 By Tom Muir
June 6th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
I cannot delegate personally at the June 7 Board meeting, so please accept this written delegation for the record.
Accountability of the Trustees and Board
 Tom Muir You know the time is coming for the Trustees to make decisions about the Board Director’s recommendations about Burlington’s community of schools. In this, it is time to treat the parents, residents, students and community with respect and truth.
It is time for the Trustees, as democratically elected officials, to be accountable to your constituents. The Education Act provides clarity about the responsibility of individual trustees to bring to the board the concerns of parents, students and supporters of
the board.
It provides for the responsibility of the trustees to work with the values, priorities, and expectations of the community to translate them into policy. It is incumbent on trustees to act with integrity, which means with honesty and strong moral and ethical principles.
All the trustees are responsible for the best interests of all students – this means that all trustees are accountable for their actions in regard to Burlington schools, not just schools in their area.
Trustees play an essential role in creating the conditions for: achieving excellence in student learning; ensuring equity and promoting well-being and; enhancing public confidence in publicly funded education.
Enhancing public confidence means ensuring accountability for the use and effective stewardship of resources and public school assets.
My expressions of comment and concern
You also know that I have written you extensively, and provided a great deal of information about the PAR context and process, and my concerns that arise from the factual nature of that, and how the Board actions and behavior is reflected by that body of evidence.
Based on this evidence I have provided over the history of the PAR, and events emerging, it is quite clear that the Board has created an outcome of systematic, conflict-based crisis in Burlington schools and community. There has been an evident failure to enhance public confidence throughout the PAR process.
There have been record numbers of complaints, delegations to the Board, picket lines, demonstrations, protest marches to the Board office, delegations to provincial parliament, complaints to the local MPP and the Minister of Education, testimonials to Burlington schools, and the list can go on as you know.
It seems clear that the failure of the Board to manage and achieve the critical goal of effective utilization, by building what are almost all surplus seats at Hayden, is seen as the root of the present crisis, and conflict, by a large majority of people.
This is the unhealthy, even pathological, consequence of the predominantly defensive strategy used by the Board to control, manipulate, deny, and distort the reality underlying the emergence of the conflicts.
This defense, as offense, is based on the theme of redefining truth, and sticking to the script.
The fact that I had to resort to a Freedom of Information request to get any information at all speaks loudly to the controlling and obstructive manner with which the Board and the Director chose to communicate with residents.
Directives, based on the Education Act, and Guidance documents, state that in carrying out its accountable responsibilities, a board must engage in effective communication with school staff, students and their families, community members, and others. In my experience, and that of others I know of, there was a deliberate failure to engage and communicate on critical matters of facts and truth.
I never received any reply from anyone to my several sets of correspondence and requests for information (other than my FOI), except acknowledgements of receipt and thanks from one trustee to all memos, and similar replies from one trustee to just one memo.
The only effective outcome for the Board was to continue a cover up of the problems asked about for as long as possible. Even my FOI request and response was obstructed, in information provided, and timing.
What is the correct and truthful source of the crisis and conflict?
As I have shown conclusively, with official data, the crisis we face was caused by deliberate and knowing actions by the Board to build the NE Burlington school (now named Hayden) capacity that was not needed based on enrollment trends and utilization expected. The data prove that this is the planned and only cause of the current utilization issues in Burlington schools.
There was no business case in the normally applied manner based on sufficient need for pupil places in excess of seats available, and growing for the foreseeable future.
And on top of that, the Board is now redefining this truth, by using the resultant low utilization, or surplus seats, caused by these past actions, to support the present PAR now, as Condition 1, having failed to act on the foreseeable consequences of the plans they made to build surplus seats, at the time of the planning.
And compounding this, the logic of PAR Condition 2, “that reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities” is rationalized to follow the lower utilization, as the Board states now, in the present, but failed to, in the past, when it was first created in the plans for Hayden.
This, in fact, reflects another failure to act, by the Board, on the additional foreseeable consequences of the plans made at the time of the planning – failures to act in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner, pure and simple.
The board is responsible for setting policy relating to facilities, including: maintenance, acquisition and disposal of sites; building renewal plans; and site operation. All policies relating to facilities must first take into consideration requirements related to the achievement and well-being of students of the board.
Despite repeated comments and requests for explanation, I was never able to get the Board to provide such an explanation as to how it included in the Hayden planning such “consideration requirements related to the achievement and well-being of students of the board.”
This means that the decision to build Hayden, and the surplus capacity that it entailed, creating lower utilization in Burlington, would also lead to diminished program delivery and learning opportunities, reduced equity and well being, and less achievement of excellence.
Clearly, if it does this now, then logically, it would have done so then, as part of the plan.
More to the point, these impacts were perfectly predictable, as they would follow from the utilization effects built into the Hayden plan, which they did clearly, and are now present.
As well, and doubly ironic, nowhere does the Board acknowledge the predicted overcapacity occupancy of Hayden now, as a problem in its own right, but contributing to the lower utilization of the other schools, and thus an option to partially relieve that situation.
These outcomes are what the Board is telling us now, through this PAR, will emerge from the lower utilization caused by building Hayden, and so we have to close two schools to correct the surplus they created.
This is used as rationalization for the PAR, and to further entrench the fabricated alternative reality created by the Board, that is creating the conflicts and crisis, and to try and evade being accountable for these actions.
This is the redefinition of truth that the PAR is based on, and this is reflected throughout the trustee debate meeting minutes.
Does the crisis and conflict continue despite knowing the buried truth? What’s happening now?
So what is being discussed in the current PAR debates by trustees is the same thing as would have been discussed if anyone had done their job and considered what such outcomes might be when Hayden was being planned and pushed forward, which would knowingly build surplus seats.
The fact is the Board created comparable loss of equity, opportunity, well-being and excellence to students, in the same measure as they claim now as one reason for the PAR. Before Hayden there was no problem with low utilization, and none in the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, no one, except one or two trustees back in 2008, took their responsibility and accountability seriously, and no one to this day has been called to account for this, and to explain their actions.
Not even in the two debate meetings of trustees was anyone called to account for this. And I have provided a great deal of official evidence to all the trustees, and Director, on this matter, but there is still no mention.
It is on this basis of disavowal of the truth that this PAR process has acquired the potential to be pathological in its impact as an outcome of this deep rooted denial.
Closing two schools in Burlington is certainly pathological. No doubt.
This fact set has been continually repressed, or buried, like a painful and unacceptable thought, and source of anxiety, in a vain attempt to remove it from the PAR awareness.
The Director himself told me that bringing up the Hayden planning and execution would be too dangerous for him politically.
Whatever happened to Ministry guidance about not having conflicts of interest, or letting personal, political motives enter the decisions?
And further, in the debates, the question of why the Director changed his mind about closing Central was raised, and he claimed there was nothing personal or political in that decision.
Then he invoked the untruth that Pearson and Bateman had declining enrollment and utilization trends, when in fact it was the Board building of Hayden that targeted these schools, and others, as the source of students and feeders and programs to fill the surplus seats they built at Hayden, to gross overcapacity.
The declining enrollment and utilization in Burlington schools was created by the Board, and is being sustained for their purposes.
Overall, from the delegate evening I attended, and the minutes of the two evening Board meeting debates on the Director’s final report, the Trustees still appear to be rejecting the fact that they are debating an untruthful reality, provided to them by the Board and sustained by the Director.
The buried truth I described appears as an unacceptable idea altogether, that is incompatible with their image of the PAR, and their anxious struggle to deal with the crisis and conflicts emerging from their distorted reality, refusal to be openly accountable for that, or hold responsible parties accountable by asking for explanations.
They apparently behave as if this defensive denial of the facts, that actually happened, never occurred, and appear as though they are stuck in a Director provided alternative reality and set of alternative facts.
The Director and senior staff are inflexible and intransigent in the debate, sticking to the script of their redefined reality.
What stands out in the debates?
In the minutes of the trustee debate meeting these few, but telling instances emerge.
1. The very first point raised in the debates was;
“A. Collard asked about ways to reinforce programming and boundaries at Robert
Bateman High School. S. Miller indicated initial discussion around the original
recommendation should precede any additional options requiring further
investigation. G. Cullen commented on the surplus that would still exist with a
twinned school concept.”
Mr Cullen was part of the senior management team back in 2008 and forward on the Hayden plan. He knew all about the consequences built in, and flowing from that plan, but there is no record that he ever warned about the surplus seats results built into the plan, or the utilization and program impacts that might flow from that.
But here he is now, making the “surplus” the very first, and only, thing he says in answer to the trustee’s question. No mention of past actions.
I was also surprised that a senior staff member, Steven Parfeniuk, that was also closely and chiefly involved with the Hayden plan and the Ministry on that file in 2008 and forward, as then Superintendent of Business for HDSB, and would know about everything I have raised, was not questioned, or otherwise revealed as present at the meeting.
This suggests to me that the trustees are in denial with staff, and there was no serious effort to get to the truth of how this crisis and conflict happened, and to call out those responsible to be accountable.
2. Much of the May 17 debate content is about implementing the recommendations and school closures, and how the integration, transitions, and general impacts of closures would be handled.
Of course, in a mechanical sense, movements, integration, and transitions, under closures are forced, and are managed as matters of fact – you just do it. Staff and Director replies were rationalizations of what they will do, and generally, everything sounded as if without harm.
With a very few notable exceptions, although they are in there I must say, I did not sense any real effort to explore adaptive and innovative options to recognize the significance of every school, and how each contributes to the excellence, equity, and well-being of all the students.
I saw no mention of how closing any school does not in any way enhance public confidence, which, along with Board credibility, has been sorely lost in this PAR.
The continued refusal to admit that past Board actions created this crisis and conflict, and so there is a need for appeasement and righting of this egregious wrong, is notable.
This is particularly disturbing given that the Trustees have been provided with all the official and factual information that I was able to collect, and parent and public debate and information, that conclusively prove this, but yet the debate never mentions it, explains it, or accounts for it..
As I said before, enhancing public confidence means ensuring accountability for the use, and effective stewardship, of resources and public assets for the delivery of a strong educational system attuned to individual needs.
I do not see how closing Bateman, in particular, home of the most needy, and apparently an international success story, is attuned to individual needs.
I sensed from some trustee comments, that they take low utilization schools as somehow deficient in their service to students. To me this signifies the trustees are deliberately blind to the fact of Hayden causing the utilization crisis they are in, and that staff and the Board didn’t think about this at all when Hayden was planned and built.
And for sure, they aren’t going to tell anyone about that now.
3. A very notable exchange on the central problem causing the crisis, and the continued rigid and closed approach of the Director is as follows:
“A. Collard provided her perspective on the transportation issues at Hayden. She
also spoke to catchment area for Robert Bateman High School, suggesting
expanding the area to include more than Frontenac Public School. D. Renzella
and S. Miller spoke to the existing catchment area and feeder schools that are
11 directed to Robert Bateman High School. S. Miller commented on the impact of
reversing decisions made by previous Boards of Trustees, specifically redirecting
students or changing catchment areas to move approximately 200 students from
Nelson High School to Robert Bateman High School, and/or moving students from
the Orchard community from Dr. Frank J. Hayden to Robert Bateman. He
commented this does little more than shuffle the deck, and does not address the
underlying issue. Currently five of the six Burlington secondary schools have low
enrolments; boundary changes as described would perpetuate the issue and may
result with all six of the schools underutilized”.
I find that this personifies the Board created source of the crisis and conflict stemming from their alternative reality explanation of what caused it, and continues it.
Again, he ignores that building Hayden caused the surplus seats, the utilization issue, and any program issues that are asserted to result.
The Directors view is, that’s a mistake, but too bad, so the best he can offer is to sweep this accountability under the rug in the name of, “we can’t just shuffle the deck”, and because, as he said to me, it’s too political for him to handle.
Then the Director reverses this political abstention by telling the trustees that reversing decisions made by previous boards, to change boundaries/catchments, feeders, program locations, and other student shifting, is somehow problematic, and he cautions against it.
I repeat again, this is exactly how all the students in Burlington were reallocated, or shuffled like a deck, to fill Hayden to gross overflowing, with no current plan to do anything about that, whatever the consequences.
I don’t see anything wrong with underutilization – gross overutilization at Hayden seems to be okay with the Board and Director.
Shuffling the deck can work if it’s tried, because the underlying issue to everyone I know is that the closing of schools he recommends is a crisis for Burlington schools, and he offers nothing else.
So the Director, in my opinion, is getting subtly but frankly political in advising trustees that this power, which is a key tool in their kit, should not be used as an option to alleviate the crisis, and stop the conflict.
In other words, don’t solve the crisis by doing what others before you did to cause it.
That would recognize and acknowledge it happened, by digging up the truth.
If the Director and trustees want to be inflexible and intransigent, it will be impossible to get enhanced public confidence again.
I suggest that if schools are closed with no accountability for how it was caused and done, the conflict will not end.
Those who are rigid and closed will succeed only in isolating themselves.
Board credibility depends on coming clean and being contrite.
It will not come from actions by some Trustees congratulating the Board and Trustees for “due diligence”, or defensively mentioning that some people emailed support for the recommendations.
Conclusion
This delegation turned into another long one for at least two reasons.
First, the end of the PAR is near, as are whatever decisions trustees are going to make. So this is my last chance to communicate with you before this process comes to a close.
Second, my delegation reflects all the pent up frustration, and conflict-induced outrage, that I have seen in many others, and experienced myself, in this PAR process, and in interacting with an unresponsive, but one-time to me, frankly manipulative, Board staff and Director.
So you are again, as the elected and accountable decision-making body, justifiably on the receiving end of my analysis and opinion.
My final advice to you today is the following.
In your decisions to be made, Trustees are ill-advised to follow recommendations from people who have consistently been wrong about, well, everything. That’s a natural consequence of the redefinition of truth. The whole truth always wants to get out into the light.
And most of all troubling, this is by design from the start.
 By Pepper Parr
June 5th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Right from the very beginning Ward 5 Halton District School Board trustee Amy Collard was paying very close attention to what was being said about high school closures in Burlington. While the Robert Bateman high school was not recommended for closure by the Director of Education in his initial report, Collard was acutely aware that its distance from Nelson high school – less than 2km to the west – made it a closure possibility.
 Bateman principal Mark Duley could not have know he was going to have to sound an alarm and tell parents that there school was at risk. Dudley was using a fire alarm during a student cook off against Burlington fire fighters The Bateman parents didn’t have their ears to the ground but Principal Mark Duley knew his school was vulnerable.
Because they didn’t feel at risk – the Bateman parents did next to nothing as the Program Accommodation Review Committee wound its way through the seven meetings they held. There were exceptions: Sharon Picken and Lisa Bull, the Bateman members of the PARC, worked very hard to get the Bateman story out. They didn’t realize Bateman was going to end up on the PARC list of schools that could be considered for closure until the third PARC meeting when Bateman was added to the numerous options that were before the PARC.
When the Director of Education revised his initial recommendation and took Central high school off the list and added Bateman, a community that was not ready for the fight of their lives had to pull together. Unfortunately, the Bateman community turned on the Central high school people and accused them of “throwing Bateman under the bus” when what they needed to do was get their story out.
 The PARC met on seven occasions and turned out to be a lot more deliberative than Board staff expected. Two parents from each high school served the community very well. With the PAR committee disbanded the trustees got to hear the delegations – there were 51 of them delivered over two long evening sessions. The Bateman story was very effectively told – what no one could tell for certain was – were the trustees listening; more importantly were they hearing?
 A single parent, deaf, mother of two using sign language to communicate. Her daughter, a severally disabled child takes part in the Community Pathways Program at Bateman high school. Each delegation had five minutes to tell their story and an additional five minutes for the trustees to ask questions – there just weren’t that many really good questions from the trustees.
The public learned Bateman had an auto body paint shop that was close to world class – the equipment had been donated by Toyota; students from that program had gone on to win competitions on the other side of the world.
There was a welding program that was getting excellent reviews and a culinary program that was very popular. The biggest plus was the Community Pathways Program (CPP) that educated, nurtured and cared for exceptionally vulnerable students.
During the delegations there was a single parent who was deaf and used sign language to communicate with her daughter who was unable to control her bodily functions – but her mind seemed to be sharp. Watching the delegation was a heart wrenching experience. There were other parents with children in the Community Pathways Programs (CPP) who delegated very effectively,
Other than the parents of these children and other students at the high school few knew they were there. It was a truly amazing delegation to watch.
 Diane Miller, a Pearson high school parent, reminds trustees of the Board’s purpose. Denise Davy, a skilled advocate brought her experience to the fight – and it was a fight. She got decent CHCH television coverage and delegated very effectively at city hall as well.
But nothing changed.
The response from the Board staff was that these were all programs that could be replicated at Nelson high school where much of the Bateman program was headed if Bateman was closed in 2019
The auto body paint shop – the one at Nelson would be even better; welding – same thing – the Board staff told anyone who asked that the move would give the Board a chance to upgrade everything. They were a little weak on the details.
The transformation from Bateman to Nelson – not a problem – every time the Board staff did a transformation they got better at it, they said.
It was a trust issue and the public, at least for those who were involved in the school closing issue, just did not believe senior staff or the Director of Education.
Board staff seemed blissfully unaware of the depth of that distrust. There were parents who went over the top emotionally – they were the exceptions.
There were also some solid, fact filled delegations that pointed up serious flaws in the way the Board staff had created catchment area boundaries and the selection of the feeder schools.
The Board Planning department seemed prepared to give out whatever information they felt would serve their immediate purpose – then later give significantly different information to an almost identical question.
It struck many as a level of manipulation designed to give the Board staff what they wanted rather than what was best for the community. The Board staff philosophy seemed to be larger high schools offered better program opportunities for students. Much of the evidence from the Board’s research didn’t support that contention.
 Ward 4 trustee Amy Collard held Director of Education Stuart Miller\s feet to the flames and didn’t give an inch with her persistent questioning during the Board information session. When the Director’s second recommendation came out with Bateman on the list of schools to be closed, the activists at Bateman accused the Central parents of throwing them under the bus and things got very nasty.
The issue was now before the trustees and Amy Collard was now able to do what she had been wanting to do – get some ideas on the table and find the solutions that would prevent the closing of a school.
There was a public hungry for information but there wasn’t much the trustees could do up to this point.
They had created a Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) then they had to stand back and let that committee do its work.
Collard, along with all the other trustees, had to sit on their hands, while two parents from each of the seven high schools discussed the options that were before them and began narrowing a long list down to a short manageable list.
The PARC did a lot more than Board staff expected – while they didn’t disband with a consensus they did narrow down the options – from the 30 they were given, to which they added a dozen or so – got narrowed down to five.
The surprise for the people at Bateman was that they were now on the list of schools that were being considered for closure.
When the PARC came to an end it was time for the public to delegate. There were 51 of those heard over two public meetings.
For the first time the public got a sense of what Bateman was really all about. The depth and significance of their programs had not been discussed openly. The parents with children in the school knew the story – the public hadn’t heard it in so much detail.
Bateman had a superb story that wasn’t told until public delegations were heard; by that time they were fighting an uphill battle.
 Rory Nisan on the left exchanging contact information with George Ward, a parent who was active when Lester B. Pearson was created as a community school – an experiment that worked but which the current school board administrative leadership does not appear to want to continue, Lester B. Pearson had a story as well– about how they had been stiffed by their Board with hardly a word from the trustees and less than a peep from the ward trustee.
Pearson had had the bulk of its feeder school taken away from them and given to Hayden high school where the overcapacity was approaching the 140% level.
The delegations ranged from some rather silly ideas to emotive pleas from parents to not close “their” school. There were also a number of very good delegations – excellent as a matter of fact.
Each of the trustees reacted differently to the delegations – some had strong relationships with the schools they were responsible for and they worked their connections. Others clearly didn’t understand what their job was and others failed to reach their potential as trustees.
The public isn’t at all aware of how hard these women work. While they grapple with a very significant closing schools decision, they are working their way through the budget – the school board is the biggest employer in the Region.
They meet weekly, which we don’t see at the municipal level. They are for the most part diligent and struggling to fully understand the longer term impact of what they decide to do on the June 7th.
 Hayden High, Burlington’s newest high school built as part of a complex that includes a Recreational Centre and a public library with a skate park right across the street. It was a decision to create the Hayden high school in Alton made in 2008 that started a series of events that put the Board of Education in the position it is in now.
To add to the really messy situation is the way the Board of Education communicates with its public. Director of Education Stuart Miller has been very direct and said on more than one occasion that the Board doesn’t do a very good job at communicating with the public.
Add to that some parents whose emotions got the better of them and made statements that were just not true.
It has been a very difficult story to cover
 Trustee Amy Collard. Collard who has more Board experience than the other three Burlington trustees, has been very proactive in looking for solutions. She hasn’t always gotten the attention many of her ideas deserve but that hasn’t deterred her in the least,
Following the delegations was an “information” meeting of the Board during which Staff set out to defend the recommendation that the Director had presented the trustees.
Collard was the first person to put a question to Director Miller when the information session started – which he basically said he wasn’t going to answer.
Miller was surprised and caught off guard – he was expecting to be able to explain his decision and position now that the PARC had done its job and the trustees had heard all the delegations.
Miller was there to defend his recommendation which Collard wasn’t buying. Each trustee had many opportunities to ask questions of the Director’ recommendation and to pepper him with questions based on the material that came out of the PARC and the 51 delegations.
How did they do? They asked a lot of questions and Miller along with his Planning manager Dom Renzalla and PARC Chair Scott Podrebrac handled them reasonably well.
The “information” session went much longer than many expected – they were still at it when the Chair chose to recess the meeting for a week – and come back at it again.
During each of these session Collard kept hammering away at what could and should be done with Bateman.
The senior Board staff kept giving the trustees smooth assurances that the transition from what is in place now to what they will end up will go just fine.
A number of the trustees weren’t buying that line.
 Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facilities, explaining why much of the data he provided kept changing. Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facilities was already measuring Nelson for the influx it was going to experience with the number of programs that would be transferred from Bateman to Nelson in 2019.
Collard’s objective is to keep the Robert Bateman high school open – and she has put two possibilities on the table.
1) Develop a partnership between Bateman and Nelson
Students from both schools could attend classes at either school. This would increase the breadth of program offered to all students.
Students in Essential, Community Pathways and
International Baccalaureate programs would continue at Bateman without disruption.
The commercial grade kitchen facilities at Bateman would continue to be viable.
Centennial Swimming Pool would be accessible to all students at both schools.
The auditorium and stadium at Nelson would be accessible to all students at both schools.
The OYAP and SHSM programs offered at each school would be available to students at both schools.
Collard said the operationalization of this idea would need to be determined. Her preliminary thoughts as to how it might be accomplished included:
Each school continuing to offer the full suite of required courses – as well as the specialized programs that are already in place – to the students in their current catchment area. Students wishing to participate in courses offered at the alternate campus could decide to take their entire course load or half of their course load (morning or afternoon) for that semester at that campus. Regional programs would continue to be offered at their current locations.
 Centennial Pool, which is attached to Bateman high school will become a bit of an orphan if the high school is closed. Each school might offer specific courses – for example Students in Grade 9 regular English program could have Physical and Health Education and French at Bateman in the morning periods and Math and English at Nelson in the afternoon periods. This would give all Grade 9 English program students at both schools access to Centennial pool for their Physical and Health Education program.
Shuttle bus – it is about a 20-30 minute walk between Bateman and Nelson, so they may want to provide a shuttle service between the two schools.
Collard argues that this approach increases equity of access to program for all students at Bateman and Nelson and it increases equity of access to facilities, including the Commercial Grade Kitchen, Automotive and Welding Shops, Auditorium, Greenhouse for all students at Bateman and Nelson. It also does away with the emotionally difficult transitions for students in Essential or Community Pathways Programs
 Bateman International Baccalaureate students delegating before Board trustees This approach also eliminates the need to move the International Baccalaureate Program from Bateman to Central high school – problem with that is Central needed those IBL students to get its enrollment numbers up – and – the IBL has a certain cachet to it that Central would like to acquire.
Collard pointed out the her suggestion reduce renovation costs at Nelson which were set at $12 million. The suggestion preserves the ability to maintain the YMCA Daycare at Bateman and ensures the viability of Centennial Pool and increases access to extracurriculars for all students.
Collard does concede that the suggestions does require some creative logistical efforts – especially in the first year of implementation
Transportation might be required to ensure students can attend classes at both campuses – these costs might be mitigated since students living in the eastern area of the Bateman catchment (who would be redirected to Nelson if Bateman were to close) would not require transportation to Nelson.
Creating community partnerships:
Collard also saw some significant opportunities for real Community Partnerships. The unique specializations offered at Bateman have considerable community appeal. The Commercial Grade Kitchen at Bateman could be used in a partnership with the Halton Multicultural Council (HMC) to help newcomers to Canada learn hospitality skills that can lead to gainful employment. Collard had a conversation with the Executive Director at HMC who happen to be seeking a space in which to provide this type of program.
Bateman offers skilled trades that aren’t currently available at The Centre for Skills and Development; specifically automotive and culinary. A partnership with The Centre could be beneficial to the community.
Collard has done what parents have a right to expect from their Board of Education trustees. She has been both proactive and innovative. One cannot say as much for the ward 4 trustee. The high school in that ward, Lester B. Pearson, has gotten more support from the city Councillor who has zero clout on the high school closing issue.
Collard is not a popular trustee. She doesn’t expect to win a popularity contest; she wants to do the job she was elected to do. She was acclaimed as the ward trustee during the past two municipal elections. She served one session as vice chair of the Board and has sought the votes of her peers to serve as Chair – that has not been forthcoming.
Collard is abrupt, she is direct. She tends not to get into much of the chit chat with the other trustees.
But – and this is important – she is the only trustee who has put a solution, an alternative, on the table. Her fellow trustees may not follow her lead – but they can and should give her ideas full debate and consideration. If they cannot accept her approach they might want to look at option 7 – don’t close any of the schools – until there has been a more fulsome and through debate.
Denise Davy made a very significant point when she noted that the city of Burlington spent more time and debate on deciding where to put the Freeman Station than the school board has spent on closing two high schools
 By Staff
May 22nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Jeremy Skinner, a Ward 5 resident with three students enrolled at Robert Bateman delegated to the Halton District school Board trustees and set out before them what his view of the issue before them was: “The challenge before us is how to maintain student equity in the delivery of programs and opportunities when student enrollments change.”
 Jeremy Skinner “I believe that the question before us is whether we have sufficient capacity amongst MM Robinson and Dr. Frank J. Hayden to permit the closure of Lester B. Pearson and whether we have sufficient capacity below the QEW to close Robert Bateman?”
Skinner said he felt “obligated to suggest that we “punt” by partitioning some or all remaining Secondary Schools to include students in Grade 7 and 8 like Aldershot and Burlington Central. This will have a positive affect on each Secondary School’s utilization rate which will buy us sufficient time to validate what our ultimate Elementary & Secondary School Network should look like and how best to transition to it.”
The benefits doing this include:
protects capital and staff investments which have already been made at Robert Bateman and Lester B Pearson.
provides flexibility in the board’s capacity response to spikes in future enrollments in Burlington North by enabling three Secondary Schools to respond.
Benefits Grade 7 & 8 students through exposure to a wider range of programs and opportunities such as the technical trades at an earlier grade.
Implications:
Current elementary school catchment boundaries will need to be reassessed and redrawn as required.
Current secondary school catchment boundaries will need to be reassessed and redrawn as required.
Elementary schools may result in underutilization and thus may have to close.
Skinner added that “In the case of Lester B Pearson, I believe that the short-term risk for closure is too high because too much is dependent upon redirecting student enrollments associated with Dr. Frank J. Hayden to other Burlington-North Secondary Schools. I believe that this risk could be mitigated through Trustee led community discussions to seek agreements for student enrollment to Burlington-North Secondary Schools.”
Skinner then enlarged his field of view and said: “We need to consider the City of Burlington’s revised Official Plan, currently in draft, which identifies 8 major areas of intensification. They are:
 The city’s latest approach to directing growth. the Downtown Core and related Downtown Mobility Hub;
Uptown Centre located at Appleby and Upper-Middle Road;
Mobility Hubs which surround the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO stations;
The Fairview St. Corridor, and
Most major plazas
The intent is to provide for mixed-use of residential, retail and commercial development of these lands. This will likely take the form of:
relocating the bulk of ground level parking underground or into multilevel purpose built parking towers;
locating retail and/or commercial on the ground and lower floors which comprise the podium of mid-height and high-height residential buildings; and
integrating townhomes and/or stacked townhomes.
An illustration as to what is envisioned, can be found on the east side of Appleby Line from Corporate Dr. to Iron Stone Drive, just below Upper-Middle Rd. Please note that most of these areas of intensification are in South-Burlington. Regardless as to location, they must be considered in future Long Term Program Accommodation (LTPA) plans.
 Appleby Line from Corporate Dr. to Iron Stone Drive, just below Upper-Middle Rd Given the information above, Skinner “questions as to whether we will have sufficient capacity in South Burlington in the longer term to warrant the closure of Robert Bateman which is best positioned to serve the proposed Appleby GO Mobility Centre.
He suggests “Partitioning Secondary Schools permits us to restore some of the Secondary School catchments back to what they were prior to the erection of Frank J. Hayden which covers North-East Burlington. Then we would adjust each Secondary School catchment to accommodate our best forecast of student enrollments from new residential neighbourhoods.
 Should the Boar of Trustees go along with what the Director of Education has recommended Bateman high school would be closed, demolished and the programs they deliver would be distributed to other high schools. “Regardless as to which, if any, Burlington Secondary Schools are to close, I believe we are dependent upon HDSB to ensure that current students who are most vulnerable to change and those who seek a career based upon Technical Trade Skills.
“Accommodation of these students and their programs will require significant investments to any Secondary School which is to receive them.
 Many of the programs currently offered at Bateman high school would be transferred to Nelson high school. New facilities would have to be built – at a cost of $12 million “I seek clarification for the statement made that “ Nelson will need to add technical shops and special need facilities to accommodate students transitioning from Robert Bateman.”
Skinner concedes that “that we have some uncomfortable decisions to make. The decision to even contemplate the closure of one or more secondary schools has a significant impact to the community fabric.”
 By Staff
May 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The provincial government announced today the release of four significant reports that will impact the lives of everyone within the provinces border.
They are referred to as Land Use Plans.
 Does the province still want to ram a road through the Escarpment? They are changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan
The Golden Horseshoe plan and the Niagara Escarpment plans are the ones that impact on Burlingtonians are the latest step in the government’s reform of Ontario’s land use planning system.
The government’s announcement has these four documents solving every problem known to man – and given that they are heading into an election in 2018 they will put a significant spin on this.
 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The four plans work together to:
Build compact, complete communities with a diverse range of housing options that better connect transit to where people live and work
Retain and attract jobs
Support a thriving and productive agri-food sector
Strengthen protections for our natural heritage and water resource systems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Provide public open spaces for recreation and enjoyment
Help municipalities better prepare to minimize the negative impacts from a changing climate, such as more frequent and intense storms and flooding.
These updated plans, said the provincial government, will help ensure growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe that is sustainable by making more efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure to reduce sprawl, protect farmland, water and natural resources, and promote better-designed communities that support a high quality of life for everyone living in the region.
 Greenbelt Plan “Building complete communities and protecting the Greenbelt is part of the government’s plan to create jobs, grow our economy and help people in their everyday lives.
“The Greater Golden Horseshoe is forecasted to grow by approximately 4 million people over the next 25 years and will be home to more than 13.5 million people, working in 6.3 million jobs by 2041.
“The updated plans build on the Provincial Policy Statement to establish a unique land-use planning framework for the GGH that supports complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment and social equity.
“Other reforms to the land use planning system include releasing an updated 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, reforming the Planning Act and Development Charges Act through the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act and proposed reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board.
There are a lot of changes taking place and people with very significant interests are deeply involved. The objective is to ensure that the public voice is clearly hard.
By Pepper Parr
May 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
With two evenings of delegations behind them the 11 trustees began their own deliberations and Amy Collard headed straight for the recommendations that were put forward by Stuart Miller, Director of Education who was a bit taken aback – he thought he was there to defend his report and here was a trustee wanting to change it before the meeting had hardly started.
Trustee Amy Collard was not happy – Director of Education Stuart Miller was not all that interested in answering her first barrage of questions – he anted to defend his report. If looks could kill! It was that kind of a night – one that began at 7:00 pm and adjourned at 11:15 after agreeing that it wasn’t going to be an adjournment but rather a recess until May 24th.
Trustee Danielli had had more than enough, Collard said she could go until 6:00 am if she had to.
There was a point in this process where the recommendation the Director put forward to close Bateman and Pearson high schools had momentum; that is no longer the case.
That doesn’t mean what Miller recommended is lost – but these trustees are asking some hard questions and they want answers.
Wednesday evening they did engage the six delegations that were heard and they had a lot of questions.
One point that was made clearer – a decision to close a school does not mean that it gets sold. In order to sell a school there has to be a vote to declare it surplus – then it can be sold. While Miller didn’t spend a lot of time on that point he did say that Boards have been known to keep a school closed but as part of the asset inventory.
That might be the angle the trustees decide they can live with.
 Pearson PARC members Cheryl DeLught and Steve Armstrong were not on the demonstration line but they were very much in the public gallery Wednesday night. Armstrong has not given up on saving Pearson. Trustee Danielli asked Planning Manager Dom Renzella about the recently released 2016 Statics Canada numbers and he said that the Board doesn’t pay much attention to that data because it is a look at what has taken place – his concern was what was going to take place.
Later in the evening Renzella used Statistics Canada to support a decision made.
The trustees are finding the going quite heavy but they are clearly in for the long hall and are going to make a decision based on what they heard from the delegations and how the Director and his team of Superintendents answers the questions.
Early in this process – back in October, Bateman was a school that was not being considered for closure. That changed and the public began to see and hear the Bateman story that was unknown to most people except those directly involved.
Their was concern about how any transition might take place if the Bateman high school was closed. The trustees were told that the Board has gotten very good at transitioning students and they would do an even better job if they had to move vulnerable people from Bateman to Nelson.
This decision on school closing is far from a slam dunk – it is still very fluid.
 There was a rally outside the Board offices – bigger this time than anything else before it – maybe it was the warmer weather. This time it was just the Bateman parents; the Central parents won their case and they are staying right off the radar screen.
PARC member Marianne Meed Ward, also city council member for ward 2 put in an appearance.
Much more to report on.
 By Staff
May 16, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Yesterday City Council approved the 2017 Tax Levy Bylaw that allows the Finance department to end you a tax bill on with payment dates of June 21 and Sept. 21, 2017.
Highlights of the budget which was approved in January include:
• The 2017 budget delivers a base budget increase that continues to invest in existing services and reflects the objectives of the city’s long-term financial plan.
• The budget maintains the $4.8 million annual contribution toward the Joseph Brant Hospital reserve fund to meet the city’s $60 million commitment to the redevelopment project.
• This budget continues City Council’s commitment to a dedicated annual tax increase to address infrastructure renewal based on the city’s Asset Management Plan.
• The city’s approved operating budget of $238 million for 2017 provides a wide range of services and programs, including the maintenance of roads, community facilities, fire protection, parks and transit.
 Tax chart – breaks out what the city spends and what it collects for other levels of government. Additional service investments for 2017 include:
$254, 000 for maintaining the urban tree canopy
$200, 000 for the maintenance of sports fields
$80,000 in enhancements to washrooms in waterfront parks
$30,000 to support ongoing community events.
The budget is made up of two parts –
Capital budget
Operating budget
The city provides an infographic setting out where those tax dollars are spent.
By Staff
May 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There were 24 people nominated with eight of them named the city’s BEST in different categories.
The awards were presented at an event at the Royal Botanical Gardens – a positive shift in venue for the event.
Burlington’s Best Awards are managed by a citizen’s committee established in 1965 with the mandate of recognizing Burlington residents who bring honour to the city and make a difference in the community.
The Burlington’s Best categories include:
• Heritage Award
• Community Service Award
• Environmental Award
• Arts Person of the Year
• Accessibility Award
• Junior Citizen of the Year
• Senior Person of the Year
• Citizen of the Year
The Citizen of the Year Award is given to a person whose volunteer activity has made a significant and sustained contribution to the vibrancy and wellbeing of the Burlington community.
 Dorothy Borovich: 2016 Citizen of the Year Dorothy Borovich has been a community builder for more than 15 years. She co-founded Youthfest, an initiative that brought together community not-for-profit agencies, city, business and youth leaders to promote youth philanthropy and engage in volunteerism.
Borovich encouraged youth to take on community involvement and volunteering as a lifestyle in order to gain a sense of belonging. Through her fundraising efforts, a permanent endowment fund with the Burlington Community Foundation was established and continues to assist youth in their community endeavours. Borovich also founded the Crystal Ball, a significant source of annual funding for Joseph Brant Hospital, and the Healthy Reflections event which raises funds to assist women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Borovich is described as an inspiring leader; her commitment and passion has made Burlington a better city.
The Heritage Award went to Jim Clemens. He is no longer a Burlington resident but the city owes him a huge debt of gratitude for heading up the Citizen Heritage Advisory committee that solved the problems and did what the city had not been able to do.
 Jim Clemens given the 2016 Heritage Award. The award is sponsored by Heritage Burlington, a City of Burlington citizen advisory committee made up of 14 volunteers who provide advice to City Council on issues related to the conservation of Burlington’s cultural heritage.
The award goes to an individual who has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the preservation of Burlington’s heritage, and has volunteered his or her time to support the preservation of Burlington’s heritage.
Clemens has been a leader and supporter of heritage and culture in Burlington for many years. He has a deep knowledge of the issues and legalities that influence Burlington’s capacity to preserve its heritage. As a past member and Chair of Heritage Burlington, he was instrumental in the development of the document “A New Approach for Conserving Burlington’s Heritage” resulting in the implementation of the Burlington Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program. Through his work with the Burlington Historical Society and Heritage Burlington, Jim has demonstrated an ongoing commitment and dedication to maintaining Burlington’s heritage for future generations.
The Community Service Award, sponsored by COGECO, is given to an individual or group whose volunteer activity has contributed to the betterment of the Burlington community.
 Marion Goard given the 2016 Community Service Award. Marion Goard was chosen for this award – she believes a better community is the responsibility of every individual and she strives to find ways to contribute to Burlington. She is the co-founder of 100 Women Who Care Burlington, an organization of 100 women who donate $100 four times a year to four different charities – $10,000 per charity.
The Environmental Award is sponsored by Walker Environmental Group, a leading waste management company that develops solutions for environmental challenges.
Kale Black was chosen for this award.
 Kale Black, upper right given the Environmental Award for 2016. He is described as a shining example of how one person can truly make a difference. His journey to champion the environment began while attending Aldershot High School and since then, he has dedicated almost nine years of his life striving to create a better planet and benefit the community.
Black has hand-sorted more waste at Burlington festivals and events than any other individual in the city and his active participation and team leadership at 44 community events has resulted in the diversion of 61 tonnes of waste from the landfill. Black is best known in the community for his extensive contributions to inspiring and engaging local youth to grow up green and has taught fun-filled, educational workshops to 7000 Burlington children. Black is an environmental and community champion who actively leads and serves as a steward for our environment and the youth of Burlington.
His hard work and dedication to environmental initiatives in Burlington, including protecting the rural environment and valuable green space, has touched many lives. Black has pushed for environmentally sustainable policy and decision-making and has led the BurlingtonGreen team to grow as an effective, impactful organization through various programs, services and advocacy campaigns.
The Arts Person of the Year Award, known as the K.W. Irmisch Award, went to Margaret Lindsay Holton, a woman who has made a significant contribution to the arts and as an activist she has stood up and spoken out about environmental issues and where the city was getting it wrong.
This is a woman who does not want to understand what no means.
It is interesting to note that two people who have made significant contributions at the cultural level have been recognized. Kudos to the selection committee for seeing things through
 Margaret Lindsay Holton: 2016 Arts Person of the Year Holton is a well-known Burlington born artist and activist who has made significant contributions to the community. Her 25 minute short film called “The Frozen Goose” had a cast made up of local cast and crew – keeping the production “grassroots” and grounded in this area. Accessibility Award
The Accessibility Award went to the Tetra Society, an organization that recruits skilled volunteers to create customized assistive devices for people with physical disabilities and enhances the health and quality of life for thousands of people with disabilities.
 A chair being built by the Tetra Society They design and build a wide variety of “gizmos” such as communication adaptations, eating and drinking utensils and educational and recreational aides for people of all ages and abilities. The Tetra Society is a hidden hero in the Burlington community that is invaluable in enriching the lives of others.
Mehr Mahmood founded Youthfest in 2002 and was named the Junior Citizen of the Year last night. They avidly promote the importance of youth in our community; developing youth responsibility and action in the community by connecting youth to meaningful volunteer opportunities and available supportive service. The winner receives a $500 bursary, courtesy of the Bank of Montreal, which has been a leading and supportive partner since the inception of Youthfest.
The award is given to a high school student, 18 years of age or younger, who has made a significant contribution to the Burlington community.
 Mehr Mahmood, on the right with Burlington MP Karina Gould. Mehr has made significant contributions to the Burlington community through her volunteer work as a volunteer. She has contributed her time, energy and talents to many organizations including Burlington Public Library, 3 Things for Burlington, Halton Mosque and the Compassion Society. Mehr has been an inspiration and natural leader on the Library’s Teen Advisory Board in the development of a program called Fusion, which brings teen volunteers and teens with developmental disabilities together.
Mehr a compassionate young woman and is dedicated to growing acceptance and inclusivity in our community.
Dave Page was named the Senior Person of the Year Award that is given to a Burlington resident aged 55 years or older who has advocated on behalf of seniors and/or made a significant contribution to the Burlington community.
 Dave Page: 2016 Senior Person of the Year Page has been an active volunteer with the Age Friendly Housing Committee for more than five years and demonstrates his passion for the need for affordable, accessible and safe housing for older adults living in Burlington.
He played a vital role in the development of the Halton HomeShare Toolkit, a guide to support older adults to stay in their home and share it with a home seeker who can help with household responsibilities.
In addition, Page is responsible for the creation of a conversation circle where Halton Multicultural Council’s newcomers and refugee groups can practice their English speaking skills. Burlington is richer for having a man like Page who silently goes about supporting the health and well-being of the community through his volunteer activities.
 By Staff
May 4th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The School Board trustees are going to get an earful from Tom Muir when he addresses them sometime next week – which assumes that Muir will be allowed to delegate.
Chair Kelly Amos asked each person who wanted to delegate to provide a 250 word outline. Muir gave her 1594 words.
Here is what Muir sent the Chair who now has to decide if what Muir wants to say meets the criteria for selection, which is: ” to have a “varied perspective” of delegations”
Notes for a Delegation to HDSB on Burlington PAR. May 2017
I note that 5 minutes to delegate limits the scope of the perspective and the topics that can be covered. My presentation will follow these notes suitably reorganized to fit the time allotted.
Summary
The perspective of my delegation will be an overview of the context of the PAR, and provide analysis of various aspects and criteria of the PAR planning data basis, recommendations, and options available to the Board.
 Four of the eleven school board trustees listen carefully at a public meeting. I will cover points related to planning, financials, fiscal, risk, future planning outlooks and needs, demonstrated student benefits from enhanced academic offerings as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic and money effects looked at closely with prudence, and the expressed views of the overall school community.
I will discuss the roots of the criteria and justification of the PAR as results of Board planning decisions in LTAPs, future enrollment projections, and so-called “business plans” done in the period 2008 to 2013, and now currently.
I will discuss the origins and makeup of the utilization justification criteria of the PAR.
I will also consider data on financial and fiscal impacts of options to deal with this situation.
Another topic is the increased and better program selection that constitutes the second criteria for having the PAR.
Other points cover how school closures reflect what the community and students have expressed as their wants.
Concluding points cover summary of perspective and points on the data and evidence offered in terms of Trustee responsibility and decision options on schools.
Presentation Outline.
I did not see anything in writing describing what the Board and Ministry had in mind about what a business case is, or what the thinking behind the business case was, as contained in the Capital Priorities Template sent to the Ministry in 2009. This seems to be the way business is done. Either there’s nothing in words, or it’s not available publically.
 Hayden high school – Muir questions why it was built. My first point is that Hayden was built with no seeming regard or public disclosure for the consequences that were built right into the plan from the start – surplus seats in the other Burlington high schools, and Hayden bursting at the seams. Data show this was done by the Board in their planning, boundary and feeder changes, and construction.
In the 2009 plan, submitted to the Ministry, it showed Hayden overflowing with students within 3 years of opening, and continuing this trend. In planned consequences, back in 2009, MM Robinson utilization was planned to decline, by 2022, from 93.7% to 53.4%, and Bateman to decline from 99.2% to 43.9%, by 2018/19. Nelson declined from 108.7% to 95.6%. Most of these declines coincided with Hayden’s projected opening in 2010. By 2022, 1567 students were in these declines, many transferred to Hayden.
The more recent data, shown by the Board, at the November PAR public meeting, and titled in a slide as, “Current Situation: Low Utilization”, paints an even worse picture of what has been done by the Board and only made public in this PAR. This data clearly shows Hayden continuously overfilled grossly with students transferred largely from the other schools, as part of the plan. And this is being facilitated with portables, part of the plan too.
From no students on 2010, Hayden goes to 129% UTG in 2016, and projected at 159% in 2020 and 141% in 2025. At the same time, the other schools continue the planned decline, but now there are 4 schools that are in that situation, not just the 2 schools identified in the 2009 plan, as I noted above. This data is as follows;
– From 112% OTG in 2010, Pearson declines to 61% in 2016, and projected to 55% in 2020, and 50% in 2025.
– From 87% OTG in 2010, Robinson declines to 53% in 2016, and projected to 47% in 2020, and 46% in 2025.
– From 107% OTG in 2010, Nelson declines to 75% in 2016, and projected to 83% in 2020, and 79% in 2025.
– From 95% OTG in 2010, Bateman declines to 59% in 2016, and projected to 55% in 2020, and 50% in 2025.
Looking at the option 23e, in Miller, and the overall plan for Hayden from 2009, and you can see that according to that option outline, Robinson is also overfull by 2020, as Hayden is now to the end of the planning horizon.
So why are we closing schools?
This is the actual data showing how building Hayden created new seats that then became surplus seats for the rest of Burlington schools. We now have a situation of overutilization and underutilization, the main cause of which is building Hayden and then over-utilizing it using boundary, feeder, and program policies.
This is the cause of the “Current Situation – Low Utilization, but this is being ignored and never mentioned, despite being obvious in the data as consequential to the year Hayden was opened.
I will also consider data on financial and fiscal impacts of options to deal with this situation.
The Ministry is not telling the Board to close schools – it’s our call how we spend that part of the money they give us for accommodation costs – keeping all buildings open. That’s a little more than $100 million of a $700 million total budget for 2015/16.
 Director of Education Stuart Miller preparing to speak to parents at Central high school. According to Miller’s report, it costs $564,000/yr to operate Pearson, and $764,000/yr for Bateman. Closing these 2 schools saves only about $2 million a year, when added busing costs, lost revenues, and staff reduction cost savings, are all accounted for (See Miller; busing costs noted there are incorrect – the report says 226, 286, and 96 more students bused, but only costs the 96). Transportation is a concern as student busing increases, and Hayden already has 580 students bused and is the second most costly in Burlington.
Whether schools close or not, all the rest of the Board budget (except admin and transportation) is for instruction, and this nets out to null savings. So closing 2 schools saves only $2 million, but more than $12 million alone is needed to replace Bateman equipment, somewhere else.
Then there is the cost of decommissioning buildings, mothballing, needed ongoing maintenance, what about the pool, day-care, and so many other transition costs that are just ignored.
So what kind of fiscal savings is $2 million out of a $700 million budget (0.003%), to be so concerned about?
And the fact is, the Director’s recommendation calls for the most expensive option of two closures, and this cost is uncertain, likely underestimated, and doesn’t account for planning errors and risk.
Given the provincial Growth Plan saying Halton must grow by 500,000 people by 2041, and the planning enrollment forecasting error and uncertainty, already experienced for Hayden enrollment, this seems to be a reasonable cost to invest in risk management for planning errors. There has been no risk assessment and management done by the Board. Having all our schools open and functioning provides this risk management as a low cost reserve.
The only other maybe money in this fiscal picture is the PODs, from any surplus asset value that may be realized in the future, and that is only a one-time cash-in, partly chewed up by transition and transaction costs. This will not go far for new schools in Burlington.
Another topic is the increased and better program selection that constitutes the second criteria for having the PAR. Since there is no increase in budgets for instruction, more programming cannot come from there, and more generally, there is no information provided by the Board indicating any details of the delivery of this aspect, and only abstract assumptions, but nothing convincing, that larger enrollments allow for this.
The closures impact students negatively for sure, and the impacts on Bateman students affect them in life-altering ways, as special needs students who have been bumped around in the system.
 Parents listen intently to the PARC members as they look at the more than 40 options discussed during the seven meetings held. Other points cover how school closures reflect what the community and students have expressed as their wants. Obviously everyone wants their own neighborhood school kept open. But more generally, when asked for opinions, on two occasions, the public expressed their preference for the Board to spend the money, and implement measures needed, to keep schools open. However, the Board has more or less discounted these results showing public preferences, and it does not appear to have been given any formal consideration.
As it turns out the overall costs of keeping all schools open are a small portion of the Board budgets – savings from closing schools are 0.003% of the Total ($700 M) and less than 0.02% of the more than $100M Accommodation component.
 It all comes own to how the 11 school board trustees vote on June 7th. will they go with the Staff recommendation that Pearson and Bateman be closed or will they decide that none of the schools should be closed at this time. The Trustees do not have to close schools, and it appears that on planning, financial, fiscal, risk, student benefits from significantly enhanced academic offerings that are not documented as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic and money effects looked at closely with prudence, and the overall school community, it makes no sense.
The PAR Policy statement says that; “Decisions that are made by the Board of Trustees are in the context of carrying out its primary responsibilities of fostering student achievement and well-being, and ensuring effective stewardship of school board resources.”
I argue that based on demonstrated benefits to student achievement, and stewardship of school board resources, now and in the foreseeable future, there is no case to close any schools. The trustees have within their authority the means to move boundaries, feeders, and programs in order to undo the skewed enrollment caused by building Hayden without considering the consequences.
Hayden was built and filled with students by transfers from existing schools that can just as easily be undone.
 By Pepper Parr
April 28th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There were about 60 – maybe 70 people gathered around 10 tables. They were a pretty representative bunch; there were the professionals, the practitioners and the volunteers – the people in the trenches.
They were there to talk about poverty – something they want to be able to ensure that by 2026 all residents will have a livable income and as a result have access to opportunities, resources and supports to thrive and to fully participate in an inclusive Halton community.
They have their work cut out for them.
Burlington is a city that will admit that there are some serious pockets of poverty in the city and that something should be done – but social welfare is a Regional responsibility. The longest serving city council member wasn’t prepared to try free transit service for seniors on Monday’s on a trial basis.
He was prepared to let them have discounted bus tickets – but there was a sort of means test to get into that program.
The chatter around the city council horse shoe is about everyone getting in on the purchase of property – you can’t lose in that game. Get a starter property and move up the value ladder.
 Michael Mikulak, Community Food Network Manager Halton Food Council, Leena Sharma Seth, Director, Community Engagement Halton Poverty Roundtable, Colleen Mulholland, President and CEO Burlington Community Foundation, and Brenda Hajdu Executive Director Food for Life. This city council doesn’t really understand or appreciate the eco-system that gets food into the hands of people who just don’t have enough money to pay for the food they need.
With housing prices rising – rents tend to rise as well – and the scarcity of rental properties owned by landlords that have no qualms about jacking up the rent as much as they can and then making life miserable for any tenant who chooses to fight back.
Getting to that 2026 target is a challenge indeed.
Some of the ground work took place at St. Christopher’s United Church where the group gathered under the auspices of the Halton Poverty Roundtable.
Each participant was given a sheet of paper with a number of questions on it. How would you have answered these questions?
How do you define poverty? How should it be measured? Are there data gaps that need to be addressed to help improve our understanding of poverty in Canada?
What will success look like in a Poverty Reduction Strategy? What target(s) should we pick to measure progress?
Which indicators should we use to track progress towards the target(s)?
On which groups should we focus our efforts?
Which Government of Canada programs and policies do you feel are effective at reducing poverty? Are there programs and policies that can be improved? What else could we do?
 Leena Sharma Seth, Director of Community Engagement for the Halton Poverty Roundtable These people were meeting during the week that the provincial government announced that 4,000 people in Ontario would be put on a guaranteed income program for a period of time to see if with an income that they know is going to be there for a period of time – can they rise out of the poverty they have to lie with?
The Gazette wants to follow what Leena Sharma Seth, Director of Community Engagement for the Halton Poverty Round Table does with this group of people.
 By Pepper Parr
April 24th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Mayor opened up the event with a short overview of the changes taking place in the city and how the need to intensify and create an Official Plan that would deliver on the promises made in the Strategic Plan.
The audience of something under 100 people on a very rainy night filled the Lions Hall where people were told that what people enjoy about living downtown is:
1.The Waterfront (29.85%)
2.Restaurants and Cafes (18.62%)
3.Walking (18.11%) …
Research told city planners that the first transportation choice was Walking (37.78%)
The meeting was to have people take part in a Downtown Mobility Hub Visioning Workshop.
Mobility hubs were defined as:
Neighbourhoods within a 10 minute walking distance of major transit stations that will support new residents and jobs in a transit, pedestrian and cycling focused environment.
 With those pieces of data in front of them the audience was asked to use small hand held devices they would record their responses to questions shown on a large screen.
There were interesting with surprising results.
Appreciate that these were ward 2 people for the most part answering questions about the downtown core.
The Planners intend to take this road show into every community that will have a mobility hub. The workshops will see a return visit to each community once the Planners have had a chance to evaluate the data they collect.
The initiative will take about six months to cover each of the four mobility hubs. The next session for the downtown hub is scheduled for June 21st.
 The event was framed as a visioning exercise during which ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward explained that developments pop up at the Planning department and they have to process every application that is filed. “You want to be in charge of that process” said Meed Ward.
 The strong agree support doesn’t appear to align all that well with the opposition to bicycle lanes on New Street.
 No surprises here.  Very mixed views on this question.  Vehicles were not included in the question.  The street names don’t show up on this map – the white box is the mobility hub area.  This view – from what was a ward 2 crowd contrasts with what the Bfast people think. More thinking to be done on transit matters.  Compare this with the question on more affordable housing.  A mixed view here.  This response comes as no surprise. Following the formal presentation the audience was invited to take part in the four information stations where planning staff were on hand to answer questions. The groups that clustered around the information stations were at times intense – in a positive way. They had a lot of questions and the planning staff took a lot of notes.
Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner and Anne McIlroy, the consultant the city has hired to guide this process watched and listened intently.
 All the charts and data set out got very close inspections. There are two parts to this feature article on the visioning exercise. The second part which will follow tomorrow reviews the visuals on the elements of the downtown core and what the planners have to work with.
Open Letter to the Board of Trustees About Closing Pearson High School: A line-by-line refutation of Recommendation 2 of the Director’s Final Report
 By Rory Nisan
April 25th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Dear Trustees of the Halton District School Board,
This has been a long process, now coming to a head with the Director’s Final Report recommending closing Pearson and Bateman high schools. As a Pearson alumnus, I am writing to refute the arguments made for closing Pearson in the Director’s Final Report. I have addressed every argument in Recommendation 2 below.
The Director’s Final Report portion is shown in red bold italics, my comments are in standard type.. I have aimed to present Recommendation 2 in full without any deletions or other changes.
Rationale: Recommendation 2 – Lester B. Pearson High School
“Lester B. Pearson High School has been experiencing a decline in enrolment for several years and that is projected to continue to 2026 and beyond.”
This is an unfair, obtuse characterization of enrollment at Lester B. Pearson High School. The Director’s Final Report fails to mention the reason for this declining enrollment: a reduction in the number of feeder schools for Pearson, in order to prop up Hayden High School, leaving Pearson with only 1.5 feeder schools compared with seven for Hayden. This was not by accident, but a deliberate decision taken by the HDSB when Hayden opened.
One need only observe the change in enrollment since Hayden came online to see how this gutted Pearson’s numbers. Before Hayden opened, Pearson lost only 10 students from 2010-2011 (see Figure 1, from the Director’s Final Report). Furthermore, the change from 2015-2016 is only 11 less students, because the Hayden transition has ended. It is inappropriate to close a school on the basis of a reduction of 11 students year-over-year when there are many options available to boost utilization.
Recommendation 2 of the Director’s Final Report’s is wholly based on “low and declining enrolment” as the basis for closing Pearson, ignoring the fact that the low enrollment is entirely of the HDSB’s own making.
 Figure 1 English Programme enrollment at Pearson as shown in the Director’s Final Report, demonstrating that Pearson would not have an enrollment issue if not for students being sent to Hayden. “Lester B. Pearson High School is also the only school in the Halton District School Board that provides Extended French at the secondary school level. The students in this program begin extended French in Grade 7.”
This is correct but extended French is only one of several one-of-a-kind features of Pearson High School. The co-op nursery is correctly mentioned further below in the Director’s Final Report. The natural surroundings of the forest allow for unique learning opportunities. The third gymnasium increases sport opportunities. Pearson’s lower capacity gives it unique, well-established strengths, such as less bullying, better social bonds, more opportunities to play on a sport team and/or join other competitive clubs.
Indeed, the student survey (contained in the Director’s Final Report) indicated that Pearson ranked #1 for percentage of students who agreed that their teachers knew something about them (e.g. interests, strengths and how they learn best), #1 for having an adult they could connect with, and #2 in participation in extracurricular activities.
It is therefore no surprise that Pearson regularly punches above its weight in the Fraser Institute rankings of secondary schools. Pearson has the second highest average score over the past five years among Burlington public secondary schools. This is not despite its small size; it is because of it.
“The result of this low enrolment is a diminished ability for the school to provide the same breadth and range of programs for the students as other schools in Halton.”
Nobody doubts that Pearson has low enrolment (though its utilization rate is higher than that of M.M. Robinson). However, as explained above, the Director’s Final Report fails to properly explain how this came about.
Equally important is that he has not given the trustees simple solutions to this low enrolment that do not involve closing Pearson. The simple, obvious answer: redesign the catchments and feeder schools to ensure that (a) Pearson has its fair share of students, (b) Hayden, which is bursting at the seams, is brought down to a proper utilization of 90-100 percent, and (c) M.M. Robinson also sees an increase in students, including from Bateman High School should it be closed (though this is not being advocated), or through redistribution that allows students to go to their closest high school. Figure 3 shows the current feeder schools, demonstrating the imbalance that can be easily fixed.
 Figure 3 Feeder schools to the high schools in the north — note the lopsided distribution favouring Hayden while starving Pearson. (There is no figure 2)
“In order to take specific or desired courses, many students have resorted to online offerings.”
The Director’s Final Report contradicts itself here, as it references in an appendix the student survey which indicates that Pearson has the second lowest percentage of students among Burlington public high schools needing to take online offerings, well below the city’s average (see Figure 4).
 Figure 4 – percentage of students taking online courses Regardless, this argument is invalid as there are more than enough students in the north of Burlington to fill Pearson’s hallways and provide more course offerings.
“Second, this situation will be exacerbated as it is expected the number of students attending Lester B. Pearson High School will decrease by an additional 70 students by 2025.”
Once again, this assertion rests on the assumption that Pearson would not be given any more students while Hayden bursts at the seams and M.M. Robinson takes on students from Bateman and the Evergreen and Alton West developments.
Perhaps most worrying for parents and students in North Burlington is that the Director’s Final Report fails to take into account (a) turnover in North Burlington as more baby boomers sell their homes to young families; and (b) that there will be more development in the north than that which is noted in the report: the Adi proposed development is over 600 residential units, and the Valera road development is expected to have 400 residential units. Furthermore, North Burlington has seen a trend of multiple families moving into singly houses, leading to having twice or more the number of high school students per household.
“Another issue occurring as a result of low enrolment is the impact on the students’ pathways. At present, the numbers reflecting Lester B. Pearson High School students’ pathway choices are as follows:
 Figure 5 The Director’s Final Report emphasized low enrollment for applied students in Grade 9, neglecting to mention the reason why enrollment is so low: Grade 9 students being sent to portables in the Hayden parking lot. “Unfortunately the low number of students and staff has prevented the school from providing the same breadth of programming offered in other Halton District School Board schools. This is most evident given the low number of students in applied programming and subsequently the college pathway, resulting in these students having fewer options or little flexibility in selecting courses they can take.
“Schools are required to provide a pathway to graduation for all students. This means the school will have some smaller classes (for example, 11 students in Grade 9 Applied), and in order to be compliant with staffing formulas and provincial mandates, will have some larger classes to offset the smaller numbers. Consequently, not only is the range of course selection not available to students but there is also a greater disparity between class sizes.”
This entire section is based on the false assumption that there aren’t enough students available in North Burlington to bring Pearson back up to better utilization levels. The arguments made above make clear that this is not only possible, but an excellent option for managing overcrowding at Hayden and the new developments, as well as the fast rate of turnover in North Burlington communities.
Again this is likely to be exacerbated as the projections indicate a continued decline in enrollment.
Again, these projections are based on the inaccurate assumption that there aren’t any students available to bring to Pearson. The above statement seeks to create urgency where there is none.
“Lester B. Pearson High School is 1.9 kilometres from M.M. Robinson High School. Students who currently attend Lester B. Pearson High School are within the walking distance to M.M. Robinson High School. A closure of Lester B. Pearson High School will not result in an increase in bussing costs for the Halton District School Board.”
This is technically correct yet misleading. If Pearson were to stay open and the catchment areas appropriately reshaped, there would be less students bussing, meaning a cost savings for the Halton District School Board.
Regardless, HDSB representatives have stated on several occasions that it’s about the students, not the money.
“At present there is a nursery school located in Lester B. Pearson High School. This is a longstanding relationship between the City of Burlington and the Board, and since the mid-1970s has become part of the fabric of the Lester B. Pearson High School community. If the recommendation to close Lester B. Pearson High School is approved, the Halton District School Board will engage with the appropriate municipal partners to investigate available options for a continued relationship with the Halton District School Board.”
The promise to “investigate available options” should be interpreted as the Board has not undertaken sufficient consultation on this important issue up to this point, and is not making any commitment to maintain the co-op nursery.
Furthermore, the Director’s Final Report is recommending keeping Hayden as an over-capacity mega school, and turning M.M. Robinson into an over-capacity mega school (see Figure 6 below). It does not take into account new growth in North Burlington, nor the aggressive turnover in Headon Forest and Palmer neighbourhoods, which will take Hayden and M.M. Robinson to unsustainable levels.
Given that these schools will be filled to the brim, are we to believe that there will be space to maintain the co-op nursery?
 Figure 6 – Mega schools projected for the north if Pearson closes (before taking into account increased enrollment due to new developments and residential turnover)
“Lester B. Pearson High School has served its students and community very well for the past 40 years; however, its enrolment has been in decline for some time. It is currently less than 65% of capacity, and by 2025 it is expected to decline to 55%.”
Having read this far, trustees already know that Pearson would only decline to 55% if catchments weren’t appropriately reshaped. To assume that Pearson would decline to 55% is to assume that Hayden would be at 140%, which is the status quo prediction for that school in 2025. Everyone knows that Hayden’s over-utilization is unsustainable, and that Pearson has space to accommodate those students. Therefore, the conclusion of Recommendation 2 of the Director’s Final Report is misleading.
“Based on the two identified criteria for a program and accommodation review (PAR):
“1. The school or group of schools has/have experienced or will experience declining enrolment where on-the-ground (OTG) capacity utilization rate is below 65%.
“AND
“2. Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities.
“Lester B. Pearson High School meets the criteria for a PAR, and subsequently is recommended for closure.”
Pearson would not have met the criteria for a PAR if it weren’t for the redistribution of its students to Hayden High School.
In conclusion, trustees must question the validity of the evidence brought forward through the Director’s Final Report to support a closure of Pearson High School.
Two final questions for trustees as they make their decision on whether to close Pearson:
(1) Is it in the best interests of students and the community to close Pearson, leaving North Burlington with two schools with over 1300 students, already over capacity before taking into account new developments and residential turnover?
(2) If trustees decide to close Pearson high school, will they, in 10 years’ time, receive a Director’s Final Report requesting $35 million to open a new school in north Burlington, and on what land will that school sit?
I respectfully submit that you must, given the evidence, decline Recommendation 2 and ask the Director to provide options for redistributing Hayden’s student population to Pearson and M.M Robinson.
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by delaying a decision on closing Pearson until the true enrollment figures are clarified after a redistribution of Hayden (and possibly Bateman) students, and the new developments in the North are completed.
The Director’s Final Report has not met the burden of evidence for a closure of Pearson High School.
Thank you,
Rory Nisan
Lester B. Pearson Alumnus (class of 2001)
rnisan@gmail.com
 By Pepper Parr
April 23, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Few will differ with the Director of Education on the decision that lets Central high school remain open.
This will be third time that Central has overcome a decision to close the oldest school in the city.
The evidence the school parents brought forward was evidence that was already there – the Board staff either didn’t see it or didn’t want to see it.
 Meed Ward went to Queen’s Park – as a lifelong Liberal she nevertheless stood beside the Progressive Conservative leader to make her point. The words on that T shirt would serve her well in the 2018 municipal election. Some have suggested that Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward choosing to accept the parent request that she sit on the PARC was what made the difference. Meed Ward wasn’t all that effective – a better way of putting that is to say that she has been much more effective at city hall than she was during the PARC process.
Did Meed Ward save Central? Certainly not. She has had to put up with a lot of undeserved political heat for the decision she made. This isn’t the first time she has had to put up with the small mindedness of her city council colleagues. She has prevailed.
The Central parents put out a statement earlier today saying:
“We strongly support a no school closure option and are disappointed that any schools have been named; we feel for the Bateman and Pearson communities as well as the Hayden FI community as we know first hand what it feels like to sit in this position.
 The Central parents held a silent auction – raised $14,000 and had a war chest to dip into. “We do acknowledge that the Board is in a position where the Ministry leaves little choice but to close schools in order to maximize funding. We feel that the director and staff have done their best to ensure that the new recommendation considers the best interests of students in all of Burlington. Maintaining schools in every community will benefit the greatest number of students by providing maximum opportunity to allow students to walk, bike and participate in extra- curricular activities as well as keep busing to a minimum which is also fiscally and environmentally responsible.
“From day one we have stressed that impacting the least number of students negatively should be a primary focus and feel that this option does reflect that goal. We also stressed the impact on the students in grade 7 and 8 who are currently housed at Burlington Central and who were not being considered as part of the process.
“We took effort and care to prove that Central was not the problem beyond a shadow of a doubt. The new recommendation outlines all the reasons that Burlington Central should never have been named in the first place. We will continue to delegate and push forward to remind the trustees of this until the final vote on June 7th.
“We want to thank all of the Central Strong Community for the support and commitment over the past few months, with a special thanks to our PARC representatives as this was no easy task. This has been an emotional roller coaster and we wouldn’t have had this success without the help of each and every one of you.”
Meed Ward herself was not available for comment
The Director’s report chose to say that the overflow into Nelson made it necessary to keep Central open. A specious argument if there ever was one.
Closing central would have left such a huge hole between Aldershot and Nelson that would require hundreds of students to be bussed at a cost that was estimated to come in at $400,000 a year forever.
 The strongest argument Central had was this map. The picture was worth more than one thousand words. While city council wasn’t prepared to take a position on the evidence that was on the table Meed Ward was. The political blow back on that Meed Ward choice will continue for a while but longer term the public will see that she not only was capable of walking into turbulent political water she actually did just that. Not something the current Mayor is inclined to do.
On this occasion Meed Ward didn’t just “talk the talk” – she “walked the talk”. The city is the better for that choice.
The closure of Robert Bateman High School and the associated redirection of the English program students to Nelson High School, as well as the relocation of the Regional Essential, LEAP and CPP programs, will result in a substantial increase in enrollments at Nelson High School. In order to provide some accommodation relief at Nelson High School, a review of the existing boundaries was undertaken to determine if there were any opportunities to redirect some areas out of the Nelson High School catchment area.
The existing Tecumseh Public School Grade 8 cohort is split between two high schools: those students residing east of Guelph Line attend Nelson High School, while those west of Guelph Line attend Burlington Central High School. In order to ensure the Tecumseh Public School Grade 8 cohort would remain together, the entire Tecumseh Public School catchment area is designated to be redirected and included within the Burlington Central High School catchment area. Unifying the cohort would provide accommodation relief to Nelson High School, and enhance Burlington Central High School enrollments by providing additional students to that school’s population.
In order to ensure an appropriate transition, grand parenting will occur. This will result in the redirection of all Tecumseh Public School students entering the Grade 9 English program in September 2018 to Burlington Central High School, including those east of Guelph Line. As of September 2018, Grade 10, 11, and 12 English students currently attending Nelson High School from the Tecumseh Public School catchment area will be grand parented to remain at Nelson High School until they graduate.
Now – what does the Board of Education do with the Central facilities? The school was neglected for so long that its condition was terrible. The students put up with a lot. It was a little like a slum landlord letting a property deteriorate to the point where it had to be demolished.
 Could an indoor swimming pool be placed on this site? Could the high school be designated as an historical site? Can Central be brought back to the condition it should have been put in 15 years ago. The set up on the property at the corner of Brant and Baldwin includes everything from junior kindergarten to grade 12. The addition of the International Baccalaureate will make the school complex just that much more complete.
The facilities need to be upgraded to the level that exists at Hayden. The property to the west of the school – now a playing field owned by the city, is just the kind of location for an indoor swimming pool where there is a more than dense enough population to ensure very heavy use.
While the decision was the right one – the question Lisa Bull, a Bateman parent asks – is still very relevant.
“I am extremely curious about his (Miller’s) change from recommending Central (and Pearson) for closure in his first recommendation to Bateman (and Pearson) in today’s report. I question the influence of a sitting City council member on the PAR Committee and want to better understand the role this played in Director Miller’s change of heart.”
 Was it the power of prayer that brought about the change in the Director of Educations final recommendation? Lynn Crosby at a PARC meeting. What was it that brought about the change in the minds of the Board staff and the Director of Education (it certainly wasn’t a change of heart) that resulted in the decision to keep Central open?
That is a question the trustee’s will have to determine when they confer with the Director; it might well be an issue that the Bateman parents delegate on as well. The matter is in their hands.
The Central parents are breathing a huge sigh of relief however this is not the time for them to rest on their oars. The building is in poor shape – it needs the treatment the old Laura Secord property on Lakeshore Road got (now the Paletta Mansion) that brought it back to what it was intended to look like.
Is the high school a heritage site? Should it be one? The parents might want to go after that designation as they work towards that point in time where the school is never threatened with closure again.
Part 1 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Part 2 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Part 3 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
By Pepper Parr
April 22, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 3 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Rationale: Closing Robert Bateman High School
Friday was a very tough day for the parents of students at Robert Bateman high school. The Director of Education has recommended to the trustees that the school be closed effective September 2019
Some background:
In 2004, Lord Elgin High School was consolidated with General Brock High School forming a new school named Robert Bateman High School in the original Lord Elgin facility.
 Bateman principal Mark Duley ringing a fire siren during a cooking contest with fire department staff. The consolidation, in part, was undertaken to address declining enrollment in both schools at the time. There were also significant facility enhancements made to the newly consolidated Robert Bateman High School. The enrollment in the Robert Bateman catchment area has continued to decline. As a result of declining enrollment in the catchment area, the school offers and houses many regional programs including International Baccalaureate, Regional Essential program, LEAP, and the Community Pathways Program.
 Bateman student population by year and by grade. These regional programs have improved the diversity and inclusive nature of the school, but there are still great challenges with low enrollment in the catchment area that impacts regular English programming. This is projected to continue. The school is currently at 59% utilization, below the 65% Board criteria, and is projected to decline to 50% by 2026.
 Burlington fire fighter explaining the fine points on ingredients to be used during a cook-off contest at the school. Currently there are 283 students in the English program within the catchment area of Robert Bateman High School. There are an additional 51 students in the International Baccalaureate Program and 36 students in Essential and Special Education programs within the catchment area.
The total number of students in the English program (including 87 students in regional programs) is
370. This is the lowest enrollment number within a Burlington high school’s catchment area.
This utilization factor includes the regional programs, as Robert Bateman High School is the site for students from the entire city of Burlington. The students in north Burlington attending some of these regional programs are being bussed to the south.
M.M. Robinson High School and Robert Bateman High School are similar facilities and both are experiencing low utilization rates and this is projected to continue.
 The utilization for both Robinson and Bateman were falling off – putting the two schools together seemed to be a solution. The right one? In addition, students currently residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 in Burlington are bussed to Robert Bateman High School to attend regional programs there. The creation of a regional Essential Program at M.M. Robinson High School will allow students to attend a school in closer proximity to their homes and also provide the added benefit of continuity of program with the existing CPP program at the school.
Clustering regional programs into one school site disadvantages students as they must travel greater distances to meet their program needs and interests. The students in Burlington would be better served by establishing a school site in both the north and the south that provide similar regional programs. Students would have the same opportunities and be closer to their homes. It also enhances the diversity and inclusiveness in more than one site in Burlington.
Regional programs have been moved successfully each year, from school to school. Our history has proven these programs are transferable and our transition approaches have proven effective in support of students.
Although Robert Bateman High School has had facility enhancements to accommodate regional programs, the declining enrollment in the catchment area and in these programs is problematic.
The two criteria which triggered the PAR are based on students and program:
1. The school or group of schools has/have experienced or will experience declining enrolment where on-the-ground (OTG) capacity utilization rate is below 65%.
AND
2. Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities.
Nelson High School is 1.9 kilometres from Robert Bateman High School and has an enrolment within its current catchment area of more than 1,000 students. This number, although fluctuating slightly, is projected to remain above 1,000 through 2026. The utilization rate in the same time period ranges from 75% to 87%.
 Nelson’s utilization numbers become possible if Bateman students move in. Was this the only resolution to the problem?
The close proximity of Robert Bateman High School and Nelson High School within walking distance of each other, posed a challenge in determining the most advantageous site in which to house regional programs. The combined catchment areas of the two schools (excluding regional programs) is within the on-the-ground (OTG) capacity of either Nelson or Robert Bateman High Schools.
The parameters used for the PAR, however, are related to utilization and enhancement of program.
Recommending a closure of Nelson High School would result in the relocation of more than 1,000 students in the foreseeable future. Facility enhancements and purpose-built facilities can be accommodated at Nelson High School. The regional programs of south Burlington can be housed in Nelson High School. This does not require the relocation of more than 1,000 students or a recommended closure of a school with a catchment area of up to 84% utilization. Subsequently, it allows the Halton District School Board to have vibrant regional programs in the northwest and the southeast of Burlington.
If the recommended option is approved, it will also result in the relocation of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program to Burlington Central High School. Like other regional programs, the International Baccalaureate program can be relocated to another school.
There are requirements for its site relocation as defined by the IB International governing body which will be strictly adhered to.
Presently there are 174 students in the International Baccalaureate track (Grade 9 and 10 pre-IB and Grade 11 and 12 IB) at Robert Bateman High School. By contrast, White Oaks Secondary School in Oakville has 507 students in its pre-IB and IB program. The IB program has been housed at Robert Bateman High School since January 2001 and the enrollment has fluctuated and has presented a challenge. Moving the IB program to Burlington Central High School may enhance uptake of this program as it is in a more central location.
Finally, consolidating Robert Bateman High School and Nelson High School will allow program enhancement for students currently in both schools, offering them now, and in the future, greater equity of opportunity as a result of the broader range of courses and programs. With a greater number of staff and students, there will be more opportunities for co-curricular activities.
 Fireman and students whoop it up when the winners of a cooking contest are announced. Implications of Closing Robert Bateman high school.
Closure of Robert Bateman High School, and the resulting movement of the English program to Nelson High School
Program Changes that will take place should Robert Bateman High School be closed:
• September 2019, the International Baccalaureate (IB) program will move to Burlington Central High School.
• September 2019, a second Essential Program site will be established in Burlington; Nelson High School will serve students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403, while students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
• September 2019, two sites for the Community Pathways Program (CPP) will continue to be offered; students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School, and students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
• September 2019, the LEAP program will be offered in two locations; students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School, while students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
 Bateman high school students staged a protest when they were told that there wouldn’t be a football team that year. Spunky bunch. Student Movement with the closure of Robert Bateman High School:
• September 2018, English Program students entering Grade 9 will attend Nelson High School.
• September 2019, English Program students entering Grades 11 and 12 will move to Nelson High School.
• September 2018, Grade 9 students entering the International Baccalaureate Program (pre-IB) will attend Burlington Central High School.
• September 2019, students entering into Grades 11 and 12 (IB program) will move to Burlington Central High School.
•
• September 2018, Essential Program students entering Grade 9 and residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School.
•
• September 2018, Essential Program students entering Grade 9 and residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M Robinson High School
•
• September 2019, Essential/Workplace Program students entering Grades 11 and 12 currently attending Robert Bateman High School will move to Nelson High School.
•
• September 2018, all Community Pathways Program students (Grades 9 to 12) attending Robert Bateman will continue at Robert Bateman High School.
•
• September 2019, Community Pathways Program students attending Robert Bateman HS will move to Nelson High School.
•
• September 2019, LEAP students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
•
• September 2019, LEAP students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School.
•
• September 2018, students entering into Grade 9 in the Gifted program who reside south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School, while students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 and entering Grade 9 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
•
• September 2018, students in existing Grades 10 to 12 Secondary Gifted Placement at Nelson High School will be grandparented at Nelson High School until graduation.
•
• September 2018, Grade 8 students from Pineland Public School will move together to Nelson High School as a cohort (English and French Immersion)
Other Considerations:
• Facility enhancements or additions to address program needs at Nelson High School re: Community Pathways Program (CPP) and technological education programs
• Aldershot High School will be explored as a magnet or themed school
• IB training and certification for administrators and staff at Burlington Central High School as mandated by the IB governing body.
 The parent turn out at the public meeting during which Board staff were on hand to explain what the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) was all about drew less than five parents. There is no nice way to explain this closure. When the original recommendation to close Central and Pearson high schools Bateman and Nelson seemed to take the position that they were safe – they would not be closed.
But as the PARC process rolled out and the Central parents mobilized themselves and asked a lot of questions closing Central no longer seemed like such a good idea.
Lisa Bull, one of the two Bateman PARC members did all she could to get the Board to think about innovative ideas – she wasn’t wrong, but it was a little too late in the game to get the Board to look at things differently.
This experience is probably one of the most disappointing in Bull’s professional career – the woman holds a Master’s degree in Education.
Does Bateman have a case they can take to the trustees? So far they have not managed to bring forward any solid evidence. There are students that are very vulnerable and any change is going to disrupt their lives.
The task for the Bateman parents at this point is to ensure that their student population is not harmed by a closing and a move.
There are some really fine programs at that school – they will be missed. The cooking programs should not be lost in the shuffle – and some way has to be found to ensure that the swimming pool is not lost to the community.
The Bateman parents have a lot of work to do to ensure that they are well taken care of during what is a very difficult time.
Lisa Bull said she was “devastated and shocked by Director Miller’s recommendations. I am also extremely curious about his change from recommending Central (and Pearson) for closure in his first recommendation to Bateman (and Pearson) in today’s report. I question the influence of a sitting City council member on the PAR Committee and want to better understand the role this played in Director Miller’s change of heart. Most importantly I will continue to work closely with the Robert Bateman community on creating impactful delegations for the Board of Trustees.”
“There are far too many vulnerable students who would be impacted by the closure of our school so we will not stop fighting.”
Part 1 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Part 2 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
By Pepper Parr
April 21st, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The room was full. It was a rainy night but under 100 people showed up for an information session on their vision for the downtown part of the city. The focus was on mobility hubs.
The Gazette will do a more in-depth report – this is a first look at the kind of questions that were asked and the answers given
There were some surprises.
A participant using the hand held device to record their answer to the question being asked. There were 12 questions asked. The question was put up on a screen – the people in the room had been given hand held clickers that they could use to indicate their choice.
We report on two of the questions in this early look at what was an important event. There will be a follow up meeting in June for the people in Ward 2.
The intention is to hold similar session for each of the four mobility hubs that city has identified.
This is city building at its best. How it will roll out is going to be interesting to watch.
 These answers are going to surprise the Bfast people and give Burlington Transit a lot to think about. There were a number of developers in the room along with just about everyone that mattered from the Planning department. On the political side – Councillors Taylor and Meed Ward were in the room along with the Mayor who opened the session. More to follow.
 So much for the argument that we need more people downtown to make the core the vibrant place everyone appears to want it to become.
By Pepper Parr
April 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
We were unable to cover the Open House the city held at the new Go Bold offices that have been set up for the planners that are doing the big think on the four mobility hubs that have become the hot new buzz words at city hall. Mobility hubs seems to have replaced intensification.
 The downtown hub is the first of the four that is going to get the “community engagement” treatment. Earlier in the week the city’s communications people set up a conference call that allowed us to exchange views with Mary Lou Tanner, Director of Planning.
The Gazette had a very poor connection – not sure if the problem was on our end or theirs – but it was difficult to have an in depth conversation with Tanner, who is usually quite willing to explain and put forward the reasons for the decisions made and the work being done by her department.
What we did learn was that the mobility hub intention is for people to be able to walk within the defined area of each mobility hub – and that the longest walking distance would be around a mile in length.
Ann McIlroy and Associates are on a three year contract to work with the Go Bold mobility hub team. The McIlroy team have done a lot of work with and for Burlington in the past. One of the more recent assignments was the detailed planning for the new Beachway Park. A lot of the very early design work was done by McIlroy.
 Much of the original design work for the Beachway Park concepts was done by Ann McIlroy and Associates – they are advising the city on the mobility hub thinking. Tanner described mobility hubs as a “higher order of transit” and said there was some science behind this kind of transportation thinking. The intention was to have “area specific plans” for each of the mobility hubs with the downtown hub being the first to get attention from the planners and the Grow Bold team.
The first meeting, the one that took place Wednesday evening, was intended to introduce people to the concept. A colleague of ours, comes out of the real estate sector, described the event as “underwhelming”
“I went to the Mobility Hub Open House. Just a few maps up on display and an “ask” for emails addresses so we could be kept informed. Lots of treats (cakes and candy) and coffee.”
There is another meeting scheduled for June 2nd that will focus on that downtown mobility hub with additional meetings to follow in the fall. Each of the hubs is to get this multi-meeting community engagement touch.
 The public was heavily involved in community engagement meetings where people poured over plans for a proposal the city had encouraged for the east end Lakeside Village Plaza. When the community engagement and the deep thinking is complete a report will go to city council where the Planner will ask for directions.
The approach for the Official Plan, which also comes out of the Planning department, where Andrea Smith, Manager of Policy and Research has been focused on getting the new Official Plan ready for the public. Smith spent years working on a revision of the old Official Plan. When Mary Lou Tanner was appointed the new Director of Planning she decided to press the reset button, take a pause and ask if the old Official Plan was worth a revision.
 The Escarpment is basically out of bounds from a planning perspective – except for some growth in the hamlets – Kilbride and Lowville. Tanner apparently decided that a totally new plan was needed – and that is what the city is now looking at.
The draft Official Plan that is being reviewed now is meant to align with the Strategic Plan; the approach being that the Official Plan is expected to create rules and regulations for developers to have a clear idea of what the city want to get done on the next 20 years. At this point we know that we are to grow up and not out – and that all this has to be done within the urban boundary. The Escarpment is out of bounds.
There are going to be three months of discussion and community engagement with perhaps ward specific meetings.
Municipal politics is like any other form of government – new brooms can be brought in and the Strategic Plan scrapped – the planners then have to tinker with and revise the Official Plan – an action that drives people in this city bananas.
By Pepper Parr
April 10th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
City council has decided that growth and development is, to a large degree, going to be centered around Mobility hubs and they want you to help them do that work.
 Four mobility hubs – expected to be the preferred locations for future commercial growth and development. There are two meetings taking place.
The city has invited the public into their new Locust Street Grow Bold offices on April 12th. “Individuals interested in learning more about the Mobility Hubs studies are welcome to drop by to meet the city staff working on the Mobility Hubs studies and to ask questions. Refreshments will be provided along with fun activities and games.”
Takes place on Wednesday, April 12 – 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Mobility Hubs Office, 1455 Lakeshore Rd., Unit 7 (across the street from the ESSO gas station)
 Mary Lou Tanner, Director of Planning and Building for the city. Mary Lou Tanner, Chief Planner and Director of Planning and Building explains the purpose of the meeting: “The city needs to hear from the entire community about what they love and value in their downtown so that we can create a long-term vision that continues to make downtown Burlington a great place to live, work, shop and play.
“There is a lot of interest in our downtown from developers. As our city grows, we will receive more and more requests for new buildings of all sizes. With input from the community, the land-use policies created through the Downtown Mobility Hub study will help ensure we have the type of growth in our downtown that we want.”
Once approved, the policies created through Burlington’s Downtown Mobility Hub study will be adopted as part of the city’s new Official Plan.
The offices on Locust Street are not that large – if the weather is good the overflow can spill out onto the side walk cafes on Lakeshore.
 Home to the people who are going to focus on our growth. On April 20th, city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward will return to her Downtown Visioning project and focus on mobility hubs and the role they play. This meeting takes place at Burlington Lions Club Hall, 471 Pearl St., from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Halton Region is anticipated to grow from 530,000 to one million people by 2041. The Province of Ontario’s provincial growth plan, Places to Grow, mandates the City of Burlington plan for a population of 193,000 by 2031.
Just what are mobility hubs? There is a general idea but specifics and details are far from being worked out. The prime objective will be to find ways to move all these people around efficiently.
To get this worked out in the next 18 months is a challenge and include it in the Official Plan
A number of years ago Burlington Transit decided they would shut down the small terminal office on John Street where people were able to buy bus tickets and update their Presto cards. That idea didn’t last very long – what was stunning to many who know something about transit was that the idea actually got to a city council meeting.
 John Street transit station was at one point thought to be past its Best Before date. Clearer minds looked at the property again and decided it could get an upgrade to the status of a mobility hub. What the city has done is set out where the mobility hubs are to be located and have produced a draft Official Plan that focuses on the four locations.
Mobility Hubs locations are around the city’s three GO stations, Aldershot, Appleby and Burlington, and the downtown bus terminal; this is where new growth and development over the next 20 years is to take place.
The city plans to hoist a number of engagement opportunities over the next 18 months to gather input from residents and businesses about how they’d like to see these areas grow and change in the future.
By Greg Woodruff
April 6th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
City council will begin discussion of the draft Official Plan this week. Opinions are already being formed.
There are so many problems with Burlington’s official plan update that it’s hard to zero in on the most problematic element. Leaving alone for a moment the massive green space loss or the complete lack of any mathematical forecasting, the transit plan is truly insane.
My largest problem when running for Regional Chair in 2014 is that I just could not get people to accept what the cities future transit plans actually are. People would just say “That is crazy” and look at me like I must not understand the plan. Either read what is coming out of the city or take my word for it. The future of Burlington is city wide deliberately induced gridlock.
I realize that this is so divorced from reality that the average resident of Burlington simply cannot accept this is the cities plan. It is simple – keep jamming people in until roads are mostly impassible and largely slower than walking. People will then seek “alternatives” once they realize they can walk or bike to a location in just hours vs multiple hours of driving. If you are disabled, elderly or have a schedule that doesn’t support biking, stay home or get out of Burlington.
The first problem is that I would say you need a public mandate to do this. This certainly does not exist. The draft says the public must “Reprioritize decision-making relating to mobility” (Page 14 in the link below). Right now for example you might like to drive to the gym. In the new city walking and biking should be your forms of city recommend exercise. In the future city staff will decide what you do, how and when you move around. The city needs to execute the mandate of citizens, not try to force everyone to do as they think we should.
The second problem is that the transit plan cannot withstand even light mathematical examination. It can’t possibly achieve its own goals. You won’t see numeric calculations coming from the city – because they won’t add up. To believe that 300,000 people are place-able in Burlington with “No New Car Capacity” (Page 15 in the link below) is to believe we will have pedestrian rates orders of magnitude higher than Paris France. As I delegated to council:
Even if you line up Paradigm developments along every possible place all the way down Plains road – you will never get a pedestrian commercial base. There is no mathematically possible pedestrian city on a single straight road. Cities are built in grids for a reason – it is the only way to get transit time low and have the density for a partly pedestrian customer base.
The last problem and most deeply troubling aspect of this is the underlying theory behind it. This mentality places the city in direct opposition to you. Your goal might be to take your kids to soccer practice. This “unsustainable transit pattern” makes the city wish you didn’t. You want to visit your Mother after work – the city wishes you didn’t. It’s all to pretend that intensification doesn’t need increased infrastructure to support it. That an infinitely increasing population doesn’t cost anything in money or environment because the city now rations “what is” out.
They can’t figure out a transportation strategy for this mess of intensification. So now “untransportation” is desirable. Not enough water – the public must “Reprioritize decision-making relating to bathing.” Not enough parks – the public must “Reprioritize decision-making relating to sports activities.” This “reprioritization” is to no longer do what is best for yourself, but instead do what city planners have rationed out for you.
Since we still live in a democracy – it will not work. Once the main streets are nothing but micro businesses very few trips will be to them; just past them. The constant gridlock will be the largest issue and people will not care beyond mobility. This will give rise to and elect a class of politician that will run on and expand the road base. Though since staff have worked deliberately to make this difficult, the roads will now expand in ugly and awkward way.
If you want 300,000 people in Burlington then we need developments totally concentrated in the down town core – it’s the only place with a grid. Yes, you will need an aggressive walking, biking and public transit strategy. But you will also need the major arteries of Burlington expanded to 6 lanes, plus a dedicated bike path, plus a large public walking space. You can get into fanciful debates as to what you want to do in those extra lanes – single passenger cars, rapid bus transit, street car, etc. But they need to be reserved and planned as if they will exist.
There is no possible benefit to this gridlock – hundreds of thousands of cars idling and caught in congestion will have a far higher environmental footprint than a hand full of bikers can ever offset. Congestion helps big box retailers and hurts small business – this can only lead to greater commercial concentration. The idea “if you build roads people are going to use them” so if we stop building them people will then not use to road we didn’t build.
This is just idiocy. If you feed starving children they are just going to keep eating and eating; to a point yes. If you provide houses with water people are just going to keep bathing and bathing; to a point yes. However I consider the ability to feed, bath and get my kids to soccer – all as positives.
I’m pretty sure the rest of Burlington does as well.
Background link:
Official Plan report to city council committee
 Greg Woodruff is an Aldershot resident who rant for the office of Regional chair in the last municipal election.
By Pepper Parr
April 5th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It was the same room, basically the same crowd three years later, but the mood was a lot different.
Last week the Carriage Gate group told the public what they had in mind for the corner of Brant and James Street – across the street from city hall.
They set out a number of charts and large blow ups at the front of the room of the 27 story tower they wanted to build – one got the impression that the developer was going to talk about the project. Everything seemed to be out front.
Three years ago the Adi Development Group was in the same room. There were no large blow ups of the project they were about to explain to the public and the audience was in no mood to listen. That project kept going downhill from the moment the architect began to explain the project and is now before the Ontario Municipal Board.
 Twenty seven storey’s high – directly across the street from city hall. The mood was so positive that if the Carriage Gate people had had some sales agreements on the table there were people in the room quite prepared to sign on the dotted line and put down a deposit.
There were some who thought it was a “terrible” idea and the issue of traffic and parking reared its head. Burlington and cars have always had an awkward relationship.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward, who is no fan of tall buildings, got the meeting off to a decent start. The Mayor and ward 3 Councillor John Taylor were on hand along with a couple of other people from the city’s planning department.
Four mobility hubs are in the planning process. The plan appears to be to focus on the downtown hub first. The public got to hear about the group that has been created to study and develop the concept of “mobility hubs” – something that has become the most recent buzz word for planners.
Kyle Plas, the senior city planner on this project explained where the project was from a planners perspective and took the audience through the process of getting it before city council where a decision is made.
Carriage Gate is looking for both Official Plan changes and zoning changes. This project would come under the existing Official Plan which is now more than 20 years old and as Mark Bayles, the Carriage Gate manager who would be overseeing the development of the project, explained in his opening comments “the existing plan no longer reflects where development is going.
 From th left, Robert Glover, an urban planner, Ed Fothergill, planer and Mark Bales, project manager with Carriage Gate Carriage Gate has assembled a solid team to shepherd this through the approvals process.
Ed Fothergill, a planning consultant who has advised on many of the Molinaro projects and was the advisor to the Carriage Gate people on this project explained the planning environment that everyone has to work within.
 Policy documents that set out the rules planners have to work within and comply with. It includes the provinces Provincial Policy Statement in which the province sets out where the growth is going to take place; the Greenbelt policy, which for Burlington means the Escarpment and The Big Move which is the framework that the GO transit people work within out of which comes the mobility hub concept.
The GO train service west of Toronto is going to be improved to 15 minute service and eventually it will be electrified.
The improvement in GO frequency is intended to get cars off the QEW and handle the expected population growth.
 Close up of the Brant street side of the building. The city wanted smaller shops at the street level; the developer had no problem complying. The restaurant on the site is to be included in the building. Many in Burlington don’t like the idea of growth – but the population of the city is going to grow – the province has said that is what is in the cards, and because we can no longer grow out, – there isn’t much more left for development within the urban boundary for new development the growth will be up, not out. Thus the high rise.
Given that there are going to be buildings in the 27 story and higher range where should they go?
Robert Glover, an architect and planner with the Bousfields, a community planning firm that has handled some of the more impressive developments in Ontario gave the audience his take on how Burlington and high rise buildings are going to learn to live together.
 Tall buildings in Burlington tend to be away from the downtown core and on either side of Brant Street. He explained that Burlington has a lot of tall buildings – mostly in the 8 to 12 storey range that are set out in different parts of the city with a concentration along Maple Avenue.
Glover said his view was that with buildings all over the city Brant Street was sort of an orphan with very little that would attract pedestrian traffic. The view he put forward was that Brant needed to become the spine that buildings would be anchored along. The Carriage Gate project was to be the first. The development that is known at this point by it’s address – 421 Brant – they have yet to release the name for the project.
 The view from the corner of John and James. Glover set out how he thought the city and the high rise development that is on its way would evolve. Brant Street would become the spine on which development would be anchored. The Street would have one of the four mobility hubs at the bottom one block to the east and a second mobility hub at Fairview – a part of a block to the east.
The public in general doesn’t know all that much about mobility hubs – the city has planned a public meeting for April 12th where people can get to meet the Mobility Hubs Team.
The houses in the city are now so expensive – we are seeing $1 million homes in what are described as normal suburban communities.
 Nick Carnicelli The principles in any development seldom take to the stage. They sit in the audience and listen carefully trying to get a sense of the audience and how they feel about the project that is being explained. Nick Carnicelli sat off to the side and seemed satisfied with the way the meeting had gone.
He had every reason to feel satisfied – his people had put on a good presentation; they answered all the questions and didn’t duck any of the issues.
Parking seemed to be the one that bothered people the most. The plan presented called for 183 parking spots; one for each unit in the building. If there is going to be a problem with this project that is probably where the city will ask for changes. The design calls for four levels of parking.
 By Ray Rivers
March 31st, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The federal government brought down a budget last week. Did anybody notice? Well if you drink wine it’ll cost you a little more. The tax credit for taking public transit is gone and you’ll have to pay the HST on your next Uber ride. There is also supposed to be more money for infrastructure, innovation and child care but these benefits will not be as noticeable as the taxes, nor immediately applicable to many of us.
It was all a bit anti-climatic. Even the people’s broadcaster (CBC) muted the Finance Minister’s speech and plugged in one of their own reporters instead. Why hear it from the horse’s mouth (no offence intended) when there is some reporter, barely exhumed from the pre-budget ‘lock-up’, who can ramble-on quoting second-hand information from his notebook of cryptic scribblings?
 Prime Minister Trudeau congratulating Finance Minister Morneau on the delivery of the 2017 budget I recall watching Flaherty and Martin being allowed to wax on poetic, why not Morneau? Over a thousand journalists, independents from think-tanks, and other influential people spend budget day together locked in a big room and not released until the budget is read out. But since most of the budget has already been leaked by budget day, it might just be the expensive feeding and watering that has them coming back each year. Who says there is no such thing as a free lunch? Perhaps it’s time to get rid of the budget lock-up.
Pre-budget speculation had investors worried that Trudeau would impose a higher tax rate on income from capital gains. After all income is income, and that might help slow down the crazy inflation in the housing sector, particularly if homes selling for more than a million were included as taxable, which was one rumour.
It was Justin’s father who first introduced capital gains taxes and taxation had been applicable to 75% of that income in those days gone by. Anyway, that rumour was false, though that extra cash would come in useful for a government mired in red ink. That old saw, that you have to be crazy not to borrow at today’s ridiculously low interest rates, doesn’t sound so reasonable when one considers that even a balanced budget, let alone surplus, isn’t expected before the end of this decade, and well beyond the next election.
If this budget was designed to keep folks on-side with the Liberals it mostly failed. Despite its glossy front web page, it is long on minutia and mostly short on substance and vision, certainly compared to the last one. But then this is only a mid-term instrument, tailored to not steal the spotlight from the more important one coming in the election year. And perhaps we’re all too demanding and our expectations are too high – or maybe it’s the rumour mill that keeps whetting our appetite for more.
 Trudeau has been a media darling ? Trudeau has been a media darling since coming to power, in fact even more admired abroad than at home. Though when it comes to that domestic audience, his boat is starting to leak and according to one poll is now listing and behind the leaderless Tories for the first time since his solid win in 2015. How could that be? That voters saying they’d prefer a party with no leader to the current government? Well as Diefenbaker used to say…”polls are for dogs”.
Halfway into an election term, the public usually gets antsy – that mid-term itch. And there are some reasons for the public to start to back-off from their leader. Trudeau has done himself no favour with this on-going cash-for-access thing. And his expensive Christmas holiday, at our expense, in the Bahamas has proven unpopular among those of us who never seem to make the Aga Khan’s guest list, no matter how hard we try. And, like Harper before him, those idealistic promises on transparency are getting harder to fulfill once in office. Small things but still….
 Bombardier’s CS100 assembly line is seen at the company’s plant Friday, December 18, 2015 in Mirabel, Que. After years of delays and cost overruns, Bombardier’s CSeries commercial aircraft has been certified by Canada’s transportation regulator. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz There was this Castro fiasco a little while ago, and then elbow-gate showed a lack of composure in a leader we’d assumed had it all together. Some folks resent his subsidy to giant Bombardier, particularly as the company’s management has just given themselves whacking big (millions of dollars) raises while simultaneously laying off a chunk of their the wage-earning labour force. Lately some folks are unhappy about the business dealings between the government and Trudeau’s close friend Tom Pitfield.
The government has just dropped one of those white papers on parliamentary reform, which would give MPs a four day work week in Ottawa and require the PM to only show up one day a week for question period. There is the carbon tax, though at least environmentalists will appreciate the government cutting a subsidy to the oil sector. After all, why carbon tax the public so they’ll use less oil, while simultaneously encouraging more oil development with an almost instantaneous rapid capital write-off.
 How are we liking this so far? Sunny ways? Oh yes, and then for those who really care about electoral reform, there was that broken promise on ridding us of the unfair first-past-the-post system. While one can accommodate foot dragging while a government slogs through the mud of its agenda, this was a veritable ‘balls-up’ and a breach of faith.
It’s a long road in political life until the next election. And what really matters are the first and last budgets in the cycle. Tweeners, like this one don’t really count much. And whether this is a made-in-Canada budget or not, Trudeau had to be looking over his shoulder at what is happening south of the border. Trump is just beginning his own tax reform process so it may have been sensible for us to wait. After all our guy doesn’t want to get too far out of sync with our greatest trading partner and best friend.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington in 1995. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Budget – Child Care Promises – Lock-Up Lunches –
Trudeau Popularity – Broken Promises –
Parliament Reform – More Parliament – Even More Parliament –
Transparency – Oil Subsidy – Bombardier – Pitfield –
Deficits –
 By Staff
March 27, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
People write the member of city council, or their Member of the provincial legislature (MPP) or the member of Parliament (MP) when they have a beef.
Sometimes they write a “thank you very much” letter.
Burlington’s MPP Eleanor McMahon hasn’t seen too many of the thank you notes recently.
If it isn’t hydro rates they are complaining about then it is the mess at the school board where they are trying to determine which schools to close while parents are asking that none of the schools close.
The following is the correspondence between Cheryl De Lugt, a member of the PAR Committee representing Lester B. Pearson high school.
From: cheryl [mailto:cbtalus@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2017 8:15 PM
To: Eleanor.McMahon@ontario.ca; McMahon, Eleanor MPP CO
Subject: URGENT REQUEST for Eleanor to vote on Tuesday March 7 to stop the PARC process across this province it is not right to be closing schools which are the heart of the communties
Good Day Eleanor McMahon:
My name is Cheryl De Lugt a very concerned parent in Burlington. As you are well aware the Halton District School Board is under a PARC process of all secondary high schools in Burlington triggered by the Liberal Government that you belong to.
 Pearson student let people know where she stands. This process has become incredibly stressful to the citizens of Burlington, parents but more importantly the students that will ultimately affected by any decisions.
I am very concerned about this whole process with a child who has a learning disability and who would be affected the most if her school closes which is Pearson High School as she is in grade 10 and would have to move to a new school in her last year most important year of high school grade 12. As a parent with a child with a disability I fear her transition to high school from the elementary school system fearing she would be lost in the crack, but it was far from that at Pearson. In a smaller school environment she has flourished because every teacher knows every student and they took her under their wings. Wow she would not have had that in a larger mega school environment that this Liberal government is in favour of.
I understand that there is an urgent debate and vote that will be occurring this Tuesday March 7 asking for a moratorium to this flawed process called the PARC. I know first hand being a parent selected to represent Lester B Pearson High School on the PARC Committee, this has been a true eye opening of the recking spending and the lack of accountability and transparency of our school board that we as parent entrust with our children.
I am hoping that you will listen to your Burlington constituents and vote to stop this process and stop closing schools across this Province as they are the heart of the community. I know that the voting rating for the Liberal Party is at it’s all time low and this is time to listen to the people who can or will vote for you.
I appreciate your time but more importantly hope you will vote to stop this PARC process in the legislation on Tuesday March 7, 2017. I do appreciate a response back to this urgent message
Sincerely
From: Eleanor McMahon, MPP (Constituency Office) <emcmahon.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>
Sent: March 23, 2017 11:56 AM
To: ‘cheryl’
Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST for Eleanor to vote on Tuesday March 7 to stop the PARC process across this province it is not right to be closing schools which are the heart of the communties
Dear Cheryl:
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding your concerns related to the pupil accommodation review underway in Burlington. It is important for me to hear from constituents about issues that are important to them. You have clearly outlined your concerns regarding the process and also about Pearson. I was also copied on an email from Jillian to the Trustees and Director – I am assuming she is your daughter – and I very much appreciated hearing from her with the student perspective.
 The only thing that hasn’t happened is picket lines outside the MPP’s office. In my role as MPP for Burlington, I have spoken with other parents, students, teachers and residents concerned about the impact of the PAR process. School closures and consolidations are some of the hardest decisions faced by our school boards given the critical role that schools play in the lives of Burlington families and our community more broadly.
Our schools have an impact that extends far beyond the classroom, which is why all residents deserve the chance to provide feedback so their input is reflected in the decision-making process. In my discussions, I have heard from constituents who feel that they have not had adequate time or opportunities to provide meaningful input. I have listened to these concerns and shared it in discussions with constituents, community leaders, trustees and the school board, outlining my expectation that Burlington residents have the chance to participate in consultations.
Decisions with respect to schools and school closures are made at the local level by local decision-makers: school boards (staff) and trustees (elected officials). There was a time, not that long ago, when schools were closed without due consultation. Our government changed this and has empowered local decision-makers to review school accommodation needs, entrusting our school board staff and trustees to ensure that student well-being is the number one priority.
School boards are now asked to ensure these decisions reflect consultations and input from impacted members of the community. The Ministry of Education’s pupil accommodation review guideline provides a framework for this, mandating that meaningful consultation take place.
Local input is essential for local decision-makers as they act on behalf of their community. I expect the Halton District School Board to listen and respond to requests from Burlington residents for more extensive consultation and ensure that their concerns are understood and dutifully addressed. This will ensure that Burlington residents have confidence in the process and therefore, the outcomes.
Encouraging community input is a fundamental principle in important decision-making processes like this and as the MPP for Burlington, I will continue to advocate on behalf of my constituents to participate and have their voices heard in these important discussions. Providing our students with the best educational opportunities remains a priority for me, and I expect that a meaningful consultation process will support a robust, high quality education system in Burlington and across the province.
Thanks again for reaching out to me.
Eleanor McMahon – MPP, Burlington
De Lugt wasn’t buying the response she got and shot back at McMahon:
Thank you for your email response but as a concerned parent in Burlington I am not naive in this flawed process that the Liberal Government has created for Local School Boards across this Province to follow. I am not satisfied with your “its not my issue” answer and that this is a decision of the School Board and local elected officials.
 Central and Pearson high school parents were outside in the cold weather demonstrating consistently. As a concerned parent that has witnessed first hand this flawed PARC process in Burlington watching communities pitting against communities to save their own school has been a true eye opener to the irresponsible reckless spending and the lack of accountability and transparency of our School Board and Provincial Government that we as parent entrust with our children with.
I work as a nurse in a hospital. We have adopted “A TIME OUT or Patient Briefing” prior to any major procedure such as an operation. The whole team from the surgeon, anesthesia and nurses in the operating room take a momentary pause prior to any operation making sure they ask these questions ( is this the right person, the right surgery, is it the right procedure) this allows the whole team to be on the same page making sure they are delivering the best care to the patient and to carry out the right procedure.
I encourage the Halton District School and the Provincial Government who’s popularity rating is at an all time low at 12% to take “A TIME OUT” which is a momentary pause in closing any schools in Burlington and across this Province. Please be patient and take a time out for approximately 3-5 years wait and watch approach and you will see your student numbers go up. With seniors downsizing and moving out of their homes young families are moving in the students will come.
Burlington is growing and there is projected growth north of the QEW that will be taking place in the next 5-10 years so we will need our schools
Closing schools are not the right thing to do. Schools are the centre of our communities and if the School Board closes one or two schools in Burlington it will severely impact the way this city looks and operates for many many years to come.
Each school has its own stories and its own unique programs and clubs that are important to their communities
I encourage the Provincial Government, Halton District School Board and the elected School Trustees to think very hard about any decision to close any schools in Burlington with the growth that will occur in Burlington and the lack of green space left to develop there will be a new look to this city with high density development which in turn will yield great number of students.
Sincerely, Cheryl De Lugt
Expect to see a lot more mail like this. The parents in Burlington have been putting up some very stiff resistance to the closing of high schools.
|
|
