Mayor's campaign manager clarifies the highlighted statement in the second version of a Newsletter - sort of.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

July 19th, 2018



David Vandenburg contacted the Gazette to clarify why a second version of the mayor’s newsletter went out earlier this week.

The Mayor said, according to his campaign manager, that the downtown Councillor contacted the Mayor’s Office with the request for correction, which he then provided. Apparently the Mayor “didn’t want to mislead readers by not highlighting the part that was corrected.”


David Vandenburg announcing that he is going to manage Mayor Goldring’s re-election campaign.

Vandenburg added that as the “lead representative of council, any Mayor should keep residents informed on votes and what other Councillors were looking for, it wasn’t a political shot. Which is why the Mayor referred to Councillor Dennison’s wishes for the site as well.

“It was a minor error in the first one that was simply requested to be changed by a colleague, which was done and highlighted.”

Vandenberg said he was “clarifying the reason why the part was highlighted in the second version was because the first newsletter went out only saying MMW put forward a motion for 11 stories. She asked for it to be changed to 3-11 stories, which the Mayor did and highlighted it so readers understood the correction in the newsletter.

“MMW asked for the change and he did it for her and to clarify to the public, not a shot at her. She asked for the change.”

I’m confused.

Here are the two version of the paragraph in the Newsletter:

Unhighlighted comment

The paragraph as it appeared in the first version of the newsletter on the Tuesday.

Highlighted comment RG

The second version of the paragraph as it appeared in the second version. All the Mayor had to do was say that he was asked the make a correction. Now we know. Awkward!


It all comes across as a little confusing – kind of like the New Street Road Diet. Do it right the first time and don’t slip and slide explaining something that was pretty simple.

Why couldn’t the Mayor have said something like: I was asked to make the following correction by the ward Councillor – then make the correction.

Salt with Pepper is an opinion column reflecting the thoughts, opinions, observations and musing of the Gazette publisher.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments to Mayor’s campaign manager clarifies the highlighted statement in the second version of a Newsletter – sort of..

  • Jim Young

    Perhaps he meant to say “Wouldn’t” but misspoke and said “Would”? Now where have I heard that recently?

  • Lynn Crosby

    Good question. Clear as mud.

    So will we see a third version? Because there is still, in the amended version, a paragraph further up that states that Councillor Meed Ward asked for 11 storeys, which she did not.

    “If council approved the motion that Councillor Meed Ward brought forward for 11 storeys… ”

    It’s pretty clear what her motion was – it was in writing and on the record. She said “permit a mixed use development with 3 storeys along Brant Street and up to 11 on John.” Why the errors? Did he not understand the motion? If not, pity he voted on it rather than asking for clarification. Why does the mayor misrepresent a council colleague in this way, on his city mayor newsletter platform?

    It sure looks like electioneering, which isn’t allowed under the guise (and to the mailing list recipients) of the City mayor newsletter. Throwing Jack Dennison’s name in too doesn’t change that simple fact.

  • William

    I am troubled by this latest update. If I’ve got this right – the mayor is sending out an email update (twice), using city resources, with an email service provider presumably paid for by the city (Constant Contact), with links to his official city email address and phone number; yet, it’s his political campaign manager who is calling to explain the snafu.

    It appear to me that the lines between Goldring as mayor and as mayoral candidate are surely blurred. Two conclusions –

    1. the mayor has lost perspective, no longer concerned with even the appearance of appropriate conduct;
    2. and/or he’s so hands-off, he downloads the clean-up of these tasks to Mr Vandenburg who is beyond his depth.

    • Stu Parr


      Well, I congratulate you on your accurate summary of the current situation. However, I am rather appalled at the underlying implications and how people seem to be so dismissive. Why is this allowed to happen? Where is the appropriate oversight at City Hall? Why isn’t the City Clerk challenging the Mayor’s use of City resources for campaign purposes? This all has a very bad smell!