Street level reaction beginning to come in on that Council meeting last week.

By Pepper Parr

July 3rd, 2022



The street level reaction is beginning to come in now that people can see the 15 minutes of fame that Andy Warhol promised us.  You get to watch a train wreck taking place live.  Link to that stunning performance by the Mayor is set out below.

When the Mayor announced she was going to do some agenda management and moved directly to what she referred to as an Integrity Commissioner she was exercising a right that she had.  The problem with the decision she made and the position she took is that there was nothing from the Integrity Commissioner.  Click HERE and see for yourself.  It wont take much more than a minute.

Top row: Member of Council: Sharman, Galbraith and Nisan watching in stunned silence. Bottom row Councillor preparing to leave the meeting and Clerk Kevin Arjoon struggling to maintain some order. He never did find a way to bring the Mayor to order on the several occasions when he should have.

FACT:  Also the the Integrity Commissioner did not write a report to Council .

FACT: The Mayor had no right to bring something onto the agenda without a majority vote to waive the procedural by-law.

FACT: The apology was a private matter. Councillor Stolte had chosen to apologize during non-debatable statements by Councillors. That was entirely her right to choose how she wanted to proceed.

Most of the remarks set out below are from Gazette readers.  We didn’t make this stuff up. All asked not to be identified.

One writer said it “was not not clear how the Mayor had any ability to make a private matter public”; that didn’t deter the Mayor.

Some readers wondered “just where City Clerk was in all this” – he never did have control of the meeting which is what he was hired to do.

“Ms. Gartside clearly knew the matter was both private and not on the agenda. It is hard to imagine that she was a willing participant in what occurred.

“In the world of politics and drama, some scenes are meant to be watched, especially when you have no lines.”

The Integrity Commissioner can expect to be quite busy for some time yet – assuming he doesn’t drag his heels and then decide that this cannot be investigated or reviewed before the election.

Someone somewhere is going to have to do something to get this Council to the point where they walk their talk about Good Governance.

They all expect to be re-elected.

Related news story:

The event: the Mayor and her train wreck

A small poll on what readers thought the Mayor should do



Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 comments to Street level reaction beginning to come in on that Council meeting last week.

  • Dave Turner

    Bob, Rod Philips was caught being out of the country during lockdown, going against his government’s own advice to the general population. He also went to extensive lengths to fake his whereabouts using Christmas decor as if he was at his Ontario home and not in the Caribbean. I would suggest those are totally different situations and circumstances.

  • Dave Turner

    Well Gazette did you not get any comments directed at Stolte and her poor handling of what she said to a journalist, or her second run in with the Integrity Commissioner in the past six months?

    The Gazette writes:- “FACT: The Mayor had no right to bring something onto the agenda without a majority vote to waive the procedural by-law.”

    I do not believe the Mayor was introducing an item but was moving an item previously set on the agenda so as to be dealt with earlier in the course of business than would have been otherwise.

    The Gazette writes “FACT: The apology was a private matter. Councillor Stolte had chosen to apologize during non-debatable statements by Councillors. That was entirely her right to choose how she wanted to proceed.”

    I don’t understand how a private matter can be private when it was to be addressed by Stolte in a very, very public forum – City Council.

    My understanding derived from the initial Gazette reports on this matter is that all parties, including the Integrity Commissioner agreed to settle and close the matter if Stolte made a public apology.

    I believe the Gazette has posted at least seven reports related to this matter, showing in full sunlight its very anti-MMW bias. It’s time to move on.

  • “she was exercising a right that she had” Pepper Parr. The Mayor did not always have this right; our suspicion of this right initially belonging to the full Council that would see a vote taken, has proved correct. As Jim Thomson and the Gazette know, it takes time to get information from the city they do not want to part with. Our endeavours to determine when and how the Mayor turned the power of Council contained in the Procedure By-law when introduced in 2012 to a power that belongs to the Mayor at any time she wishes to utilize it began June 23, 2022 and we got our response June 29, 2022. We responded straight back requesting further information and have yet to hear back.

    Jo-Anne Rudy responded to our question of Kevin Arjoon of when this particular section was first part of the Procedure Bylaw; with “We have had a clause in the Procedure By-law with regards to the order of business at Committee and Council meetings since 2012, in some iteration. “Please see attached Procedure By-law 80-2012, Clause 18.5 which states: 18.5 The business of each meeting shall be taken up in the order in which it stands upon the “Order of Business”, unless otherwise decided by Council.”

    Our question back to Jo-Anne Rudy and Kevin was how and when it got changed to remove the power from Council and grant it to an individual. The Mayor being an individual who also rules on a point of order.

    When we learn if this Mayor orchestrated this power grab, or a mayor that went before her we will let you know. We don’t like to assume anything but we have both made our bets on the same answer!!!!!! If we are wrong we will certainly fess up.

  • Bob

    This whole kerfuffle originated in Ms. Gartside believing councillor Stolte had publicly identifies her. I am finding this perplexing why the Mayor is not as guilty or more so in bringing the apology public and to the fore of the meeting.
    I’m also at a loss as to why our Mayor was chairing the meeting from another city. Hybrid council meetings are supposedly because it is unsafe to engage the public but yet it is fine to go to her daughters grad and hold a council meeting? It doesn’t pass the smell test

    Editor’s note: Burlington Bob – you’re not reading everything in the Gazette – that would be a spot in your copy book. We reported on two occasions that the Mayor was in London, ON attending the graduation of one of her daughters at Western University.

    • Dave Turner

      Seems to me Bob and the Editor are saying the same thing.

      With this crowd there is no winning here for MMW.

      She is wrong to be diligent and attend the council meeting. OK remotely, but so what. I’m sure you guys would call her out if she had not attended.

      The smallmindedness displayed in council by its members is a reflection of the smallmindedness often displayed here by a number of commenters towards various members of council and in relation to topics “reported on” by the Gazette.

      • Bob

        This is the first time I have ever critiqued the mayor Dave. I voted for her and I will again, but that in no way makes me blind to the errors she makes along the way.
        Calling the current council small minded is a two way street, it takes TWO to tango. For me the problem with good governance is that politics gets in the way and this is 100% MMW playing politics.
        As for “so what”? I think I explained that in my comment if you’d have taken the time to read it impartially. To the editor who commented that she was in London attending her daughters graduation, I am fully aware of that. My question was why? Is she representing London or Burlington?

        • Dave Turner

          “if you’d have taken the time to read it impartially”. Good example of smallmindedness. Thank you Bob.

          Again, what does her physical geographic location have to do with anything. If she had been attending a similar family event in North Burlington for example and joined the meeting remotely from there, you imply that would be OK because she represents Burlington. I’m sorry I do not see any logic to your argument and is an unwarranted criticism

          • Bob

            Ask Rod Phillips the relevance of my question
            Or is what’s good for provincial politics not relevant to the situation?

Leave a Reply