By Pepper Parr
July 5th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
There was a time when the city considered fees for election signs now some council members want to get rid of the things. Karmel Sakran lost in his provincial bid
An election without lawn signs?
And a campaign donation rebate program?
And the right to put bumper stickers on your car?
All part of a rather robust conversation at council this morning.
The report from the Office of the Clerk got nicely roasted by several council members – the document from the Clerk appeared to create more questions with few answers.
One of the problems within the Clerk’s Office is that all the top staff are new to the city and not fully aware of some of the really really stupid decisions made by a previous Clerk.
More on this when they return from lunch and a Closed session with outside legal counsel.
Susan / Owen
Please read the Gazette article reporting on MMW’s announcement to run for mayor.
https://burlingtongazette.ca/meed-ward-sets-out-what-she-will-campaign-on-will-fill-the-leadership-vacuum-at-city-hall/
Seems to me the Mayor has delivered substantially on her goals.
Typical of MMW to move the goal posts once the game has started. On 3 occasions l have put her sign in my window at election time. Also with Kearns. But once elected no interest in what this invisible senior has to say. Especially when you don’t agree with them. If it goes the no signage way come the next elections,fed & pro, I’ll make my own signs. Where’s Hurricane Hazel when we need her. Still wondering if a person on council is beholden to one of the developers.
Susan – well said. It’s a promise you everything, deliver you little environment. The Red Queen does seem worse than most – a very convenient and pragmatic memory. Love you when she needs you, discards you when she doesn’t. And there is no more ‘hidden majority’ than seniors (scream all you want millenials). As far as Hurricane Hazel is concerned, we differ in our evident esteem. She is probably still being pulled out of a ditch and discreetly taken home by Peel Police after yet another encounter with the ‘demon rum’. We all have our weaknesses. Hers was as noted and a distinct tendency for patronage. In my opinion only of course and I could be most mistaken.
My purpose is not to havevthe last word but to correct you on some important elements of your comment.
The report is the work of the Clerk and City staff. Not the Mayor, nor any Council member. By implying the Clerk and staff are anything other than profession, self thinkers is doing them a severe disservice. I do not believe as yet thecMayor, any council member or anybody has embraced the report.
I take immense exception to you saying I am “well aware that the Heritage Committee you are a member of has in the past set aside the rules regarding quorums not allowing an advisory committee to meet and pass motions, particularly those that are reimbursing member expenses and yet you look the other way when barriers are placed in the path of those who worked hard to expose such practices.” I have no knowledgeof any matters being voted on when there was not a quorum. Certainly, as permitted, information sharing discussion have taken place at times when a quorum was not present. Further I can categorically say I do not recall any instance when the reimbursement of a committee member’s incurred expenses was discussed. Further I have never nor will I ever look the other way should I believe someone’s democratic rights are being down trodden. In fact at my instigation the Committee has adopted a position whereby an applicant must be advised as to when their application is to be discussed, how to attend the meeting, and how to delegate, should they wish to. Thereby advancing transparency, openness and democracy.
Connecting your conspiracy theories of anti-democratic espionage at Burlington City Hall to the awful, horrendous and unspeakable crimes against Indigenous children is not only a huge strech & absurd, but shameful.
“The truth is the truth and always will be.” That is certainly true. But your truth (your perspective) may differ from my truth (my perspective).
I’m with Joe that it’s rather rich for incumbents to start limiting campaign advertising which hurt non-incumbents, especially when said incumbents are all over the media. I seem to recall similar discussions before the last election which were rightly condemned by non-incumbents. Agree with Deborah also on the fact so many don’t follow all this stuff (bet they sleep better and have fewer headaches) and so the signs are important. Also agree very much on the two term limit suggestion! I also think that considering the climate emergency, we need to be using signs and campaign materials that can be recycled. The ones normally used contain plastic and cannot be.
Hi David.
You sound feisty as ever. I love it, and never stop.
David I spend more time at City Hall than most if not all.
There is little chance of anything said or written coming out of City Hall. That the Red Queen has not approved. It’s her way or the highway. Trust me on this one. Even City Hall has leaks.
Joe Gaetan has an interesting point, but he may be aggressive on the four year issue. In general with asterisks, I have no problem with our current Council, that tidied up the buffoons from the past charade but I note the totally dysfunctional Toronto and Hamilton councils, with life-long idiots carrying on into perpetuity….
Two terms is enough….
Fred I will be the first to admit my suggestion of a 4 year-term limit was overly facetious but 2, 4 year-terms or 8 years total should be taken seriously. Realistically though there is no way this will be considered.
I am ok with this as long as there are 4-year term limits. Unbelieveabale. Incumbents have their names splashed all over the city for 4 years on our dime.Then, slam the door on others.
I agree with Deborah. There is an earnest cadre of Burlington residents that thrives on every civic nuance that occurs each week, and many of them frequently comment on the Burlington Gazette. However, I suggest that the vast majority of our citizens probably know who the Mayor is, and perhaps may know their own Councillor, but are oblivious to the balance of Council, and unless they have kids, have absolutely no idea who their School Trustee may be, and don’t care. Political signage is urban pollution in many respects, but without it, the incumbents have an even greater advantage than they currently enjoy.
An election without lawn signs might result in the lowest voter turnout ever IMO as, from experience, many people are not even aware of elections taking place, let alone which level of government it is for nor the names of those running for different positions.
Its bad enough that provincial and federal taxes are used to support candidates now incumbent council candidates want to squander more of our hard earned money. Not satisfied with messing with the delegation process so name and face recognition is almost obliterated except for council members they want to remove a non incumbent candidate’s ability to post signs on their supporters lawns. If we can swim in public pools and eat on patios and go for a haircut and kids are back in school we can open up the council chambers to delegations by September 1st and put paid to the Mayor’s brand of democracy once and for all.
Maybe, I’m wrong (unlikely, but it has been known, rarely) but does this article not say the report was written by the City Clerk’s department. Not by any councilor! But that does not stop the two of you at the drop of a hat having a go at council members.
David Barker, the comments on this and indeed most Gazette articles are not about having a go at certain parties they are about speaking out about the Clerk responsible for the Chamber (who takes his lead from the Mayor and members of Council who hired him) and any members of Council introducing further acts to remove name, face and professional skill recognition with an upcoming election or acting outside rule of law and getting away with it. We spoke at council through the present delegation process to bring back delegations in the Council chamber and you would have thought that we were asking for something that would put every person in city hall at immense risk, when nothing is further from the truth. The only thing at risk is the re-election of those who use our municipal tax dollars as their personal campaign fund in terms of their decision making, or those who our audits show are knowingly acting outside the legislated framework that reputedly covers their actions. You are well aware that the Heritage Committee you are a member of has set aside the rules regarding quorums not allowing an advisory committee to meet and pass motions, particularly those that are reimbursing member expenses and yet you look the other way when barriers are placed in the path of those who would expose such practices. Our efforts to address such as a member of the Committee after the President of the Historic Society recommended Anne as their second member ended after a nameless person`s conversation with the President. The reason given in a face to face conversation with the President which as you know was very hard to achieve was someone at city hall (she refused to divulge who) had given her information which lead to her decision to rescind the recommendation (after being welcomed aboard by the Heritage Committee Chair), “because she did not want to be part of a p………. competition between the Marsdens and City Hall“. Criticism of those who speak out to support democratic decision making, by those who turn a blind eye to such issues is partly the reason why we are just now finding children`s bodies in mass graves in a nation that is critical of human rights and non-democratic elections in other countries. And yes, David, we know you will want the last word on this, so you are welcome to it. The truth is the truth no matter the spin you try to put on it.
David, the comments on this and indeed most Gazette articles are not about having a go at certain parties they are about speaking out about those like the Clerk (who as Alfred rightly states takes his lead from the Mayor and most likely members of Council who hired him) and any members of Council introducing further acts that are anti-democratic or outside rule of law. In this case, the Clerks Department Report can be read as putting forward means to remove name, face and professional skill recognition of anyone who is not an incumbent in the upcoming election. We spoke at council through the present delegation process to bring back delegations in the Council chamber and you would have thought that we were asking for something that would put every person in city hall at immense risk, when nothing is further from the truth. The only thing at risk is the re-election of those who use our municipal tax dollars as their personal campaign fund in terms of their decision making, or those who our audits show are knowingly acting outside the legislated framework that reputedly covers their actions.
You are well aware that the Heritage Committee you are a member of has in the past set aside the rules regarding quorums not allowing an advisory committee to meet and pass motions, particularly those that are reimbursing member expenses and yet you look the other way when barriers are placed in the path of those who worked hard to expose such practices.
Our efforts to address such as a member of the Committee after the President of the Historic Society recommended Anne as their second member ended after a nameless person`s conversation with the President. The reason given in a face to face conversation with the President which as you know was very hard to achieve was someone at city hall (she refused to divulge who) had given her information which lead to her decision to rescind the recommendation (after Anne was welcomed aboard by the Heritage Committee Chair), “because she did not want to be part of a p………. competition between the Marsdens and City Hall“. Criticism of those who speak out to support democratic decision making, by those who turn a blind eye to such issues is partly the reason why we are just now finding children`s bodies in mass graves in a nation that is critical of human rights and non-democratic elections in other countries. And yes, David, we know you will want the last word on this, so you are welcome to it. The truth is the truth and always will be, no matter the spin others try to put on it.