Posted 10 August 2010:
A few days ago a concerned Puslincher contacted me and suggested that I make a page available on my web site for debate about the upcoming Municipal election. The Puslincher was not pleased with the leadership of our elected officials over the past few years. As I have had my own concerns in this regard, I agreed--and here it is!
I am very much interested in Township politics. However, because I work afternoons and early evenings I cannot attend either of the council monthly meetings. Also, as we have no mail delivery on our road and have to receive our mail at a PO box in Guelph, we do not automatically receive a copy of the Pioneer. This said by way of explanation as to why I am out of touch with Puslinch issues.
I am politically active and have attended several rallies and demonstrations this year. I serve on the Executive Board of the Guelph and District Labour Council and try to represent the interests of "the District".
But, enough about me. While I may be out of touch, I am concerned. In the pile on my desk, I was able to find the letter dated March 4, 2009, apparently from the Township of Puslinch. It addresses the issue of the 'dismissal' of the Quinnells and alleges that the Quinnells have been defrauding the Township for Standby Pay. It concludes with the sentence:
Council stands united in its decision to dismiss Dan Quinnell and Richard Quinnell and in its resolve to fully defend the lawsuit that has been commenced by them.
It is my understanding that the Councillors distanced themselves from this letter, saying that it came solely from the Mayor. Furthermore, the Quinnells went on to win the lawsuit for a substantial sum--at the taxpayers' expense. Clearly someone dropped the ball on this one. Also, there are the issues of the questionable need for a new library, the MURF and, of course, the 12% tax increase. Weighty issues indeed.
By way of doing my homework for this page, I have begun reviewing the minutes of Council Meetings. It is slow going!
I have made this page available to Puslinchers to comment on the current Township Council and our Mayor and, if possible, provide information about how it functions. I will serve as moderator of the forum. I will not allow personal attacks. As this is such a potentially sensitive issue I will allow comments to be published anonymously by request. But be advised, anonymous information carries much less credibility than a signed statement.
Please send your comment or information to me at paul@puslinch.net.
Posted 16 August 2010
Dear Paul:
I have sent a shorter letter to the Wellington Advertiser in response to Councillor Don McKay’s long letter of August 6th trying to explain how Puslinch Township Council arrived at this year’s tax increase. However, when I found out that the Reader’s Forum on www.puzlinch.net was up and running for the election (Decision 2010), I thought sending the letter, with a bit more detail, would be a good place to go to find out if others in the Township had experienced the tax increase I have.
Unfortunately, Councillor McKay’s letter was so long and convoluted that I found it hard to follow but a few items did catch my eye.
· The amount Councillor McKay quoted as saying the Township (i.e. taxpaying residents) put into the MURF was somewhat obtuse – it might be $129,000 for 2010 but the total amount to be paid is $350,000.
· I notice he didn’t mention the fact that our taxes had gone up because of the payout and legal expenses related to the firing of the Fire Department personnel.
· He also tried hard to lay the blame for the tax increase on the property assessment increases.
Fortunately, for those of us confused by the explanation, the tax bill, which arrived on the same day as the newspaper, broke down the changes in simple detail.
The breakdown on my personal tax bill gives a very different picture to the one painted by Councillor McKay and the predicted 12% tax increase. While my overall tax increase is around 6% (with the MPAC factor) and 5% (without), it is the Township’s increase for their portion that is the real eye opener. That portion has increased by 15%, not 12%. If it were not for the fact that the bulk of our taxes (62% to the County and 21% to education) incurred minimal or no increases, the overall tax increase would have been much worse. At the end of the day, it is the Township that is responsible for the majority of the tax increase and not the MPAC assessment as Councillor McKay would have you believe.
In June, thanks to Councillors Visser and Fielding, the opportunity was there for Council to reconsider this large increase. Unfortunately, the majority decided to leave things as they were, with comments varying from “they didn’t want the staff to have to rework the budget (they had worked so hard on it already)”, and “he wasn’t Santa Claus and the public couldn’t expect to get everything” to the Mayor thinking it was a “reasonable budget”. The CAO said that the taxes had actually gone down 4% in the last two years. I am not sure which Puslinch Township the CAO lives in but the Puslinch Township I live in has increased my taxes in the last couple of years. In fact, in the 11 years I have lived in Puslinch, I have never seen my taxes go down.
Given that there is a huge chunk of money still to be paid on the MURF (if less than half is accounted for in this years’ tax increase) and the legal bills related to the Manderson court cases (which we are paying for through our County taxes), to name just a few big expenses, we can expect another big increase next year, with no mitigation from the County portion.
Am I the only one who has been hit hard and thinks it is time to do something about the situation?
Sandra Solomon
Puslinch
Posted September 5
My comment about someone dropping the ball on the Quinnell firings sparked some interest, so I have cobbled together a possible chain of events leading up to it. I do not know how much of this is true. There are people who do, and I encourage them to come forward with what they know.
In the fall of 2008 one or more firefighters approached a Councillor, with concerns about the leadership of the Fire Department, but no action was taken. Later, in November, about a dozen firefighters met with some of our Councillors, who reported abuse and morale problems in the Department and threatened to quit their jobs.
Subsequently, more meetings were held. With whom and about what, I don’t know. A closed door meeting, on December 3, 2008, resulted in the Council and the Mayor voting in favour of firing the Quinnells. On December 8, the Quinnells were fired.
The Mayor wrote a letter with the closing sentence quoted above— from which the other Councillors distanced themselves. Subsequently, the Quinnells sued the Township for wrongful dismissal. They won! It has been reported that the payout and legal fees have cost Puslinchers over $400,000!
It is alleged that between 2006 and 2008, the Quinnells over-billed the Township for hundreds of hours they didn’t work. And, that is why they were fired.
Common sense would suggest that if someone were stealing from you, that you would call the police to investigate. Our Council did not do that. Five days after the decision was made, the Quinnells were told they were fired. They were given ample time to cover their tracks and erase their hard drives—which they apparently did.
Much later, after it became apparent that the Township would take no action against the Quinnells, a group of outraged Puslinchers went to the OPP with their concerns. Unfortunately, no evidence of fraud could be found by the Police.
Rumour has it, that because Brenda paid the Quinnells for all this “extra” time, she is in part responsible for the over-payments. The Mayor and some Councillors did not want to risk any complicity to fall to Brenda, and that is why the police were not called in. The five-day delay in firing the Quinnells is inexplicable.
How much of this is true, I don’t know. But, in the absence of knowledge, speculation will occur in the void.
The facts available to us are:
--The Mayor and some Councillors believed they had just cause to fire the Quinnells and voted to do so.
--The Mayor and some Councillors did not fire the Quinnells for five days.
--The Mayor and some Councillors did not call in the police to investigate the Quinnells’ apparent fraud.
--The Township spent a lot of money on lawyers in dealing with the Quinnells and then ultimately having to pay them.
This is a total screw-up with very costly results!
We need to think long and hard about whom we want to elect as our next Mayor and Councillors. If and when they come to my door, I know I’ll have some tough questions for them. I think transparency and accountability should be the key issues.
Posted Sept. 24
A mayoral candidate actually did come today, but I was out walking the dogs and missed him. Dennis Lever left a little flyer hanging on my doorknob like a "Do Not Disturb" sign. The first question I would have asked him was why is he putting up those stupid little signs everywhere. The first thing you learn about Puslinch politics is that we don't deface our Township with those signs. So when I see a name on a little sign, I say to myself "Won't be voting for him."
The second question I would have asked is, "You have never even been elected to the Council, why would I vote for you as Mayor?" Shouldn't I vote for for a person with some experience?
A perfect segway to the Town Hall meeting with Dick Visser and Susan Fielding that I attended on Wednesday. Dick and Susan are very frustrated with the leadership of the Township. They feel that there should be more public input on the decisions they were making and asked for public meetings to have some debate. However, they were over ruled by the other three members. They also feel there should be greater fiscal responsibility exercised by the Mayor and the Township.
Dick and Susan make fine pair of running mates. The topics covered were pretty much previously presented in Dick's letter to the Pioneer, but with more background, and a few juicy details thrown in that were not suitable for publication. The question was asked, "What if you are elected and it is still two against three when it comes to a vote?" Certainly a valad question and the response was that they felt Wayne Stokely, who is running as a councillor, would also be on board.
I was on the inital team to elect Susan seven years ago and I still support her. For Mayor I am supporting Dick and with their reccommendation I am supporting Wayne for Councillor. I am ecouraging all candidates to have their platforms presented here. Voters should send in questions for the candidates. I have committed here to three of my up to ten votes available. Convince me I should vote for you!
Posted September 26
The first to take me up on the above offer is Bill Cloutis who is running for Ward 7 County Councillor.
Dear Paul;
Thank you for providing a medium to allow candidates to post their platforms here. I would like to present who I am and why I am running for county councilor of ward 7.
Who I am and what I do:
I have been a permanent resident property owner for 12 years; self employed since 1988: involved in manufacturing design and project management. Over 30 years involvement with various private industries in the county and surrounding areas. Experience preparing and managing multi-million dollar projects and budgets for private companies, bringing final project costs at or below budget. Common sense problem solving approach, excellent analytical skills, fiscally responsible, honest and accountable.
What I aim to accomplish for our community:
-Reduce and/or minimize tax increases by minimizing spending by requiring detailed proposals, justifications and honest tenders for all expenditures, and only for services that benefit the majority of the community.
-Retain a rural environment through sound management of water supply and resource integrity, quality and quantity for now and the future.
-Attract businesses/industries to the area that enhance and contribute to the community. -Support and vote in favour of an elected county warden.
-Maintain an open door policy to discuss issues and concerns with all residents and to strive for a more transparent and accountable county government. Request that votes on all issues are recorded and publicized on the county website, failing that to set up a personal website and inform everyone of how I have voted on key issues, so the public can gauge my performance.
To any of my detractors that say I have no political experience, my reply is that I do have sound business experience, and have not been tainted by the existing way of doing things. Everyone works hard for their money and we all have to pick and chose the priorities for expenditures in our everyday lives, all levels of government should do the same with our tax money. Any expenditure or annual tax increases should be justified with realistic priorities and not be a normal established practice.
My Personal Pledge: I will treat county residents as valued customers, not as personal wallets.
I welcome any questions, comments or criticism that anyone has, either through this forum or via email at bill@wmctechnical.com or by phone at 519-763-7562.
Bill Cloutis
Good luck on your campaign Bill. I hope I'm home when you stop in at my house.
Posted September 28
Dick and Susan have sent in their platforms. Dennis has declined to participate at this time.
By Richard Visser
Mayoralty Candidate
Like many of you, I have serious concerns about the occurrences during the last council term. I have served on Puslinch council for over twenty years in the capacities of Councillor and Deputy Reeve. I had never aspired to be mayor over the years, but during the past council term I have been so concerned over the lack of leadership, lack of transparency and lack of public and Council consultation on important issues, that I felt compelled to step forward and stand for Mayor. I have a very solid plan to guide our township forward in the future.
In order to listen and respond to public concerns, I have arranged a series of public townhall meetings in all corners of our township. This has given me a first hand opportunity to meet you and share your ideas. I have been heartened by your responses and uplifted by the mutual love we have for our community. I have heard from you that people want their taxes kept in check, but even more importantly they are looking for a strong leader who will speak and represent our township. If I am honoured enough to be elected Mayor, I will spend most of my time here at home, answering and responding to your concerns and I plan on being a fierce advocate for Puslinch on County Council. This has been sorely lacking over the past term, yet over 60% of our taxes are sent to the County.
Some specific issues I plan on working for are the realignment of Highway 6 around Morriston, ensuring the Big Lake Rehabilitation Project is fully funded by the aggregate companies, continued support of the dredging of Puslinch Lake, upgrades of roads—specifically Calfass and 11th Concession—and a fiscally responsible approach for replacing Story’s Bridge.
It is my sincere belief that local taxation can be kept very low. Fiscal responsibility will be one of my main focuses.
On October 25th, I ask for your support so we can work together to ensure Puslinch remains a wonderful community! Let’s work together.
Susan Fielding
Candidate for Puslinch Township Council
905-659-1050
Suefielding63@hotmail.com
As I stand before the residents of Puslinch, asking for a third term as Councillor of our township, I feel proud of the many accomplishments that have occurred over the past term. Many good things continue to happen in Puslinch despite a tumultuous term.
The passing of the Environmental Assessment for the Realignment of Highway 6 (Morriston Bypass) is a major hurdle which gets us closer to the realignment becoming a reality.
I am proud to be a part of introducing Roadwatch Canada to our township. This initiative is in response to so many residents sharing concerns about dangerous driving on our roads.
Volunteer spirit is an integral part of what makes Puslinch a great community. It has been a great joy to be a part of associations such as the Badenoch Community Board which works tirelessly to keep their beautiful heritage building a tribute to their small, close knit hamlet. I proudly supported the residents of Aikensville who were successful in keeping a gravel pit out of their backyards.
At times this past term has been mired in divisiveness. I have taken some bold stands which have resulted in controversy, but as has been said, “Show me a politician who isn’t controversial, and I will show you a politician who has done nothing.”
I will continue to do the right thing on behalf of our township. My hope is that the next term of council will be headed by a strong, involved and community-minded leader. I look forward to a more inclusive council which embraces public input by holding public consultations so we can respond to what our citizens want.
I plan to continue to be a grassroots councillor who listens and responds to your concerns. I supported the tax increase re-examination and was disheartened that is was spurned by the majority of council. Next year we can and will do better.
Upgrading road infrastructure and making environmentally responsible planning decisions are but a few of my goals for the next term of council.
“Let’s keeping working together!”
Good luck Dick and Susan.
There will be a debate for the candidates for Mayor on October 7 at 7:00 pm. at the Community Centre and for the Councillor candidates on the 12th., same time and place.
Here is a report on the Mayoral Candidates debate from Sandra Soloman.
Posted 18 October 2010
Before commenting on the Mayoral candidate meeting, I would like to make two observations.
1. A “clean sweep”. I have heard of a move afoot, obviously sponsored by the new candidates, to replace all the current politicians with new people. Having a fair amount of municipal experience, I can tell you that this would be disastrous for us, the Township residents. It takes at least a year for the mayor and councillors to get up to speed with the workings of municipal government and the issues on the table. There is a lot more to running the Township than dealing with the annual budget. I am not sure that it is in the interests of the Township to have no leadership and governance for a year. No matter how prepared the new candidates feel they are, I can assure you, they have a lot to learn.
2. All these candidates have run on the “cut taxes” mandate. Believe me, I am all for cutting the taxes but I have yet to hear how any of them are going to achieve this. The municipality is a “puppet of the Province” and there are regulations in place that the local government has no control over. Even in this election I have heard comments about politicians not keeping the promises they made at election time. Those promises were probably made with the best of intentions but, once elected, those politicians found that they could not deliver … not because they didn’t want to, but because there were rules in place to prevent it happening.
There was a large turnout at the advance polls on Saturday but for those of you who have not yet voted, please think carefully before making your choices – you impact all taxpayers in the Township.
Mayoral Candidate Meeting:
This was very well attended – a sure sign that the community is involved in this election. The three candidates: Dick Visser, Dennis Lever and Brad Whitcombe (in that order) gave a 5 minute speech outlining their platforms and then took questions from the floor.
Tax increases were a hot topic. Dick admitted that the 12% increase was a mistake which was why he had tried to get the budget reopened to see if this figure could be reduced. The Multi-Use Recreation Facility (MURF) was one of the main reasons for the big increase. Dick felt that this money should have come out of the Parkland Fund, rather than the general tax fund. Dennis didn’t comment directly on using this money but said the township reserves had been dwindling for some time. Brad said the Parkland Fund should be kept as a reserve fund. (My own opinion: This fund is created by cash-in-lieu of parkland from developments. Parks are for recreational purposes. This money should be used for recreational purposes and that means the MURF).
Concerns were raised over the possible expansion of Guelph into the Township. Dick explained that, under the current agreement with the Province, there will be no possible expansion until 2031 and he and Brad both raised the issue of sensitive environmental lands south of Guelph that would prevent expansion. Dennis felt that it was inevitable that Guelph would spread to the 401 but “not in our lifetime”.
Questions were raised about how staff treat the public. Dick admitted that there were problems with some staff and there may need to be some training. Dennis felt that frontline staff should not be hired if they didn’t have good people skills and Brad felt the staff were “top rate”.
Township planning: Dennis wanted to hire a full-time planner and not use the County planners. In the past the Township had had their own planner but there was not sufficient work to warrant this position and the County served us well – there was no need to spend $100,000 on a new position. (I thought Dennis was planning to cut taxes, not raise them). Water taking: Dennis felt that all water taking needs to be considered, not just Nestle. For the past 20 years there has been a ground water monitoring system in place to provide the municipality with this information (Brad). Nestle operates under a MOE license and has to conform to that agreement (Dick). (My comment: This is an example of where no matter what we, as a Township would like to see, it is out of our jurisdiction).
The Big Lake: Dick expressed concern over the lack of community input into this project and the secrecy on the part of the Mayor who had held private meetings with the gravel pit owners and Ministry officials. Dick said he was not necessarily opposed to the Big Lake but felt that it should be funded by the gravel pit companies and not the taxpayers. Dennis agreed on this point and said the Township had already spent a large sum to try and secure government funding for the project. (To date, this funding has not yet been approved). Brad defended his decisions to start the project alone and felt that Council was made aware of the project. (A feeling not supported by either Dick or Susan Fielding).
While Dick was the only candidate to address the urgent need for the Highway 6 by-pass in his opening speech, all three candidates agreed that the project was long overdue and Council should continue to lobby the Province to move it along. Dennis suggested that the commercial benefits should be stressed. (Had Dennis done his homework on this subject he would know that every aspect, including the commercial one, had already been presented to the Province).
The new library was another concern for residents considering there didn’t seem to be an increase in use. Dick said it broke his heart to see it torn down, especially as it could have been renovated at a fraction of the cost and the money from the County put to better use. Dennis agreed with renovating the building and was concerned that it had been pulled down so quickly with no public consultation. Brad, who is chair of the County Library Board, said that research had shown , given the population numbers in the Township, that we should have a library about twice the size of the old one. (My comment: In this computerized day and age, libraries are becoming less and less viable. We didn’t need a new library and, regardless of whether this is being funded at the Township or County level, it is all our taxes).
The Voice of Puslinch warranted a question and was soundly dismissed by all candidates and virtually everyone in the room. The comments I heard were what I had expressed myself: put it in the garbage unread.
Thank you for that detailed report Sandra.
I thought that Dennis' comment of the need to hire a fulltime planner, when both Dick and Brad agreed that there wasn't enough work for a fulltime planner, showed he is out of touch with the needs of the Township. He touts himself as a "strong business manager", but makes no mention of ever holding an elected office. He said he would run the Township like a business.
The big lake was a hot topic. Dick pointed out that the Township was putting money into the project, but that it should be paid for by the aggregate companies who have made millions of dollars. Brad tried to justify his actions, but his logic made no sense to me.
If you have read my "Library" web page you know I like libraries and over the years spent quite a bit of time in them. Like Dick, it broke my heart to see it was gone. Up until a few years ago my wife and I would spend some time there every other Saturday morning. More recently we have been going on the County Library web site and ordering the books and films we wanted, then simply going to the library and picking them up. For our need, the library does not need to be any bigger than the Sears catalogue counter. As the information available on the internet continues to expand, the needs for a bricks and mortar library will continue to erode.
On this topic Dick thought that the library could have been repaired for a fraction of the cost of a new approximately $2 million dollar building and that there should have been more consultation with Puslinchers in regards to what they wanted in a library. When Brad responded he was unapologetic about spending taxpayers money without consulting them--even proud of his accomplishment.
So, here is my take on the candidates.
Dennis has no apparent political experience and will run the Township like a business. No thank you!
Brad sees nothing wrong with the way he is running the Township. He knows Puslinchers have deep pockets and he will continue to spend our money. He sees Puslinch as his fiefdom. No thank you!
Dick has 22 years experience on council, he knows the people and he knows the issues. He sees that there are problems and he is offering practical solutions to them. Yes please!
Here is a report on the other debate from Sandra Soloman.
The All Candidates Meeting (except the Mayoral Candidates).
As with the Mayoral Candidates meeting, this one was very well attended. Many of the same issues were raised with the main one being the tax increases.
The new candidates were all on the “cut taxes” bandwagon but there were no explanations on how any one of them would achieve this.
There were two questions surrounding the preparedness of the new Candidates for what lay ahead. Ken Roth said that prior to May, 2010 he had not attended any Council meetings but, since then had attended a few. Wayne Stokley, had attended most of the Council meetings over the past four years. Wayne said that he ran 4 years ago, after spending the previous year religiously attending all the Council meetings. He thought he was prepared but it was only after spending the past 4 years on the Planning Advisory Committee that he realized just how little he had actually known then. Gerry Schmidt and Manfred Ganning had not attended any Council meetings but had read the Council Minutes on-line. Dave Billings had not attended any Council meetings. As to community involvement by the new candidates, Ken was a member of the Optimists, Wayne was on the Planning Advisory Committee, Gerry maintained the Township office grounds at no cost to the taxpayer, Dave helped out in his neighbourhood and Manfred said his wife did enough community work for both of them. (Comment: Having attended several Council Meetings over the years and read the Council Minutes, all I can say is that they have missed a lot. The Minutes state some facts but do not tell the whole story of what occurred - maybe this is deliberate!).
The Council Candidates were asked whether they would support using the Parkland Funds to offset the cost of building the MURF. Susan Fielding and Gerry Schmidt both felt that this was what the fund was intended for and was an appropriate use. The rest said they would not. (Comment: If this money comes from a recreational source, it should be used for that and not off-set other Township expenses. If the new Council Candidates are so concerned about the 12% tax increase, why are they not supporting a way to reduce that 12% tax increase?)
Susan Fielding felt that while there had been problems over the past 4 years with many 3-2 decisions (the Mayor, Councillors McKay and Bulmer on one side and Councillors Fielding and Visser on the other) a lot of positive things had been achieved, amongst them the Environmental Assessment for the Highway 6 By-Pass had been approved –this was a huge step – and, with commitment from the Optimists, the MURF was being constructed. (Comment: Instead of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” perhaps the community should remember that two Councillors did try to fight for them on a number of issues: to reverse the tax increase, gate-crashing meetings to get information on the Big Lake/the new library, siding with the Aikensville residents in their fight to stop the gravel pit, etc. I am really puzzled over why the community would want to punish two people who have fought long and hard for them over the past four years and throw out the experience and continuity they would help maintain on Council. There are already 2 seats up for grabs on Council. Isn’t this enough change for now?)
There were a few questions for the School Trustees (both Public and Separate) and for the County Councillor Candidates. The Separate School Trustee had been acclaimed but he still attended the meeting and pledged to work hard for the community. A question was asked of the Public School Trustees relating to tax increases. Jim McClure assured those attending he would be keeping it at zero. Marty Fairburn, who had previously been a Trustee, explained that the rate was set by the Province and the School Board was required, by law, to balance their budget.
The County Councillor Candidates both said they would be working to keep tax increases to a minimum. (Comment: What does concerns me is that we have a Mayor and 4 Councillors taking care of 18% of our taxes but we only have the same Mayor and one other person taking care about 60% of our taxes. We should be having more representation at that level …… or giving less to the County – that would keep the local portion of our taxes down!)
Now it is up to the electorate to make up their minds (those of you who have yet to vote). I am not telling you who to vote for. My opinions are my own. What I am asking is that you think hard before making your decisions. We are all going to have to live with the results.
I understand that there is a last-minute push by the “clean sweep” proponents in the Township. In the 3 previous elections I have been involved in, I have never seen such aggressive action from candidates. Officially, I have yet to see any concrete ways that my taxes are going to be reduced by any of the new people running. I have heard comments that have been made at the doors – and I stress this is hearsay - that some of the high-priced staff will be fired. In order to do this, a lot of money is going to have to change hands. That coupled with Dennis Lever’s public (not hearsay) commitment to hire a planner for the Township, is not going to bring our taxes down but rather increase them astronomically. If anyone out there has actually spoken to the new candidates about these issues, I would love to hear something from them. Maybe there are good answers to these questions that other residents would appreciate hearing. I know I would.
Thank you again Sandra. As before, you are insightful and articulate.
But, she is being too modest. Sandra asked the question about who has been preparing for the job of a Councillor by attending the meetings. Of the non-incubents only Wayne Stokley could stand up and say that that he had regularly attended the meetings for the past five years, and could say he was up to speed on the various issues. The four others all pretty much said, "I'm a quick study." Well that is not good enough! For me, this is a defining issue. If you can't be bothered to attend Council meetings so that you can do your job if you are elected--I can't be bothered voting for you.
Posted 27 October:
Here is "The Epitaph" from Sandra Solomon.
Well, the voting is over and the electorate have chosen. A little bit too much in the way of new faces for my comfort.
I hope that Dennis Lever can deliver on all the promises he made as he toured the Township: a full-time planner, taking every gravel pit application to the OMB, removing senior staff … and at the same time lowering taxes. The people who voted for you are expecting you to come through for them.
The Councillors are a bit of a mystery. Apart from Susan Fielding, everyone on Council is new. It will be up to Sue to keep things on track as the rest of them face a steep learning curve – one far greater than I am sure they imagine. Two of the new Councillors have not shown much interest in the municipal government process at all. One has never even been to a Council meeting. I hope they discover a lot more commitment to serving the residents of the Township than they have obviously felt in the past. I would like to thank Paul for providing this website for discussion on this election. Unfortunately, it seems that he and I are the only ones interested in discussion. Dick Visser and Sue Fielding posted their platforms on the site; Dennis Lever chose not to participate – and I have yet to discover his platform and how he plans on reducing my taxes.
My final wishes are that the next four years will prove to be a pleasant surprise for me and that I never, ever again have to live through an election campaign that was as dirty as this one.