By Pepper Parr

August 12th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Elections are the way the public gets to choose who will lead them – who will make the critical decisions; who will determine the tax rate.

Money plays a large part in how those men and women get elected.
In the October municipal election a lot of money was raised, from a surprisingly low number of people.

Who they were and who they donated to is of public interest.

Provincial legislation requires the City Clerk to not only administer the election but also to sign the documents that declare who the winner is and receive reports on who spent what.

When that data became available two Burlington residents who concern themselves with civic affairs began to pour over the campaign contribution reports that were filed with the Clerk and the document the Clerk provided to city council.

That is when the two, Blair Smith and Lynn Crosby begin to find that some of the numbers just didn’t add up. Donations they knew for a fact were given were not recorded and there were numerous and quite obvious errors.

When questioned by the Gazette, they explained;

“We have been looking very carefully at the financial statements of all candidates for council for the Burlington 2018 election. One of the things we noticed was that the audit committee received a report from the Clerk on June 4, with an Appendix of all contributions over $100 for all candidates.

We immediately saw that this list seemed much too small and could see that there was a lot missing. We then went through all the candidate financial statements posted on the City website, created our own list and then compared the two. They were not a close match. We know that errors do occur and that our analysis is only as accurate as our source data, in this case the candidates’ audited financial statements.”

The two put together a letter to the City Manager, the Mayor, Council and the Clerk setting out their concerns.

In their July 30th email they said:

“Under the Municipal Elections Act, the duties and responsibilities of the Clerk are summarized as:
(a) preparing for the election;

(b) preparing for and conducting a recount in the election;

(c) maintaining peace and order in connection with the election; and

(d) in a regular election, preparing and submitting the report described in subsection 12.1 (2). 1996,

c. 32, Sched., s. 11 (2); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 8 (7).

We believe that the Clerk is the critical steward of the most fundamental of our democratic processes, the election of our municipal representatives, and that such responsibilities should be discharged with care, diligence, lack of bias and a regard for maintaining an accurate public record.
As such, we were surprised by the 2018 Municipal Election report listing Campaign Contributions that was submitted by the Clerk to the Compliance Audit Committee on June 4, 2019. A quick review of the document posted on the City website revealed that there were numerous omissions and inaccuracies.

In fact, the record is both incomplete and misleading. We are unaware of any competing or undisclosed policy that informed the structure of the record as presented and would appreciate learning if such is the case. Otherwise, we note the following that we consider to be serious flaws in the record, requiring explanation and correction.

1. The total amount of contributions on the Clerk’s Report adds up to $313,588.52. On page 11, there is a line that simply says “Supplementary List”, $3,950. Adding that undocumented amount in, the total would be $317,538.52. In our review of all candidates’ financial statements, our total is $550,134. (Note our total includes a few donations that were returned, which may not be required to be included).

2. The entire list of Mayor Meed Ward’s contributions is missing.

3. Several of Ward 2 councillor candidate Roland Tanner’s contributions are missing. (Maria Adcock, $1200; Karina Gould, $200; Robert Loney, $250; Ed McMahon, $200; Jack O’Brien, $500).

4. One of Ward 2 councillor candidate Kimberly Calderbank’s contributions is missing (Mark McCrory, $400), as is one of Ward 3 candidate Gareth Williams (Collin Gibbons, $200).

5. Both of Ward 6 councillor candidate Xin-Yi Zhang’s contributions are missing as are the lone contributions of Ken White, Tayler Morin and Greg Woodruff.

6. None of the mayoral or councillor candidates’ own or spousal contributions are included.

7. Several first names are missing, even though they appear on the relevant candidate Forms.

8. Some names are transposed and therefore do not appear correctly and wouldn’t be easily found. For example, the second name should read Abdelaziz Guergachi, not the reverse. In that same entry there is another random name there also, Leila Tijini. Why?

9. In some cases there appear to be double entries which are there in error because they only appear once on all candidate forms, or cases where entries appear three times when they should appear twice. (E,g., Lynn and Chris Anstead, $200; Doug Brown, $200; Nick and Diane Leblovic, $250; Edda Manley, $300; David and Linda McKay, $200; John and Bonnie Purkis, $300; Mary Woodward $1,000; Stephen Woodward, $1,000).

10. Some names are spelled incorrectly, though we note Rick Goldring’s list of names and amounts is in some cases practically illegible.

11. Entry for Schuler should say “Michael” as first name and the amount shows $700. $200 was returned so this should say $500.

12. Looking at the candidate forms, there are errors that we would have thought should have been flagged by the Clerk to be corrected. Perhaps this is not the Clerk’s purview and it is instead up to citizens to look at the documents and raise these things instead. If so, that seems like a flawed system. In any event, such things include: no dates of contributions received are listed (as required) on any of Mike Wallace’s contributions; post office boxes being listed as addresses where Full Addresses are required; the very illegible form submitted by Rick Goldring as noted above.

We believe that these errors are serious enough that the record, as presented, does not provide an accurate and true picture of the 2018 Campaign financials. As such the public record, in this instance at least, is too flawed to remain uncorrected. We would request that either you provide an explanation of why the statements presented to the Compliance Audit Committee are accurate, addressing the deficiencies noted above, or correct the record and resubmit noting publicly the reason for the resubmission.”

Crosby and Smith got a response from the City Manager, Tim Commisso, almost immediately. He referred the matter to the City Clerk. The Mayor also provided a quick response supporting the need for an investigation and correction if required. The City Clerk, Angela Morgan, replied to Smith and Crosby on July 31st indicating that their concerns would be reviewed. Then, on August 6th, she made a more fulsome reply:

“Lynn and Blair, thank you for your e-mail and detailed review of the candidate financial document attached to the Clerks report that was considered by the Election Compliance Audit committee on June 4. The Municipal Elections Act requires the Clerk to prepare a report for the election compliance audit committee, this report is limited to reporting on contributors who contributed more that $1200 to any one candidate or more than $5000 to all of the candidates for Council.

“To prepare the report, I reviewed all of the candidates financials individually and highlighted those that had over-contributed, this information was included in individual reports to the committee which were included on the agenda for the June 4th meeting (which can be found at) https://calendar.burlington.ca/Event/Index/aaba4276-79ae-4619-9ffb-aa5c00bd7ec1.

“Following that review, staff combined the lists into one large list to present to the Committee as information. This was done through copy and paste from the candidates lists and therefore, any spelling of names is identical to the spelling on the candidates paperwork. In reviewing the attached listing, I did note that the list of contributors to Mayor Meed Ward’s campaign was not included in the final list although it was reviewed by myself in preparing the report on over contributions noted above. In addition, contributors are listed multiple times on the list because they contributed to more than one campaign, so they are listed each time they were found to have contributed (i.e. if they contributed to 4 campaigns, they would be listed 4 times), in some instances, it is the same contribution amount. The list does not include the amount that an individual candidate or their spouse contributed to their own campaign as this is outside the scope of my review.

“We have reposted an amended list to reflect the contributions that were missed from the original posting. This did not affect the overall conclusion in my report which indicated that 2 contributors, contributed more than $5000.

“This review is a new provision in the Municipal Elections Act and as a result, this is first time this list was prepared. We are learning from this election and will be making some improvements in 2022 to ensure the report and its attachments are completed in a more user friendly manner. Thank you again for your comments.”

Smith and Crosby were not satisfied with the response they were given and responded to the Clerk on August 7th:

“Thank you for your response yesterday to our email of Tuesday, July 30th. It helps to explain some of the anomalies that we noted in the material presented to the Compliance Audit Committee on June 4th but, unfortunately, not all. It also raises a rather serious new issue.

We understand the duties of Clerk, as specified under the Municipal Elections Act, are only to produce a report of contributors who were in violation – and there were only two (2) by your reckoning. It is somewhat confusing then that the Appendix to the report presented to the Compliance Audit Committee was so extensive going to 11 pages and including contributors who were completely ‘out of scope’. If the intent was to provide a complete and comprehensive picture of all contributions made during the campaign, the numerous errors and omissions that we noted undermined that purpose. The list has now been changed consistent with some of the corrections and additions that we suggested were needed. However, it is still inaccurate. For example, the following errors, omissions and oversights still remain:

• though Mayor Meed Ward’s entries are now included, there are still about five missing, and some of the dollar amounts are incorrect

• there are still a few names transposed (these names are not transposed on the candidate forms)

• there are still 8 instances of missing first names, all of which do appear on the candidate forms

• the entries we noted that were missing from Kimberly Calderbank’s and Gareth William’s forms are still missing

• we understand some people donated multiple times and their names should appear more than once; however, there are eight entrees that seem to be doubled in error

• though the missing Roland Tanner entries have now been added, Karina Gould was incorrectly listed as Maria Gould and Robert Loney’s surname is misspelled

• there are several names misspelled and contrary to your explanation, they are not misspelled on the candidate forms (again with the caveat that Rick Goldring’s form is almost illegible); we are referring to names from other candidate forms

• how can one be certain the Mike Wallace contributions were donated in the proper time frame (May 1 – December 31) when he did not include any dates as required? Is this not a rather serious contravention?

The corrected list is now available on the City website – https://calendar.burlington.ca/Event/Index/aaba4276-79ae-4619-9ffb-aa5c00bd7ec1

However, it is included as a part of the original agenda package of the June 4th meeting of the Compliance Audit Committee. As such, it gives the impression that it is the list originally presented and approved by that committee. It is not. So, the public record has been altered with no indication that such is the case and that the report that was actually approved by the Compliance Audit Committee is not the report that is presented on the City Website.

We believe that this is tantamount to altering the public record after the fact and is a serious contravention of appropriate information protocols. We believe that the amended report should be resubmitted for approval. Indeed, one should never be able to unilaterally change the public record.

There should always be some form of independent approval and notification process. What was the approval and notification process involved here and was Council aware? Additionally, there must be some indication that this is not the original report approved by the Committee and the reasons for the re submission and re posting. If you recall, we had requested that the report be resubmitted with the reason for the re submission clearly stated. Such has not occurred and this is unsatisfactory.

You say “This review is a new provision in the Municipal Elections Act and as a result, this is first time this list was prepared. We are learning from this election and will be making some improvements in 2022 to ensure the report and its attachments are completed in a more user friendly manner.”

Our request had nothing to do with “user-friendliness” and everything to do with accuracy and data integrity. Both were lacking. We remain concerned with the apparent absence of due diligence and appropriate oversight. It is also, perhaps, a happy coincidence that your report of donation violations was accurate despite the absence of the Mayor’s donors; in part a function of the fact that Mayor Meed Ward, unlike the other candidates, would not accept donations from individuals associated with the development industry. Regardless, the original errors of accuracy and oversight now pale in comparison with the apparent ability of the Clerk’s Office to alter the public record without notice or notation.

We would appreciate an adjustment to the public record clearly stating that the list, as published on the City website as part of the agenda package, is a corrected one, not the original version. Attached for comparison are the original and amended versions of the list.
… Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith”

As of the time of publication, we are advised that there has been no response from the City Clerk. However, the Mayor responded with clear direction, indicating that she recognized the need to maintain the integrity of the public record, that the existing record should be annotated to note that is has been amended, that all amendments should be appropriately marked and that any further corrections needed to the record should be so noted.

For Crosby and Smith the fundamental issues remain. They explained;

“We are concerned with the competence and integrity of the Clerk’s Office. People will probably think that we are “stirring the pot” or nit-picking but, perhaps, they don’t truly understand the role of the Municipal Clerk and its importance. Arguably, the Clerk is the most important link between the provincial bureaucracy and that of the city or town. Not the most important official or the most influential bureaucrat but the most essential and integral connection between the two levels of governance.

“Amongst many other roles, the Clerk is the official records-keeper of the municipality with a duty under the Municipal Act “to record, without note or comment, all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings of the council”. So, errors in this duty are serious and have impact. The appendix that was originally submitted as part of the agenda package for the Compliance Audit Committee on June 4th was seriously flawed. The number and nature of the errors was shocking, as was the obvious lack of oversight.

“The fact that the appendix was not a statutory “requirement” does not mitigate the issue. More serious, however, is the fact that the Clerk’s Office has now apparently revised the public record without due notice or notation. Quite simply, this is a completely unacceptable contravention of information practice and protocol, particularly for one entrusted with maintaining the integrity of the official record. The public record must always be historically and contemporaneously accurate. It reflects the information material that elected officials used at the time to make decisions affecting all citizens and interested parties. How else can those officials be held accountable? If allowed to present an amended record as if original then the Clerk’s Office has been permitted to ‘change history’ and give a different picture of the decision-making process than actually occurred.

“If this is acceptable information policy and practice within the City of Burlington, then it needs to be changed immediately. And perhaps we need to look at what else is accepted practice that contravenes the tenets of open, transparent and accountable government.”

OPINION: Salt with Pepper

By Staff

July 18th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The heavy rains that we are experiencing, sometime in just pockets of the Region, create serious flood potential.

The old approach to weather is a thing of the past – all the weather people can do is issue notices and monitor what is taking place tightly and keep the first responders a phone call away.

The latest information provided by the International Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Board (ILOSLRB) indicates that Lake Ontario reached a mean daily water level of 75.80 m on July 14th, declining just under 1cm per day during the preceding week.

The latest water level is 12 cm below this year’s peak level (recorded on June 15th), but remains 78 cm above average and continues to be a record level for this time of year. Record high outflows (equivalent to the peak releases during June to August of 2017) continue to be released to lower the lake level and provide some relief to shoreline stakeholders, while also considering the effects of higher flows on interests in the St. Lawrence River.

Lake Ontario levels are expected to continue to slowly decline in the coming days, with the resumption of drier conditions combined with the continuation of record-high outflows. Notwithstanding, water levels will remain elevated for the next several weeks and well into the summer months as record inflows from Lake Erie are expected to continue.

All shoreline areas should be considered dangerous during this time. Localized flooding combined with the potential for waves to overtop break walls and other shoreline structures continue to make these locations extremely dangerous. Conservation Halton is asking all residents to exercise caution around Lake Ontario shoreline areas and to alert children in your care of these imminent dangers.

This Flood Watch – Lake Ontario Shoreline message will remain in effect until July 31st. Conservation Halton will continue to monitor Lake Ontario wind conditions and lake levels closely and will either terminate this message or issue further updates as necessary.

The Conservation Authority has a Flood Duty Officer whose job it is to keep a close eye on what is taking place and ensure that the people who take care of us are in the loop.
Forecasts: https://ijc.org/en/loslrb/watershed/forecasts

 

By Staff

June 18th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

There is nothing worse than waking up to the smell of smoke and realizing your home is on fire or walking into the kitchen and seeing something on the stove that is ablaze.

Most people don’t have a fire extinguisher at hand – they panic and call 911.

Most people don’t have an evacuation plan.

Most people don’t expect there to be a fire in their home.

The Burlington Fire department takes the view that nothing is more important than your safety. That’s why the Burlington Fire Department has created The Steps to Safety Home Visit Program.

Burlington firefighters will be visiting homes across the city this summer and fall to talk with homeowners about how residents can be safe at home.

Part of the visit includes a voluntary in-home safety assessment to make sure Burlington homes are protected by working smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.

Understanding how to prevent fires from happening, having a home escape plan and being prepared for an emergency—big or small—are all essential steps to protecting what matters most.

Protect what matters most by following four simple steps to safety:

1. Prevent it – Stop fire and life safety emergencies before they start.
2. Protect it – Safeguard your home and family with smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
3. Create it – Make a family escape plan.
4. Build it – Put together a 72-hour emergency kit.

Why participate in the program?
• Peace of mind that your home and family are protected by working smoke and carbon monoxide alarms as required by law.
• Meet firefighters from your neighbourhood fire station and ask safety questions.
• Learn how to stop fires from happening and what to do if there’s an emergency.

While participating in this program is optional, having working smoke and CO alarms is not. It’s the law that every home in Ontario must have:

• A smoke alarm on every level and outside all sleeping areas in your home.
• A carbon monoxide alarm next to all sleeping areas in any home with a fuel-burning appliance (i.e. natural gas, oil burning furnace, water heater, etc.) and/or an attached garage.

Know that smoke and CO alarms expire after 10 years, regardless of power supply. To determine how old an alarm is, check the side or back of the unit for an expiry date or date of manufacture.

The Burlington Fire Department has an Alarm Assistance Program (AAP) for homeowners over the age of 65 or residents with a disability that prevents them from maintaining their home’s smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. This program is for people with no support network or agencies available to assist. To learn more, visit: www.burlington.ca/AAP

By Staff

June 4th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Since the beginning of this year, the Halton Regional Police Service has seen an increase in the number of suspected opioid overdoses in the communities they serve. Each of these overdoses comes with its own emotional and physical toll.

Across the country, an estimated 4,400 people died after apparent opioid overdoses in 2018. Each of these lives — the lives of mothers, sons, brothers, daughters, fathers, sisters and friends — makes the opioid crisis a significant public safety concern.

Halton Region is not immune to the impact of the opioid crisis that is devastating communities from coast to coast. While our Region has not experienced the same scope of overdoses and deaths as other parts of the country, Halton has been significantly impacted.

The opioid crisis does not distinguish between age, socio-economic, gender, geography or cultural boundaries.

We recognize that the impact of opioid use will be a long-term challenge for the community. This is why the Halton Regional Police Service is working collaboratively with stakeholders to develop and deliver comprehensive strategies and interventions to address the issues related to the illicit use, misuse or abuse of opioids in our community.

This includes work across various sectors to build resiliency in all four municipalities through the Halton Region – Community Safety & Well-Being Plan.

If you have a friend or family member who uses drugs, these tips may help save a life in the event of an overdose:

• Never use alone. If an overdose occurs, having another person nearby can save your life.
• Remember that any drug can be cut with, or contaminated by, other agents or drugs (e.g. fentanyl), which in very small amounts can be harmful or fatal. Know your tolerance and always use a small amount of a drug first to check the strength.
• Carry naloxone, a drug that can temporarily reverse an opioid overdose. Naloxone is available free-of-charge in Halton at:
o Halton Region clinics (in Acton, Burlington, Georgetown, Milton and Oakville) and Halton Region Needle Exchange Program (Exchange Works)
o Some local pharmacies. To find a pharmacy that distributes naloxone, visit the Ontario government’s Where to get a free naloxone kit web page.
• Don’t run. Call 9-1-1. An overdose is a medical emergency. Know the signs of an overdose and call 9-1-1 right away. Our frontline officers, and other first responders in Halton, carry naloxone and we want to assist. The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act provides broad legal protections for anyone seeking emergency support during an overdose, including the person experiencing an overdose. This means citizens, including youth, will not be charged for offences such as simple possession for calling 9-1–1 in an emergency.

“The Halton Regional Police Service recognizes that addressing the devastating impacts of the opioid crisis requires a holistic, long-term, collaborative approach. We are leveraging all internal resources and taking all measures to actively investigate and prosecute those responsible for trafficking in illicit narcotics,” said Chief Stephen Tanner.

“In parallel, we continue to work with strategic partners to further our understanding of the upstream factors that contribute to this issue. Our community demands and deserves the best from us, and their well-being and safety is our priority.”

“Last year, 40 people in Halton died from an opioid overdose. Each of these deaths matters greatly, and is preventable. We want to talk about opioid overdoses – to reduce the stigma against people who use drugs, and to ensure that people who use drugs get the support they need.

“We are already working to ensure that people who use drugs, their families and friends, can access free naloxone through our clinic and outreach programs, and to equip first responders in Halton to carry naloxone which saves lives.

“This is a complex issue that requires a community wide response. We are committed to working together with our partners on a local response.” Said Dr. Hamidah Meghani, Halton Region Medical Officer of Health]

Resources for those with addictions
We encourage all parents to have open and frank conversations with their children about the very significant risks and dangers associated with the use of any illicit drug, and in particular opioids. There are many online resources available, including the website drugfreekidscanada.org.

There are agencies and supports in place within our community to assist individuals suffering from addictions, and their families, including:

ADAPT – Halton Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Assessment Prevention & Treatment Services
ADAPT is a non-profit, community-based, outpatient addiction, assessment and treatment agency funded by the Ministry of Health & Long Term Care, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and the United Way to provide a range of services throughout the Halton Region. ADAPT is dedicated to empowering persons with alcohol, drug and/or gambling concerns, and their families, to manage these concerns and to lead fulfilling lives through the provision of comprehensive assessment and treatment services, corresponding to need. ADAPT’s services and programs are available for adults and youth and include:

• Assessment, Treatment and Referral Services (Adult)
Days Ahead Program – Assessment, Treatment and Referral Services (Youth)
• Community Justice Programs
• Know the D.E.A.L. Program (Youth)

For more information about ADAPT services or to book an appointment, call the Intake Desk at 905-639-6537 ext. 0. If this is long distance, call 905-693-4250 ext. 0. Collect calls are also accepted. Hours of operation are from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.

CMHA (Canadian Mental Health Association) – Halton Region Branch
CMHA provides support for mental health and addictions through education programs, free walk-in counselling programs, crisis intervention through the Crisis Outreach and Support team (COAST program), support and peer-support programs.

For more information on CMHA services call 905-693-4270 or toll-free 1-877-693-4270.

If someone is experiencing a mental health crisis:
• Call COAST at 1-877-825-9011 (TTY: 1-844-646-1700)
• Go to the nearest hospital, or
• Call 9-1-1

Connex Ontario
Provides free and confidential health service information for people experiencing problems with alcohol and drugs, mental illness and/or gambling. Information and referral services are live-answer 24/7, confidential, and free: 1-866-531-2600

Halton RAAM (Rapid Access to Addiction Medicine) Clinic
The Halton RAAM Clinic provides evidence-based addiction medicine treatments for a variety of substance-use disorders, including alcohol, opioids, tobacco, and benzodiazepine tapering.

The clinic accepts referrals from any source, including self-referral, and patients can also arrive on a walk-in basis. Call 1-888-388-7226 for an appointment.

Halton Region Exchange Works program
Exchange Works is a program of Halton Region’s Harm Reduction Services. As part of this program, outreach workers and public health nurses operate a mobile outreach service in Halton Region that involves:

• Exchanging used injection/smoking supplies for new injection/smoking supplies
• Providing health information to clients
• Distributing safer sex supplies
• Referring clients to community agencies that have the tools to help access rehabs
Services offered:
• Safer injection supplies
• Safer steroid supplies
• Safer inhalation supplies
• Safer sex supplies
• Nasal naloxone training and kits
• Education
• Written information and referrals
• STI and HIV testing, along with Hep A + B vaccines
• Presentations (by request)

You can access Exchange Works by:
• Texting or calling mobile outreach services (on a confidential cell phone)

Mobile Outreach Services
905-330-3305 (North Halton: 905-702-4200)
Monday-Thursday 4:30-8:30 p.m.
• Visiting one of the Halton Region clinics.

Needle exchange services available at Burlington and Oakville clinics
Monday-Friday 1-4 p.m