But then they don't have all that open land waiting to be developed in Toronto. Not like we have in the 905 areas, certainly in Clarington!

"Citizens have a blame here," MacDermid said. "In their absence from politics both as voters and as contributors, business and development interests fill that void."
As a result their interests dominate in the 905 area where there is more land to be developed, he said.

There is a way to remedy this - and Ajax Mayor Steve seems to have found it. Ajax has the 2nd highest individual voter participation behind Toronto, and they are the only municipalities to offer rebates for individual contributions. In the case of Ajax, voters can get 75 per cent of the first $100 donated to a politician back and 50 per cent of the next $150 pack. The cap for rebates is $250. It's a way to get individuals to donate and those big donations by developers aren't needed.

Parish has asked the province to step in and reform campaign finance laws, but to date his plea seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as usual. Perhaps Clarington should consider following the Ajax lead though, and offer rebates. It couldn't hurt. (Only for individual contributions, not unions and corporations)

Of course all politicians will dismiss any suggestion that developers have undue influence because of their election contributions. In some cases that may be true, in others not. But the perception of impropriety is as important as the real deal itself, and there is certainly that perception. Especially when there are "planning" decisions that make absolutely no sense other than to give developers what they ask for, at times even against the recommendations of planning staff. They can usually find an excuse for their actions, but not always a plausible one. We're not that stupid.

We deserve better

This editorial appeared in May 24th edition of the Orono Weekly Times and is worthy of your consideration. The Orono Times is well worth the $35.00 yearly subscription (for 48 issues) and is a truly "independent" publication. It's not available on-line, so no matter where you live in Clarington, consider a subscription. It's well worth it. email oronotimes@rogers.com or phone/fax 905-983-5301.

We deserve better

This year's upcoming municipal election has already sparked more interest than the previous municipal election in 2003.

As of Tuesday morning 17 candidates had filed their nomination papers with the Municipal Clerk. That's three more than filed for the last election, and there are more than six months before election day, November 13th. One gets the sense that the electorate feel that it is time for a clean sweep. The present council, except for Councillor Adrian Foster of Ward 1- Courtice, are finishing their second three year term in their respective offices. There were three councillors acclaimed last time, and while there are still three unchallenged councillors, it is still early in the process. There should never be acclamations in a democracy, so it's heartening to see so many residents putting up their names as candidates this time around. Thus far the Regional seat for Ward 1 and 2 has four candidates. This is the seat currently held by Jim Schell, who has declared that he will not seek re-election. Running for this seat are current Ward 2 Local councillor, Don MacArthur, Suzanne Elston and George Van Dyk who are both former Clarington Public Utilities Commissioners, and Keven McAlpine, retired Durham Regional Police Chief.

Five candidates have filed to run in the seat to be vacated by Local Ward 2 councillor, as he seeks to get elected in Jim Schell's place. Running for that Bowmanville seat are Blair Smyth a relatively new Clarington resident, who is facing retirement and wants to give back to his community. Colin Argyle who ran as an NDP candidate in the last provincial election, and ran for Public School Board Trustee in the last municipal election. Steve Rowland is a paramedic manager who likes the town, is pleased with what the past council has accomplished. Ron Hooper, long time business owner in Bowmanville, and current president of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Association filed his nomination papers last Friday, and John Sturdy, another life-long Bowmanville resident who thinks people need a politician who will listen to them, filed his papers yesterday.

Three candidates have already indicated their intention to run for the Ward 3, Local Councillor seat, currently held by Pat Pingle. Though Pingle said earlier that she was seeking re-election, it is doubtful whether she will run. Running in that ward are David Duffie, a retired Bowmanville resident who says he has the time to serve his community, Kevin Anyan a life-long Bowmanville residents, former restaurant owner, and current food caterer, and Willie Woo of Newcastle, who ran against Councillor Charlie Trim in the 2000 election.

There are still two candidates seeking the Mayor's position, our current Mayor is being challenged by Jim Abernethy, who also wants to serve the community.

The province has just extended the next term of municipal council, so those elected in November will hold office for four years, rather than three, the previous term for municipal council.

This council certainly have made their jobs more lucrative.

One of the first pieces of business this council attended to once they were elected, for this term was to increase their salaries; increasing the Mayor' s salary by 18 percent in one year alone. Prior to this council being elected in 2000, the total pay package for the mayor was $79,000. Last year the Mayor took home a total of $164,000. Being elected mayor of Clarington for the next four years term has become a $650,000 proposition. That is until they pass their next pay hike.

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.

It takes courage to run any campaign, and those who put their name forward for a political campaign deserve our respect. Get to know your candidates, find out why they want to represent you, and what vision they have for the next four years, and beyond.

It is said: "you get the politicians you deserve," and we deserve better than what we've had.

The last opportunity to file nomination papers for November's election is 5 p.m. on September 29.

Kudos to Clarington Council

... and ever bigger kudos to Clarington Planners for their excellent report and recommendations...

So, last night at the Clarington GPA meeting (council chambers) saw quite a number of Clarington residents who had something to say to Council about the Greenbelt and Durham Region's slap in the face to Clarington Council and Clarington residents. To their credit, the municipality decided to go through with a Public Meeting on Durham Region's decision to try to have two areas in Courtice removed from the Greenbelt, and a large area between Bowmanville and Courtice (called the "urban separator") added to the Greenbelt, even though Durham Region has already voted on the issue. Both would be bad moves for Clarington, but what does the Region care about Clarington? If they can get what they want -which is more development - then why not take advantage of Clarington, stuck off in the hinterland of the Region (or that's what some seem to think).

Roger Anderson's attitude toward development is blatantly apparent at any Regional Council meeting you might care to attend. His lack of understanding and/or lack of concern for environmental issues is deplorable. Just one more reason why the position of Chair for the Region should be, no must be ELECTED. This is a man who is not even elected to any position at all. He is handed the position of Chair with all that entails on a silver platter by some Councillors who may fear him or feel they owe him their support. If the position of Chair was chosen from elected Councillors/Mayors on the Durham Region Council, then that's one thing. But to be appointed because everybody knows you or you have an "in" but don't have to answer to the electorate - that is a beastly way to get a position. And Durham Denizens are realizing that fact more and more as time goes on.

But back to the meeting last night. Clarington Planning Department recommended that the municipality of Clarington should advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, the Greenbelt Council and the Region of Durham that it does NOT support amendments to the boundaries of the Greenbelt Plan at this time (amendments Durham Region voted to send to the Province). The report details the many reasons for this position, and the great majority of people who came to speak at the public meeting were in support of the Clarington Planning Report.

After everyone had a chance to speak, some of the Councillors gave their opinions too. Then the vote - and it was unanimous. All the Clarington Councillors and the Mayor voted to support the recommendations of Clarington Planning Department. All except Councillor Schell, one of our two regional councillors for Clarington, who did not vote as he was chairing that portion of the meeting. However, he did vote at Durham Region on May 10th to support the Region's resolution to ask for adjustments to the boundary, and includes designating these lands as "future development area". And he should vote next week at the regular Clarington Council meeting, so we'll have to see whether he supports the municipality when the vote comes up for ratification at the Regular Council Meeting (Clarington) on May 29th, or whether he'll vote against Clarington and continue to support Durham Region's stand. We hope he will vote as the others did last night.

We also hope that none of the Councillors or the Mayor will change their mind/vote next Monday night. It's been known to happen in the past, but since this is an election year, we're hoping they continue to support Clarington Planning recommendations and the residents of Clarington on this issue. Having a unanimous vote will send a clear message to the Province and to Durham Region. We hope there will be just as many (or more) Clarington voters at Bowmanville Town Hall on May 29th at 7:00 pm to watch.

If you didn't have a chance to get to the GPA meeting last night, you still have another chance. Write to your councillors or speak with them and let them know you don't want them to cop out or surrender to any pressure they may encounter from some of their peers at the Region, including the Chairman. This is an important issue that will affect the face of Clarington for years to come. And show up at the meeting on May 29th to lend your support or just to see how things work at municipal council meetings. It can be interesting, frustrating, fascinating, offensive, enjoyable, objectionable.... But it certainly is an education, especially in an election year.

See "comments" below.

Development Hungry Councillors

More coverage on the Greenbelt debacle from the Toronto Star - Durham councillors love look of sprawl - and from Durham Region News - Durham wants lands out of greenbelt.

Both articles mention how developer-friendly our councillors are, and they certainly deserve that label as they've worked hard for it over the years. They have fought residents at every turn when concerned locals have tried to protect environmentally sensitive lands, preserve wildlife corridors, fisheries and forests, and keep urban sprawl to a minimum.

Now Durham is the only region in the entire GTA where local councillors are openly fighting greenbelt boundaries. And Clarington is right at the forefront. The Star calls Durham Region a "retrograde council". We couldn't have said it better.

"The behaviour of Durham's concrete-friendly councillors exemplifies why Ontario needs a greenbelt plan that is enshrined under the authority and force of provincial legislation. Were it not for that, efforts to chip away at the belt and erode its protections would likely be more widespread." This is exactly why the Greenbelt Plan was enacted - because some local municipalities couldn't keep their paws off sensitive recharge areas, wetlands, prime agricultural land, etc. They wanted it for development, and we have already lost much of our prime land to developers with more slated to be paved over in the future. Even the Province realized there needed to be some protection from these developer-friendly councils, some of whom go overboard when it comes to approving developments; who seem to think that all development is good, no matter what.

The Durham Region Official Plan tells us that we do NOT need more urban lands within Clarington before at least 2026, so why the rush to remove these areas from the greenbelt so they can be designated for development now? And why THESE lands? There is plenty of land in south Courtice that is undeveloped that is not environmentally sensitive. And more land in other parts of Clarington, that is not within the greenbelt. Why THIS particular area, if not for pressure from certain development interests? It just doesn't make sense. And that is precisely why our Council and Regional Council (the majority, with a few notable exceptions) have such a terrible reputation with Durham residents as well as in the GTA as a whole. This is not a new thing.

And it's also one more reason why we still think the Chair of Durham Region should be elected by the residents of Durham, not chosen by the small group of development-hungry councillors. Mr. Anderson (current Chair) is known to be quite pro-development too. Why not give residents a chance to put in someone who might be a little more willing to listen? Why can't we vote for Regional Chair?

"Concrete-friendly, retrograde council". Not terribly flattering, is it? We think it's time for a substantial change to the composition of our council. We need some new faces and new leadership. We need people who can understand the wisdom of controlled development and preservation of agricultural and environmentally significant lands. We need a council who is not afraid to reverse some of the ill-conceived direction this council has taken and go forward on a more sensible path. We need a council who will actually listen to residents and what they want, rather than pretending to listen and then pushing forward with their own agendas nevertheless.

Let's ask the difficult questions of those running for office, and demand answers on questions such as the greenbelt issue, development, transportation issues, 407, tax increases, and more. Remember that these politicians do NOT always know best, as they like us to think. We have had some who have come to run for office because it pays better than their previous job (if they had a job). Some come to run because they truly feel they can make a difference. Some run because of ego. Some turn out to be excellent and others end up being an embarrassment or worse, causing lasting damage to our municipality. We have had some of those in the past and are still dealing with the fallout from some terrible decisions they have made regarding "paving over paradise".

Here is one good example to illustrate how this sprawl happens. Clarington added what is called "the finger" in North Courtice, which should never have been added in to the urban boundary in the first place. (See 4, 3 on map) That section was added because two Regional Councillors from Courtice at the time (Mary Novak and Larry Hannah) pushed hard at the local and regional level to have the area added. There was no "need" for the added land, and it encompasses some of the most environmentally sensitive land in the municipality. It is the large green area to the left of the white #4 area, south of Pebblestone and all the way west to Townline Road (left edge of map) that is one of the two areas in Courtice where Regional Council wants to remove the greenbelt designation so it can be added for future development. You can see the two areas on the map in the previous blog article.

Both areas (3 & 4) are still "special study areas" and a stipulation was made that development could only take place if a full, comprehensive watershed study was completed and if that study allowed for development of some of the lands. Local residents worked hard to get that designation and they should be commended, particularly Mrs. Racansky, who was treated so badly by the mayor recently. To date there has been no watershed study done, and it's been at least 10 years. Piecemeal studies are not good enough - the stipulation was for a complete, comprehensive watershed study of the entire Black-Farewell watershed, which we understand is very large. (Thanks to Mrs. Racansky's hard work for information on "the finger").

So why not remove "the finger" from the urban boundary since it never should have been added in the first place. Allow that area to be added to the greenbelt which would make the Province happy, rather than continuing to fight them. Why not add other areas that are more suited for development and intensification. Talk about "urban sprawl". Just look at the map. What would you call "the finger"? You won't find a better example of it than that.

So lets really get involved in this election. Learn about the candidates, ask questions, and make a point of voting. They say we get the government we deserve. We don't think we deserve this.

Greenbelt a Goner in North Courtice???

Durham Region will be making a submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to request changes to the Greenbelt Plan to delete certain lands near the Courtice Urban Area in north Courtice. The effect of such a change would allow for urban development in these environmentally sensitive areas - not a good thing for the area and not needed according to Official Plan Review reports.

The Provincial Greenbelt Plan was developed to provide clarity and certainty about urban structure, where and how future growth should be accommodated, and what must be protected for current and future generations. It identifies where urbanization should not occur in order to provide permanent protection to the agricultural land base and the ecological features and functions occurring on this landscape.

A Public Notice on page 2 of the May 10 Canadian Statesman says that Clarington will be considering its position on the proposal to adjust the Greenbelt boundaries through a report being prepared by the Planning Dept. This will be considered by the GP&A Committee on Tuesday, May 23 at 7:00 pm in Council Chambers (40 Temperance St., Bowmanville), and if you wish to speak to this matter at the meeting, you must register with the Clerk's dept. by Wednesday noon, May 17th (clerks@clarington.net). It will then be considered by Council on Monday, May 29 (same location) at 7:00 pm. You must register with the Clerk's dept by Wednesday noon, May 24 if you wish to speak at that meeting, and I sincerely hope people will do so.

Now, the funny thing about this (or NOT so funny) is, Regional Council has already voted on the matter, and no one from Clarington council (the Mayor or our Regional Councillors) asked that the matter be deferred until after Clarington had a chance to consider it and have public and planning dept. input on it.

On May 10, Regional Council voted 16 to 8 to exclude these lands from the Greenbelt area so that they can be developed, with John Mutton leaving the meeting prior to the vote, Jim Schell supporting it and Charlie Trim voting against. The motion passed, so it will be sent to the Minister and the Greenbelt Council, who hopefully will dismiss it for many reasons, which I'll go into later.

What good will come of the May 23 and May 29 meetings in Clarington, since the Region has already voted to send this to the Province? Why didn't the Mayor or our Regional Councillors (Jim Schell and Charlie Trim) ask that this vote be deferred until AFTER the Clarington meetings, since it was dealing with Clarington issues?

Someone commented that this is democracy in action - Clarington-style. Our Clarington Regional Councillors (Schell & Trim) voted on this matter at the region, without asking that it be deferred, BEFORE receiving the report from our planning staff (so how well informed are they?) and before the advertised public meetings on the issue for local residents (and local councillors).

I sincerely hope people will comment on this very important issue. And remember that it's an election year...

Who is Running in November?

Nominations for any of the positions below are open until September 29, 2006, so there is still plenty of time for people to declare. I'll update this list periodically, but the group of interested candidates is growing.
Updated October 14, 2006

Also check the May 29th Orono Times editorial "We deserve better" for more background on the race.

Office of Mayor (5 candidates)
John Mutton

Jim Abernethy jimabernethy@hotmail.com
http://www.jimabernethy.ca/
(B) 905-983-8270

Richard Ward richardward2006@gmail.com
(T) 905-983-6213

Wayne J. Chaskavich
(T) 905-436-2166

Jim Schell hjamesschell@hotmail.com
http://www.jimschellformayor.net/
(T) 905-623-5573

Regional Councillor Wards 1 & 2 (5 candidates)
Don MacArthur don.macarthur@sympatico.ca
(H) 905-623-3274 (B) 905-260-0818

George Van Dyk gvandyk@durham.net
http://www.georgevandyk.com/
(H)905-623-9615 (F) 905-623-0554

Kevin McAlpine mcalpinecampaign@hotmail.com
(B)905-439-5432

Wotten, Arnot
(T) 905-263-2512 (F) 905-263-9940

Mary Novak mnovak1@sympatico.ca
(T) 905-436-2583

Regional Councillor Wards 3 & 4 (3 candidates)
Charlie Trim
(H) 905-786-2403

John Buddo info@johnbuddo.com
http://www.johnbuddo.com
(T) 905-786-9886

Linda Gasser lagasser@netrover.com
http://www.lindagasser.com/
(H) 905-983-5249 (F) 905-983-5825


Local Councillor Ward 1 (2 candidates)
Adrian Foster adrianfoster@sympatico.ca
http://www.adrianfoster.ca/
(H) 905-404-8613

Oudit Rai
(T) 905-436-2029 (H) 905-432-9174



Local Councillor Ward 2 (8 candidates)
Blair Smyth blairsmyth307@hotmail.com
(H)905-697-9299

Colin Argyle socks.argyle@sympatico.ca or cargyle@ofl.ca
(H)905-623-8270 (B)416-443-7682

Steve Rowland dsrowland@gmail.com
http://electsteverowland.blogspot.com
(H)905-623-1803

Ron Hooper ron.hooper@sympatico.ca
(T)905-623-3097 (F)905-623-5303

John Sturdy
(T) 905-623-2435

Terry Lynch Mr.terrylynch@hotmail.com
(T)905-697-8638

Mike Slocombe vote_mike.slocombe@yahoo.ca
(T) 905-623-4278

Philip Carlton vli@sympatico.ca
(T) 905-623-7877 (F) 905-623-7177

Local Councillor Ward 3 (4 candidates)
Kevin Anyan kevin@kingscourtcatering.com
(H)905-623-4277(F)905-623-2198

Willie Woo willie.woo@rogers.com
(T)905-987-3388

Kyrke Innis kyrke@sympatico.ca
(H) 905-697-3409

Lou DeVuono lou.devuono@rockyside.com
(T) 905-448-9967

Local Councillor Ward 4 (3 candidates)
Gord Robinson
(T) 905-786-2970

Paul Jones jonesfamily@porchlight.ca
(T) 905-983-5857

Wendy Partner loveabounds@msn.com
http://www.wendypartner.ca/
(T) 905-983-9238

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

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (4 candidates)
Cathy Abraham cathy_abraham@kprdsb.ca
(H) 905-987-1833

Todd Shrigley tashrigley@sympatico.ca
(T) 905-263-4440

Steven Cooke stcooke@mail.com
(T) 905-623-8306

Karen Hills karenhills56@hotmail.com

Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board (4 candidates)
Granville Anderson granville.anderson@wst.gov.on.ca
(T) 905-436-3905 (F) 416-326-5164

Maureen Day day4trustee@look.ca
(T) 905-263-1083

Barbara Malone tbmtm@sympatico.ca
(T) 905-786-2444

Andrew W. Bennion bennion@rogers.com
(T) 905-259-7015 (F) 905-556-0433

Conseil Scolaire De District Catholique Centre-Sud (1 candidate)
Adrien Lamoureux alamoureux@csdccs.edu.on.ca
(T) 613-398-0721 (W) 613-398-3201

Conseil Scolaire De District Public Centre-Sud-Ouest (1 candidate)
Sylvie Landry
(T) 905-837-0663

Oshawa Couldn't Take the Heat

A few days ago the Oshawa Votes 2006 blog was shut down. Rumour has it that Oshawa Council was furious (or at least several of them) over the hard-hitting commentary on the blog and couldn't take the heat, so had it shut down. Too bad, as they really did need to have someone hold their feet to the fire.

We're not entirely sure how they accomplished this feat, but we're sorry to see Oshawa Votes shut down, as are a lot of other people. This doesn't help Oshawa Council; it only shows how worried they are that someone is writing about their "unbelievable antics" as showcased in a number of articles in the local newspapers lately, including Tim Kelly's latest on April 19 in the Canadian Statesman. Tim writes that this council is totally dysfunctional, they obviously hate each other, and not only threaten lawsuits, but actually end up suing each other! He writes of old grudges, name-calling, childish insults.

I'll admit I missed that last few days of the Oshawa Votes 2006 blog entries, but what on earth could be worse than council itself? If what the writer was blogging was the truth, and it seems it was, why would it be shut down? Whatever happened to "free speech"?

Will there be an attempt to shut down Clarington Votes 2006 by our Mayor or Council too? If the truth hurts so much that a municipal government has to shut down free speech (as has been done to delegations in our Clarington Council chambers of late), then something is terribly wrong. Perhaps they should take a second look at themselves, and not attack the speaker (or writer). Certainly in the case of Oshawa Council it's time for an overhaul. In the case of our Council, it may be time to re-think behaviour regarding delegations who come before them to speak on issues affecting residents of our municipality, whether it be taxes, environmental or development issues, transportation, or council raises or mileage increases. We have free speech and a right to be heard. How about trying to respect that right and keep the egos in check.

As for the Oshawa Votes 2006 blogger, we hope he shows up in another incarnation, and soon, because he's already being missed. There is now lots of speculation as to where he'll pop up next. And people are talking, and hoping his exile will be a short one. Apparently, by shutting him down, Oshawa Council has opened up a much worse Pandora's Box, and brought even more attention to themselves and their dysfunctional antics. That's the kind of result you get when you try to shut down free speech. People get upset. Are you listening, Clarington?

Why can't we vote for Regional Chair?

Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering have made a decision to place a referendum question on their ballot in November 2006 asking if residents feel that the Regional Chair should be elected at large by all residents of Durham Region. However, even though there has been much discussion by residents on this subject and many want the chance to vote, our Clarington Council decided that once again, they know better than the voters, and won't give us the chance to vote in a referendum on this issue. Do they think we're all stupid and can't make a logical decision on such matters?

At its Feb. 15 meeting, regional council revisited the issue of holding a referendum to ask if the regional chairman should be elected. A motion was defeated narrowly 14-13, with an Oshawa Councillor (Neal) flip-flopping and voting against after voting for at Oshawa Council. Regional Council debated the merits of having a direct election but that's not really the issue, is it? The issue is whether or not the public should have a choice.

"We are simply being asked to consult the people," said Ajax Mayor Steve Parish.

Well yes, why NOT consult the people? This became an issue nearly 10 years ago when (present Chair) Roger Anderson ran for Mayor and was defeated, but was then appointed by his cronies as Durham Regional Chair (with that fat salary that is nearly the same as the Premier of Ontario, and influential position). All this after an election defeat. Not only were people in Ajax upset about this, but residents all over Durham Region were outraged, and many still are. Mr. Anderson has held on to the Chair position ever since that election when he was defeated and has not had to face the public since.

Now that council has voted on the matter, it cannot be readdressed for one year unless it is brought back by a two-thirds vote in favour, which it won't be since there are so many who can't seem to see that the public is entitled to vote on the head of the region when that position is a political one. And of course our elections are in less than a year so it will be another 3 (or 4) years before we'll possibly have another chance at a vote. And of course Mr. Anderson will be put right back into the Chair position by his cronies after the November election.

Is the position of Regional Chair an important one? The Regional Chair is the head of Regional Council and is the Chief Executive Officer of the Regional Corporation. He presides over all meetings of Regional Council and is a member of all Council Standing Committees. The Regional Chair meets regularly with community groups and residents to ensure they are aware of issues and actions within the Durham Region and to understand their concerns. An important part of theRegional Chair’s role is to promote and advance the Regional position with other levels of government and external groups. He also represents the Region on various boards, committees and municipal organizations.

If Regional Council and our Clarington Council are so confident that the public supports a non-elected position, why not let us vote? Or at the very least, why not allow a referendum on the issue on our November ballot so we can put a democratic end to the debate, and let the people decide? Are we not entitled to express our opinion on this without having to resort to petitions or public protests or storming the council chambers with an angry mob?

Such a referendum would not even be binding, but WOULD be a gauge of the public's feelings on the matter. Doesn't our Clarington council care what we think? Or is it once again a matter of "We know better than the public so we'll decide it for them"? Maybe it is time for us to send them a message that we want to be heard. And the only time they really listen to us is at election time...

4 year Council terms on the horizon???

Council received a notice from John Gerretsen, Minister, Municipal Affairs and Housing, regarding extending the length of the term of office for municipal councillors and school trustees. The election cycle began January 1, 2006. If passed, the legislation would make the change effective for the 2006 municipal elections, and successful candidates in November’s coming elections would begin their four-year terms on December 1, 2006.

So what do you think? Do we want them to have longer terms or should they be held accountable every 3 years? Will this tinkering by the Province make any difference or just be more of the same old, same old? I'm curious to hear thoughts on this by residents.

UPDATE: May 11, 2006

Bill 81 has been passed by the Province of Ontario. Mayors, councillors and school trustees, who currently serve for three years, have had their terms extended to 4 years, beginning with the elections this November. Our Mayor, John Mutton, has been calling for this extension since Clarington passed a resolution asking for the increase in late 2004, so he's happy. But there are a lot of people who are not. Bill 81 was fought bitterly by opponents, including former Toronto mayor John Sewell, who called it anti-democratic. It has been called a "politically corrupt" change that would not benefit citizens, generated by elected politicians who are promoting their own self-interest and not the public interest.

A group of political activists and politicians had been trying to stop the bill, saying holding fewer elections is less democratic and serves only the interests of politicians who want to delay having to face voters.
The change was included in a much larger housekeeping budget bill, leading some opponents to accuse the provincial government of trying to ram it through without any public consultation.
Opponents of the four-year term had wanted a plebiscite question on November's municipal ballot so residents could decide themselves whether their representatives should hold jobs an extra year. Are we surprised? No, not at all. These are the people who vote themselves raises without asking the residents what they think. They add or increase their own perks without consulting the public. Why would we expect that to change? We deserve better.

Total Hockey or White Elephant?

A 2 million dollar hockey museum, to be named "Total Hockey" is currently being built at the Garnet Rickard Recreational Centre which will feature the 1300 piece Brian McFarlane hockey memorabilia collection. Brian McFarlane is the creator of Peter Puck and son of Leslie McFarlane, also known as Franklin W. Dixon of Hardy Boys fame. Many citizens see the museum as a white elephant for the current mayor and council.

The "Total Hockey" facility is scheduled to open right around the same time as our municipal elections this fall. What a coincidence. And for the $2 million pricetag, Total Hockey needs to score. But who will end up paying the bill in the end? Why, the taxpayers, of course. And some valid questions have been asked with no answers so far... The Brian McFarlane 1,300-piece collection was purchased from the Big Apple restaurant at Colborne on Hwy. 401. Why would they sell it if it was such a money-maker? Were there not enough visitors? What was the revenue? Once people have seen the 1300 piece (undocumented) collection, will they keep coming back over and over again? And why not just go a little bit west to Toronto to the Hockey Hall of Fame for the real Total Hockey Experience?

What is the ongoing overhead going to cost us? And could that money have been put toward something more practical, like keeping our property tax rate a bit more reasonable? We're sure there will be plenty of nifty photo-ops for the Mayor and incumbent councillors especially when Total Hockey nears completion or has it's grand opening at election time.

"To me, this is the ideal spot for Total Hockey, because of the enthusiasm generated by the mayor and council for the project, and because of the growth of the community and the need for tourism attractions," he said. "That's what really sold me on coming here."

Mr. McFarlane said he had been approached by other places, interested in his collection, "but an hour spent in the mayor's office sold me on coming here."

Once here, the collection may even grow in value, suggested Mr. McFarlane, who said in his experience, people who have visited the collection have come back to donate pieces.

"There are people out there who will be very willing to contribute," he said, telling of one man, who visited the collection, returning a few weeks later with a stick used by Red Wings goalie Terry Sawchuk.

Total Hockey will be a "tourism anchor" for Clarington, said Mayor John Mutton.

A tourism anchor? Gosh, I have an old Sher-Wood goalie stick that might have been used by Bernie Parent that I could donate. And a puck signed by Jean Beliveau. Of course I can't prove it but then again how many of the 1300 pieces are documented?

Well, I do hope Total Hockey scores big. I think it already has by being purchased by Clarington! Maybe I'm a pessimist and maybe this will be a huge tourism attraction. I have my doubts along with a lot of other people, including hockey fans.

Mayor says BIA can't win

Clarington's mayor Mutton doesn't think Bowmanville's BIA should appeal the council's approval of applications by developers to build big box stores at the west end of town. Bowmanville BIA and Zellers have teamed up to launch an appeal against the 700,000 square feet of new retail space that was approved all at once in an area that they feel can't really support it, without severely affecting the downtown area. It's not that they want to stop all commercial retail development. It's just that it's too much too quickly.

Under Clarington's official plan, population increases would trigger expansion in how much retail floor space can be opened. That is/was a safeguard to maintain downtowns as strong commercial areas.

Downtown Bowmanville merchants are "in support of a number of the proposals in the King Street-Hwy. 2 corridor when population thresholds are met," said Ron Hooper of the Bowmanville BIA. But the group is "opposed to any commercial development that is not within this corridor ... The history of the impact of malls on the peripheral (area of a municipality) is well documented - one succeeds at the expense of another."

Mr. Hooper (the Chairman of the Board of Management for Historical Downtown Bowmanville) noted that there will be historic consequences for the downtown core should these applications be allowed to proceed. He noted that when the population is large enough to support all the businesses then he would welcome the introduction of the applications. He stated that people who work outside the area will continue to shop outside the area and that downtown Bowmanville will not be able to survive the incline in sales.

But our Mayor doesn't want the Bowmanville business group and Zellers to appeal, because the BIA will lose $400,000.00 that the municipality "negotiated" for them from the developers. But that money is contingent on there being no appeal of the approval to the OMB. Hmmm. Sure, it's nice to have some money "donated" toward promotions, events, infrastructure, etc. for the BIA, but come on! To make it contingent on there not being an appeal? Obviously it's not illegal, but it sure does look funny.

And where does the Mayor get off telling everyone that the BIA/Zellers appeal doesn't have a hope in hell of succeeding? Stan Stein (Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt) appeared before Council on behalf of his client, Zellers Inc. Mr. Stein advised Council of the history of the planning process involving the Ontario Municipal Board and noted that the decisions of the OMB hearing are being abandoned. According to the notice of appeal, the basis for concern is that a 1990s Ontario Municipal Board decision tied new retail growth to population growth, but that the new approvals don't follow that principle. Whether they win or not, that doesn't sound like an appeal without merit.

Now I like to shop as much as the next person, and yes I sometimes shop at Wal-Mart or Home Depot in Oshawa. I am not automatically against all big box stores. But it depends on location and timing. And fairness to other business owners as well as residents. The location of this proposed development is a concern for many. Even the planning department was not in favor of approval of the Home Depot in that location but eventually it got approved along with the Wal-Mart and Loblaws. There are traffic and other concerns due to location (residential and schools) that people feel have not been adequately addressed.

What is important is that commercial policy must strike a balance. There's room for both, for the specialty shops downtown and the big box stores on the edges of town. And that is what the Bowmanville BIA has been saying all along. That makes sense. Of course it can be hard for downtown areas to compete as parking is harder to find, it's not as convenient, and it's hard for small, family business to remain competitive in a small town with large, multinational corporations nipping at your heels. But if there are no big box stores for residents, it can be argued that they leave town to shop and the downtown businesses miss out on that group too. So having both in a community can be a good thing. But approving too much new retail space all at once can become a problem. We do know that council loves growth. Growth is good, and the more the better. That means more tax dollars for them to spend. But they don't always look at the other costs of that growth, both in dollars and cents, and in community problems, traffic, crime, need for more soft services, etc.

So, whether you're for or against the big box stores, there is still the question of whether the mayor should be predicting the outcome of an OMB hearing in advance. Or slagging Zellers, who have been a good corporate customer for the municipality. Or trying to use hush money to stop the Bowmanville BIA from proceeding with an appeal they feel they have every right to proceed with. Or ignoring Clarington's official plan, where population increases would trigger expansion in how much retail floor space can be opened. Or ignoring a 1990s Ontario Municipal Board decision that tied new retail growth to population growth. I would say NO.

Developers have long had tremendous power to get their way in Clarington, from residential developments in sensitive areas to this type of pressure for commercial development. Yes we need commercial development in Clarington. But we have to be careful of where and when and do what is truly best for the community, not just for the municipal pocketbook.

Oshawa Votes 2006 Thanks

A thank you to Oshawa Votes 2006 for a warm welcome. Yes, we decided that Clarington might benefit from an "issue blog" prior to the upcoming municipal election, and took our cue from our neighbors to the west. Then there is also the added benefit that we can discuss whatever we think might be of interest to local voters without being interrupted or brow-beaten in Council Chambers, not to mention the fact that we can reach a wider group of residents than we could as a delegation at Council.

That won't stop us from asking hard questions. But we have an additional outlet and we think that's important. Especially when it seems that if you ask questions or complain about something you don't like (such as what you might feel are indefensible tax increases...) your 10 minutes of delegation time may be cut by the mayor's brand of "parliamentary procedure". I seem to remember similar tactics used by our previous Mayor Hamre when she didn't like what a particular delegation was saying. Hmmmm. Is anyone else beginning to see a pattern emerging?

Visit Oshawa Votes 2006 at http://oshawavotes2006.typepad.com/ and join with us in our hope that others in Durham Region will take up the cause and bring forward issues concerning your municipalities. These councilors and mayors affect us all at the regional level, so we all have an interest in knowing what goes on around us.

Council's Mileage Rate Increase

Last summer Clarington Council more than doubled their mileage allowances. The new flat rate ncreased the mayor's mileage allowance from $570 a month to $1,293. The councillor who is appointed deputy mayor will now receive $823 a month, up from $278, while all other councillors' mileage rates jump from $228 to $564. The new rate is meant to mirror the mileage rate for municipal staff, who receive 47 cents per kilometre. However, unlike municipal politicians, staff do not receive a flat rate for mileage. They have to keep track of mileage, but that seems to be too difficult for our politicians to do!

Collecting on a per-kilometre basis would be a complicated procedure for councillors who make numerous trips a day, said Regional Councillor Jim Schell.

"The concern was that, from a council perspective, it's extremely onerous to keep track of mileage for individual trips," said Coun. Schell, noting he makes five to six trips of various distances a day on council business.

"What would happen," surmised the councillor, "is that councillors would say, 'You know what? I won't worry about those (shorter trips). I'll only pick up the trips of any significance."

Well gosh, would that be so bad? How many of us get paid to drive to work? Or to anywhere relating to work? So instead of councillors maybe not being paid for a few shorter trips, they are paid for perhaps trips they don't even make (because of the flat rate per month). Hmmm. Cushy job if you can get it!

Isn't this one of the reasons our taxes are going up, up, up? All these little things put together. And there are other voters who certainly feel the same about this, and hopefully have not forgotten and won't forget before the November election rolls around. We're here to remind you.

Council mileage increases were enough to make at least one taxpayer 'sick'. Really, the cost of gas is just part of the job, isn't it? Like it is for so many of us who aren't able to vote ourselves a raise to cover the increases.

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? It's pretty simple and takes a couple of seconds. But our lofty councillors are always full of excuses and are of course defensive about voting themselves the increase. Not the right attitude to take if it's something they aren't embarrassed about and do truly believe is right.

Clarington Council Salaries for 2005

Click on chart above to get a larger view of Mayor and Councillor's remuneration and expenses from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. Note that Regional Councillors also receive a Regional salary of nearly $41,000.00 on top of municipal salary, as well as additional money for expenses such as more mileage, conferences, local boards, etc.


Regional Pay:

So here is the regional pay, and remember there is additional pay they receive in lieu of pension plan, for sitting on additional boards, committees, and attending conferences, etc. Oh yeah, and Regional Chair, Roger Anderson, who isn't even ELECTED...
Hizzoner's base regional pay is:
Remuneration: $153,846.56
Mileage; $5,115.11
Conferences/Conventions/Meetings: $17,404.72
Total: $176,366.39

Uh-huh. For this kind of money you would think maybe they could work a little harder to keep our tax increases down. Can't there be a limit on increases when budgets aren't balanced or depend on taking more out of taxpayer's pockets to cover increased costs, many of which are NOT in our best interest?

I think Ms Racansky was right in complaining about the municipality's 4.08 percent tax increase for this year. I wish the Mayor had let her speak her piece.

(Salary source - Report FND-004-06, Clarington Finance Dept)