By Staff
September 09-2018
BURLINGTON, ON
A little bit more on that polling that was being done by Campaign Research. The Gazette learned that Campaign Research was doing the election survey for another “marketing agency”. The Gazette also learned that KG&A had taken on Reserve Properties as a client.
Reserve Properties is the developer appealing the decision to limit to height of a property at the SE corner of Brant and James to 17 storeys. The election survey was asking Burlington residents their view on the municipal election and then, apparently, focusing on a particular candidate who most of the people we have heard from, say was Marianne Meed Ward who is running for the Office of Mayor.
City Clerk Angela Morgan advised a Gazette reader that she is the Returning Officer for the municipal election and when she learned about the polling she did the following.
I have received a number of complaints regarding a poll conducted by Campaign Research, specifically the content of the questions included in the survey and if the survey would be considered third party advertising. I have investigated this complaint including: contacting Campaign Research to receive a copy of the survey, review of the legislation, canvassing other Municipal Clerks to determine how they are handling similar polls in their municipalities and discussion with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
City Clerk Angela Morgan certifying the 2010 election results.
As the Returning Officer for the City of Burlington, my authority comes from the Municipal Elections Act, which does not include any regulations concerning tactics or content of materials used in any election campaign.
With respect to the question of third party advertisement, based on my research, I have determined that this poll is not third party advertising as defined by the Municipal Elections Act for the following reasons:
The Act defines Third Party Advertisement as follows:
“third party advertisement” means an advertisement in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that has the purpose of promoting, supporting or opposing,
(a) A candidate, or
(b) A yes or no answer to a question referred to in subsection 8(1), (2) or (3)
But does not include an advertisement by or under the direction of a candidate or an advertisement described in subsection (2) or (2.1)
The first test is whether a poll would be considered as a form of advertisement – as the definition of third party advertisement begins with “an advertisement in any…”, the Act does not include a definition of advertisement, consequently, I must rely on the standard definition included in Merriam-Webster dictionary which reads as follows:
A public notice; especially: one published in the press or broadcast over the air
A poll or survey does not fall into the above definition of an advertisement as a “public notice”.
In addition, the copy of the survey I received did not include any reference to specifically oppose, support or promote a specific candidate. I understand that a “push” poll has the intention of swaying respondents in a specific direction, I have consulted on this matter with the Ministry and it is their view that if the questions did not include the name of a specific candidate they would not be considered to be opposing, supporting or promoting a candidate.
The reader the Returning Officer was responding to added: “Wow what a bureaucratic response. Nowhere in my complaint did I mention “third party advertisement”. I will have to think for a while on this response.
So – there you have it. The Returning Officer has done everything she feels she is able to do.
Related news stories:
Lynn, well said. The silence of the mayor on this shameful “survey” is deafening. I feel that our city has been tainted by the “survey” and the mealy-mouthed responses of those supposedly in charge.
Oh what a tangled web is weaved at the great Hall of the City. Methinks ’tis time to sweep the cobwebs away and remove the many overflowing chamber pots. We’d like it done for the October 23rd Feast of the New Council of Ladies and Lords.
Another disappointing response from the City Clerk, in a long list of disappointing responses from the City Clerk. The survey named Marianne Meed Ward specifically. The fact that Morgan didn’t listen to the survey until the newer version without her specifically named (but obviously about her regardless) is irrelevant.
Once again, I must ask: is this seriously the best we can do in Burlington? Pulling out the dictionary and saying “well, I think it’s ok and/or out of my hands and/or we are interpreting things the way we want to interpret things.”
I”m still gobsmacked that the current mayor did not come out immediately in support of his colleague of 8 years, a sitting City councillor and fellow Mayoral candidate, and speak out strongly against this practice and the harm and upset it caused both Marianne Meed Ward and the many Burlington residents who were upset by it. A shocking lack of leadership and basic human decency in my opinion, and not at all what one would expect of a Mayor.
I received an identical response from Ms. Morgan.
The survey question I received specifically mentioned Marianne Meed Ward and attributed the offensive remarks to her.
That was clearly “opposing a candidate” as outlined in the act.
By Ms. Morgan’s definition that makes it advertising.
Further, the act as quoted by Ms. Morgan, defines advertising more narrowly than Miriam Webster, to include ” other medium”.
The phone qualifies as “other medium”.
I only received Ms. Morgan,s response yesterday so I will respond to her on Monday.
I need to know 3 things.
1. What was the wording of the survey she saw?
2. Why rely on a dictionary definition that is clearly different from the act’s clearer definition?
3. Since her decision to take no further action is not satisfactory, what do we do to contest or appeal this decision?
I am also disappointed that Burlington’s Election Office seems more ready to rely on the words of a Polling Company than defending the views of voters and candidates in Burlington and I will ask for this to be clarified.
With all due respect to Ms. Morgan, which is none at all here, the Clerk’s Office has not been a beacon of impartiality throughout this current electoral process. In fact, those responsible for interpreting the Act and implementing the associated bylaws have, I believe, demonstrated a bias for the current mayor. Had Mr. Goldring been the target of this survey, I am confident that the response would have been swift and thorough. From ridiculous interpretations of what does and does not constitute an election sign to overlooking the use of City property for election purposes to interference with the basic application of citizens’ rights, there has been a clear double standard applied – Mr. Goldring and then those who challenge him, with particular rigour saved for Marianne Meed Ward. Ms. Morgan and her tome of flexibly interpreted rules and guideline reminds me of a spinster aunt reciting a cherished book of dinner etiquette but ignoring the feast. Of course, this is merely my opinion.
Stu, your comments are very well taken. I had read Jim’s post earlier and have just returned to post my thoughts which you have expressed only too well.
I don’t know from which century the definition of advertisement – “A public notice; especially: one published in the press or broadcast over the air” – was acquired, but it seems very limited and out of date. My computer receives a large amount of advertising that would probably not fit under this definition.
Is there really any doubt over what was being done here? Some anonymous party is trying to influence the outcome of the election for mayor of Burlington. They need to be identified, stopped, and possibly punished.
Why target only one candidate? Seems to me that the others are getting nervous? This isn’t the way to run an Election Campaign . Why can’t we have a “GOOD clean election.” No name calling, no surveys, etc. May the best person win. Let’s start acting as ADULTS.
Ms. Morgan writes “…the copy of the survey I received did not include any reference to specifically oppose, support or promote a specific candidate”. She then states: “I have consulted on this matter with the Ministry and it is their view that if the questions did not include the name of a specific candidate they would not be considered to be opposing, supporting or promoting a candidate.”
Questions: 1) is she certain the survey she received did, in fact, represent the actual questions that were asked over the phone by the canvasser? 2) were canvassers given any latitude to ask additional questions? and 3) if the questions did not include the name of a specific candidate, then how did it reflect upon and refer to Marianne Meed Ward’s candidacy? If it is, in fact, tacit recognition, that should still qualify as identifying. (e.g. If I asked respondents in a survey “What do you think about the current Mayor of Burlington”? it’s fairly obvious that I would be referring to Rick Goldring, whether expressly or my inference).