63 people running for office in Burlington - largest number the city has seen in years. Good news?

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

July 30th, 2018


We erred – there are four people running for Mayor.  This story has been corrected.  The number is still 63

Nominations closed at city hall Friday afternoon.

There are 63 candidates running for city council seats, Board of Education seats, both Catholic and Public.

There is also a race for the Regional Chair.

There is one acclamation.

Ward 1 has 11 nominations, ward 2 has 6 and ward 3 has 5.

The only straight one on one battle is in ward 4 where Shawna Stolte is taking on 25 year + incumbent Jack Dennison who has a battle on his hands this time.

Four people are running for Mayor.

Two of the seven Burlington Council members have resigned: Rick Craven in ward 1 and John Taylor in ward 3.

There are 13 people running for seats on the Halton District Catholic School Board where there are some fundamental questions to be worked through.

The Halton District School Board has challengers for three of the four Burlington seats on the 11 member board. Amy Collard has been acclaimed in ward 5 once again. The residents in ward 5 know when they have a good thing going for them.

Expect to see the school board issues made part of the municipal election; the parents at Bateman appear to be getting ready to blame the closing of Bateman high school on ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward when it was the school board trustees who made that decision.

The October election looks as if it is going to be messy with development being the biggest issue. A project in the east end of the city that wants to put 11 buildings in the old Lakeshore Plaza site, now named Lakeshore Village Plaza, will bring out those that want Burlington to remain what it has been for some time. Those who don’t want to kind of development that is being brought forward by the developers use the phrase “responsible development”.

It will be up to the new city council to determine just what is responsible development is.

With four candidates running for Mayor the choices are not going to be easy. Meed Ward at some time has to put forward a really clear position on just what she thinks the city should have in the way of a development plan going forward; the Mayor, Rik Goldring has to stop saying that the tax increases are in line with inflation – they are not. He is fudging the numbers to his advantage.

Mike Wallace has to begin to say more about what he would look for as Mayor. So far we know that he now realizes the city needs a larger city council. – the reason we have just the six members of council is because of a motion Wallace brought years ago that reduced the 17 then to the six now.

Wallace has talked about a “Liberty Village” for Burlington. Interpreted that is about land development – which developer are we talking about here – there isn’t all that much land available.

We aren’t hearing anything from Wallace on the downtown development.

Greg Woodruff has to do more than have a Facebook page.

When 63 people run for public office you know that there are a lot of people very unhappy with the way things have been done the past eight years.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

29 comments to 63 people running for office in Burlington – largest number the city has seen in years. Good news?

  • Kelly

    Billy, thank you for standing up and speaking on behalf of all of our special needs students, when their voices are so desperate to be heard. Ones who are not able to express their sadness, nor anxiety, nor depression on this matter amongst adults who possibly couldn’t understand. We are all very lucky and grateful for people like you who have a voice for them, amongst all of the negativity. ❤️

  • Kerri

    Thank you to those who are speaking up against this online bullying and for stating the facts of the role of the PAR committee. These personal attacks and the posting of misinformation has gone on for far too long. So long that most folks who have been told this information really do believe it. Even now, the posting on the Bateman page is that the comments here are against the Bateman parents. Please know the comments stated here are not directed at ‘Bateman parents’. No, these comments are directed at certain individuals who misrepresent and twist the facts, which leads to an angry mob of name calling and personal attacks all online. I feel sick to my stomach when I read the continual attacks and the comments that people state freely online. Not realizing that they are attacking people who have kids and those kids read these awful comments.
    Please for the sake of our wonderful city, please stop with the personal attacks and please stop misrepresenting the facts.

  • Billy

    I’d like to clear a few things up about the Bateman stuff, as a Bateman student. I’m going to try not to point out any different groups/persons.

    Honestly, I’m disgusted by the actions of all of these so called “Adults”. Really guys? Grow up!

    All of these parents who just came out of nowhere, bashing people and groups and the board, people who have NO experience dealing with the school board in any kind of intimate level. People who don’t have to go to our school’s and deal with the crap that we have to deal with everyday. People who want to save school’s because their grandparents went to it. GROW UP.

    For starters, as a student, I do not care if your grandparents or parents went to my school. Good for you. That place is only their educate me and my peers; it’s not a museum.

    Honestly, if my school wasn’t serving it’s students, I would have shut up about and let the school board do its job. But when my board starts cutting programs that I know will have serious consequences to its students, all because of some stupid parent group who doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Really! I’m going to get upset!

    A lot of you, and a lot of your kids are “normal”. If you’re not just some nosy community member, then your kid is probably “normal”. A kid who gets average or above average or below average grades in their Academic courses. Or, maybe they even have some applied courses. Great! But a good portion of the kids at my school, are not like that. They struggle with basic math problems. Maybe they can’t write poetry. But… these kids are able to learn life skills, like cooking (the rest of the schools in the HDSB use contractors for their serveries while we use our own kids, and it’s good food) and these kids can cook a killer meal. These kids might not be able to understand french, but, they can make your beat up 2005 minivan look like it just came off of the assembly line.

    Those normal kids could go to any school, with any facilities, and they’ll be “fine”. These kids? They’ll go to another school, and they will struggle. A lot.

    But you wouldn’t understand that, because your kids are, “normal”.

    If Bateman and all of our other high school’s were being shutdown and we decided to build a few mega schools, that have EVERYTHING and can serve EVERYONE, then I would say… GO FOR IT! That would help our kids! Everyone would get equitable access to the resources that they need. “Screw Bateman, screw Nelson, shut’em down!”, would be my response.

    But… That’s not the case. If it was, I wouldn’t be posting this.

    If Bateman kids. If BURLINGTON kids were benefiting from the PAR, I would be happy to support it. Our educators would be happy to support it (but who cares about them? Right? I haven’t heard any parents asking about what they think is just). But that’s not the case. Central (sorry) but I’ve heard about how awful (physically) your school is. From both staff and students. Things like that are ridiculous, and it sucks how kids have to put up with that crap. 8 million to bring that place up to AODA standards. If you have a wheelchair, sucks for you! You can’t go to school anymore (without a ridiculous amount of help).

    Basically, my point is. Parents. Enough! You’re allowed to vote, go and vote for who ever you want! Stop talking down to us like you always do. Most of you have no idea about what you’re talking about when it comes to this board stuff. You don’t know what these kids have to deal with, will have to deal with and a lot of you don’t know the things that our board has done. Before jumping to conclusions, maybe jump into the shoes of your other community members. If Nelson was getting shutdown, and the kids all went to Bateman and Central, for a lack of a better word, you would be pissed! And besides the city owned field, your kids wouldn’t be loosing anything! Now look at us.

    It’s gotten ridiculous, and i’m disgusted by this “community”. I’m ashamed to live in this city and to be around all of you people. Your entitlement is utterly disgusting. Same with your ignorance. When I was at a PARC meeting, our Super of Business had to explain to you that the HDSB doesn’t pay taxes. It’s a provincial entity! I as a grade 10 student knew that. Meanwhile, we’ve got you guys supposedly trying to “help us students out”. That’s a pretty good example of my frustration right there. I wouldn’t go to your job as a plumber and tell you, the accountant how to manage your books. Meanwhile, a lot of you, having no real experience with our education system, came in as accountants, and told our board (the plumbers) how they should manage install pipes.

  • Concerned Citizen

    “texting the trustee Leah Reynolds how to vote”, “telling Leah how to vote” –These accusations are incorrect interpretations of the actual note (which was a private note, just like the other 700 emails sent to all Trustees that night, which was made public in a most underhanded way but let’s leave that alone for now). The Trustee who received the messages says that they were about procedure, i.e. “how” to vote, not direction as to “how to vote”. There’s a huge difference.
    As the Report states, the meeting was “very difficult” with everyone having trouble understanding how to vote – neither the Chair, the Lawyer nor the Parliamentary expert present could clearly explain to the Trustees the order of motions and votes. Ms Meed Ward seemed to be the only one in the room who did understand the rules and was trying to help, which is why Ms Reynolds then shared the information, as per the photo poster’s note which indicates that “Trustee Reynolds says what Meed Ward has written”. Exactly. But completely misinterpreted to suit the purpose.
    Ms Meed Ward did not tell anyone ‘how to vote’. “The Administrative Review considered the allegations and found no evidence of a breach of policy”. This is a quote from the Report. Shall we say it again? “The Administrative Review considered the allegations and found no evidence of a breach of policy.” No matter how many times people keep repeating the allegation of voting direction, it is still untrue.
    As for Ms Meed Ward’s “being part of central PAR contingent left a bad taste in my mouth” – this is unfortunate for you because again, there was no breach of policy. If you don’t like that Ms Meed Ward who is a Councillor, could sit as a parent when asked (because she is a parent of high school-age students), then you should go after the Board or the Province to change the rules.
    But then you run into the question of what other professions should be banned from sitting on a PAR as a parent? Lawyers? Teachers? Anyone whom you think might have some advantage over the other parent reps? What a slippery slope. And do you have any issues with the fact that the HDSB allowed a former trustee to sit on the PAR? Because current HDSB employees are not allowed, but a former trustee who was a trustee during the opening of Hayden was allowed on the PAR. Again, there was no rule against that. Just wondering why you have a problem with one but not the other.
    And on the City level, just like the other Council members have finally listened to citizens about overdevelopment in the OP, which they have finally revised – they changed the rules when they realized the rules were not what people felt were fair.

  • steven craig gardner

    Steve Cussons One of the Bateman folks (I am not part of the group) complaints going back to June 2017 was the texting going on between Marianne and Leah. This was admitted to by Marianne so it is I believe a fact. What is up for debate and everyone is allowed there own opinion in a democracy was, is this an acceptable practice even if it did not violate any board rules and do you want to elect someone that would do such things. No slander no bad mouthing Marianne admitted she told leah how to vote on a complex procedural issue and sent her several texts during the meeting this is real not fake news I am told by those attending and reporting on it.

    • Steve Cussons

      So I guess we need to look back and review the many posts made suggesting that the text dialogue had something to do with the vote to close Bateman, IT DID NOT. Your comment that is was about a complex procedure matter is generally correct and to expand on this required not only experts to weigh in but required a break in the meeting prior to the vote on the Bateman closure is more accurate. So the fake news is the ongoing suggestion that Marianne Meed Ward coached Leah Reynolds on the vote to close Bateman is absolutely fake and slanderous.

      Why is no one questioning Lisa Bull’s unethical behaviour in creeping Marianne Meed Ward and stealing images from her private laptop and conversation. So why should we trust anything she states based on an obvious unethical action from someone who should know better.

      Your comment that you were told by those attending, I was sitting right beside Marianne Meed Ward throughout that meeting and during that time frame we were discussing the procedural motion and the confusion by staff and trustees. Marianne was attempting to help based on her expertise, that’s all. So if anyone should know what happened it would be me.

      In this particular article I agree there is no aggressive slander and bad mouthing but I am happy to begin posting the 100’s of slanderous and out right bad mouthing that has been going on for months on social media, news media and other ways.

      So again I state I am ready to debate facts with anyone. From the very first PARC meeting to the very last meeting on this issue at the board I was there live as well as the 100s of hours in between spent on trying to do my part as a volunteer.

      Steve Cussons

  • Steve Cussons

    As an active member of the PARC who attended every meeting I can no longer sit on the sidelines while members are being falsely accused. I am ready to debate facts with any of the Bateman group out to falsely slander Marianne Meed Ward and Lesh Reynolds. It time for the real truth to shared so voters can make choices based on real facts.

    The Administrative Review considered the allegations made by a small Bateman group and found no evidence of a breach of policy. The reviewer did note that social media was used to harass people.

    The bottom line is we have a small group of angry people who are spreading what is nothing more than lies and continue to use social media to bully people. We need to stop giving this group a platform; we need to stop repeating their falsehoods; we need to stop tolerating their harassing behaviour. Burlington is better than this.

    Steve Cussons

    • Trish

      How are your comments any different than what you are accusing the Bateman group of? Your accusations are very mean spirited. I have read through many of the threads regarding the school closures multiple times and I have seen mostly defensive reactions from the Bateman and Pearson groups. They are passionate about their schools and their children just as Central was about their school when faced with closure. I particularly take offense to the comments that imply that all members of the Bateman group are bullies.

      I do not understand how it can be denied that Marianne Meed Ward put forth option 23 which changed the entire direction of the parc. She signed it. This was after she was seen carrying a sign that said Save our Schools. Option 23 was the catalyst that lead to the closure of Bateman. That is completely baffling to me and I would love to hear a justification for that. Up until that point Bateman had been assured many times that we did not need to worry.

      The bottom line is we are all parents and we want what is best for our children. In a perfect world we would all love walkable schools that foster a comfortable learning environment for our children. For parents of children with special needs it is especially important that we advocate for our children. In many cases, we are their voices.

      • Pria

        And the Bateman PARC reps pushed for options that would see Central closed. They did the exact same thing

      • Lynn Crosby

        Trish: Perhaps you have missed a lot of comments then, if you don’t believe you’ve seen bullying, including ones that were deleted after they were called out. But there are still lots more, it’s become an obsession.

        Sorry but your second paragraph is completely wrong. You don’t seem to understand the process. The Central community put in one alternate option. The purpose of the PAR was to have school communities put in alternate options. They were to do this by submitting them to their PAR reps, who then brought them to the table and could speak to them. Others put in 30 more. The PAR committee looked at all 50 and narrowed it to 5. The HDSB is the one that put in the version of Option 23 that ended up as the final recommendation. The alternate option the Central community put in was based on the Board’s own Option 4. In the Board’s original 19 options, half a dozen of them named Bateman for closure. This is logical – each school was named in some of them. The Director of Education spent the entire PAR explaining at every meeting and in between every meeting that all schools were under consideration for closure (except Hayden) and nobody from the HDSB said Bateman “didn’t have to worry.” On the contrary, he kept repeating that it could be any school or schools. The entire point of the PAR was to look at all schools and all scenarios and have the PARC leave a few options on the table, which the Director could then take or leave. He ended up editing it quite a bit, adding renovations to both MMR and Nelson, and the Trustees then listened to hours of delegations and hundreds of written responses and came up with their decision. The vote was 10 to 1. 12 to 1 if you want to include the two student trustees.

        There were many reasons why this was chosen as the recommended option and was endorsed almost unanimously. Similar reasons to the hundreds of PARS across Ontario that came before it. The lack of opportunity for the English steam students at Bateman, the 100 students a year who requested to move to Nelson but were denied, was part of it. Needing to increase enrolment at MMR was another, as was the declining enrolment at Bateman, and the lack of in-catchment students there. As was the realization that the remaining schools should be geographically placed throughout the city for the benefit of the 5500 students in Burlington and all future students. The two new composite schools with new improvements for all Nelson and MMR students and future students, including the special needs students from Bateman, are modelled on other composite schools elsewhere in the Board and in Ontario, and the HDSB wanted Burlington students to have this model as well.

        If half the energy that has been spent on spewing misinformation and attacking individuals was spent on reassuring all the students that are going to a new school that they will be looked after well and on working to advocate for the best facilities and design and implementation for them and the thousands of students who will follow, imagine how much better those students would feel.

    • Pria

      Agree 100%. Good for you for speaking up. I too am sick of this group’s behaviour. They act like their kids are being sent to Siberia. They’ll be going to a beautiful, amazing high school with purpose built facilities right down the street. Instead of embracing and encouraging their kids, they’re instilling and perpetuating this self-created fear. They even made a video featuring several of the kids who spoke about how upset they are about the school closures. No wonder the kids are nervous. Maybe if the adults showed some positivity and encouragement that things are going to be fine (they are!) the kids would feel better about it.

      • Trish

        I am sorry Pria. Have we met? Because you seem to know an awful lot about me. If we have met I am certain that I have never questioned your parenting skills. You are generalizing all of the adults from Bateman based on what? There are lines being crossed on all sides and as per the above you are not innocent. I do believe we should all be amicable and work together.

        • Trish

          I am sorry Pria. Have we met? Because you seem to know an awful lot about me. If we have met I am certain that I have never questioned your parenting skills. You are generalizing all of the adults from Bateman based on what? There are lines being crossed on all sides and as per the above you are not innocent. I do believe we should all be amicable and work together.

      • Billy

        That’s really easy for you to say, Pria.

        I bet you don’t know anything about how our school board works, and how things are “going down”. I have every right to say this, as a current student of Robert Bateman.

        The board is wasting a crap ton of money duplicating some services, while cutting out stuff that will hurt our more vulnerable students. Our educators agree. People who deal with these kids as a full time career. They don’t get to speak however, for fear of retaliation. That’s why I offer to speak for them.

        Also, No wonder they’re nervous? They’re going to a new school that has a COMPLETELY different atmosphere. I’m not saying that Nelson kids are bad, or that Bateman kids are perfect, But they have every right to worry about how they will be treated by the system/new school. A lot of these kids have been tossed around the system for years. They’re getting put into a crappier building (have you seen the buildings we’re in? I got very lucky with Bateman), with fewer programs and a smaller, more confined “ward”. They won’t be able to participate in Nelson activities in the same way they could at Bateman.

        When I was at Gary Alan viewing the plans, there was a news crew trying to interview a kid (CPP, special education at Bateman) with one of our parents. This kid doesn’t have any physical disabilities, but he’s nervous around the camera. Then these central kids come around, and starting saying some stupid things to him.

        My point is, get out of your own shoes and try on some others. I bet those closures won’t affect you at all. Others? This is going to be pretty nasty for a while.

        I’ll be long gone by the time Bateman closes down. I don’t have anyone in my family with any special needs, or even family friends. But I still fought for that school. I wouldn’t spend all of that time helping others if I didn’t feel like there was a good reason for it. Especially when the outcome of that decision would have no end affect on me.

        • Pria

          Sorry you feel that way, Billy. The truth is, the students will be going to brand new purpose built facilities in an amazing school with a full range of programming. Since you brought up costs, there is actually no cost issue either as the savings of the consolodation will save money in the long term.

          • steven craig gardner

            i do not believe construction done to an old school can be made as good as Bateman and it will take many years for the culture to change to what was at Bateman it is a real loss to the city more so than a cupcake store leaving.

          • Billy

            I wish it was that way Pria, but it’s not. The stuff we have was just renovated not that long ago. Teachers love to complain, but surprising, they haven’t been complaining about inadequate facilities. We’re losing out on facilities with the move. Most programs can go to any school, as any normal classroom can be used. Both schools are wonderful, in their own way I suppose. But for those that need specialized classrooms, we are loosing out. A lot.

            If they tore down Nelson and they tore down Bateman, I wouldn’t be complaining, since we wouldn’t be losing out. But shoving more kids into a school with no AC, and lesser facilities (tech classrooms and whatever) is what they’re doing.

            Cost wise… There’s so much that we could be doing with that money, other than duplicating things to a poorer level than they are now.

          • Billy

            Sorry, I just realized that I missed something in my response. I meant to say that If they tore down Nelson and they tore down Bateman and built us a new school, that had everything we need for a full, uncompromising composite school, I wouldn’t complain.

          • Pria

            Billy, I don’t know who you’ve been listening to but the facilities are not going to be poorer or lesser – again, they are going to be brand new, purpose built and modern.
            I don’t know what you think you’re losing in the specialized classrooms either. This was covered off several times. The only things not coming are the paint booth and the therapy pool which was based on the ADVICE of the TA’s.

          • Billy

            Pria, I don’t believe you understand what i’m getting at. The school isn’t being replaced. And yes, something can be new, and poorer/lesser at the same time. The facilities being implemented are going to be quite a bit smaller (and I know that that is a concern of a lot of our tech teachers). We also aren’t having certain facilities implemented. Everything at Bateman that is specialized is both purpose built and modern as well. The CPP area at Nelson isn’t a whole new area, they’re just removing the current library and sticking it in there. I have the plans right in front of me for Nelson. The current situation at Bateman is better. They’ll make it work, sure, but there isn’t any benefit of them doing what they’re doing now. Like at all.

            And I don’t doubt that the new stuff is going to be new, purpose built and modern. The problem is, we’re getting smaller facilities, we’re loosing facilities, and the equipment is going to basically be the same. It’s also going to cost a lot. What’s the difference between Bateman’s big autoshop (not the autobody shop, that’s a different, even larger one) and the “new” one at Nelson? Well, they’ll get our tools. Maybe they’ll get another lift? They’ll have a smaller shop than ours. I mean what can they do to it? Put a new lift in? Sure, but those haven’t really changed in the last 13 years.

            Again, its a “duplication” of some of the stuff that we have, on a smaller scale than what we have. For what, I think it was about 12 million at Nelson?

            Building a composite version of Hayden on Nelson’s site would be amazing, and that would align with what you’re saying. But, because of the limited funds, space and the old building, Nelson won’t be able to compete and serve its kids in the same way as Bateman.

  • Lynn Crosby

    Anybody who blames Marianne Meed Ward for closing Bateman is either misinformed of the facts, which involve a lot more than one person and one Burlington high school, are getting their information from a dubious source or are among the small group of people who seem obsessed with blaming and attacking others in a way that long ago morphed into bullying and harrrassment. Strange since this is a group of parents who started out saying they were worried about their own children being bullied.

    • Billy


      You haven’t been a very reliable person your self. At least most of the parents (unlike the other schools) have pretty good knowledge in how the system works. A lot of them have been having to “fight” them for a while, to actually get decent accommodation for their kids. And, the group itself has been well informed since it started.

      And… Nobody’s saying that Marianne Meed Ward is the sole reason Bateman is closing. That being said, as one of the lead’s of Central Strong, her role on the PARC, and some of the facts that are false (whether she said them intentionally or unintentionally) was a huge driving factor in the closure. They’re not being irrational in being upset with her. She doesn’t care about the kids that aren’t at Central and she certainly doesn’t care about Ward 5. They’re upset that someone as divisive as her is running for mayor.

      And the bullying/harassment? That’s a little far fetched.

    • Trish

      Lynn, I read and respected your previous comment. It is exactly the tone of the way difference in opinions should be handled. But the above comment I take offence to.

      You claim to be tired of a small group of people who seem obsessed with blaming and attacking others in a way that long ago morphed into bullying and harrassment. Strange, since this is a group of parents who started out saying they were worried about their own children being bullied.

      I would love to know who you are referring to because I bet those persons do not even have children who are going to be effected by this so I think you are incorrect in this statement.

      I have been offended by many of the generalized statements made by parents not from Bateman. There is guilt everywhere!! Even in the comments to this story. Yet, aside from myself not one Save Bateman member has replied. How did an article written by the Gazette result in a slew of angry, insult throwing comments when nobody from Save Bateman commented?

      I have never slandered MMW. I will not be voting for her but I respect your choice to vote for her. I have never bullied anyone here or anywhere else. Yet, because I am part of a certain group I have been called names, had my parenting questioned and more. So, it works both ways.

      As far as your point to option 23. I did not attend PAR because I was not aware of it. I did not receive any notification. I have read the letter and legitimately question it. The letter I have read
      starts with – Scott, Marianne and I would like to introduce option 23. It states it is a variation of option 4 and recommends the closure of Bateman. To me it just felt hypocritical when I had seen Marianne holding a sign that said “Save our Schools”. Another point that bothered me about this option is when it states “In order to make this transition Bateman can be gradually closed as a way of grandfathering . . (2019 ) . . which would allow students at Bateman currently to finish their high school experience at Bateman if they choose. They did not even take into consideration the kids in the CPP program who actually attend school until the age of 21. I did not get my facts from a dubious source. I have seen these things and they were bothersome to me.

      I agree I was late to the ballgame as far as PAR was concerned. Our schedule can be challenging and things get missed. When my son, a CPP student expressed an interest in getting involved I was thrilled with his interest and supported him in anyway I could. It is a wonderful lesson for him, to fight for what he believes in. I had no idea it would turn so ugly.

      We all love our kids! The Central parents, the Bateman parents, the Nelson parents . . .

      Let’s stop all this fighting!

  • “Greg Woodruff has to do more than have a Facebook page.”

    I agree. You must to have a set of clear policies that make the city a place people want to live in.

    Goldring may be buried in money, but other campaigns will need to deliver messages in a financially efficient way. Yes, the internet reaches almost every one in Burlington at little cost to both the producer of the message and the environment. This is the same efficiency that city hall could use some of.

    Thank heavens it does, because the developer community backs people who shares their views.

  • steven craig gardner

    If the Bateman folks are blaming Marianne Meed Ward for their school closure perhaps it was tied to the shenanigans of her being caught as I recall texting the trustee Leah Reynolds how to vote. Or maybe her role in saving central for now at the expense ofBateman?

    • Mike E.

      Or perhaps it’s because they just need someone to blame rather than recognizing that the PAR was a flawed process, as Marianne recognized and tried to address, or that they had misread the situation and had left it too late for any form of organized opposition. People need something/someone to blame for their own deficiencies and this seems to be a classic example.

      • steven craig gardner

        The PAR process was definitely flawed but so was Marianne behaviour in the process not a shining moment for her for sure telling Leah how to vote or even being part of central PAR contingent left a bad taste in my mouth

        • Mike E.

          She took a stand and had the courage of her convictions. You would rather have the current Mayor who sent Mr. Ridge to represent the City – a faceless bureaucrat that also apparently had no voice until it came time to push his Official Plan? Or Mr. Wallace who was entirely absent from the whole debate? This entire episode has been blown out of all proportion and has remained in the public domain through the nasty alliance of a small group of Bateman parents whose hate for Ms. Meed Ward is almost pathological (Freudian displacement perhaps) and a local Councillor who has worked above and mostly below the table to undermine Ms. Meed Ward at every opportunity. There was a popular ad campaign – “don’t squeeze the …” Unfortunately, Ms Meed Ward seems to have squeezed this fragile ego once too often. Of course, this is only my personal opinion.

  • Whether it is good news or not will depend on who is elected. This being the era of political upsets, some of Burlignton’s council may well have to dust off their CV’s.