I have a problem with what passes for openness and integrity in our municipality.

When it was proposed that the nuclear waste dump be located in the municipality, the OPG and council held secret meetings. The need for secrecy was never explained and, from my experience, when that happens it is because there is no valid explanation that would stand up to scrutiny. Next, some councillors and the mayor allowed themselves to be paid by OPG to peddle OPG’s marketing material at the information storefront. That destroyed any pretense of an unbiased presentation of the facts to the public. Politicians taking payment to tout a private business is questionable behaviour at best.

This year it is Enbridge and council’s negotiating style that should raise questions by all citizens concerned both with how council behaves and with our future.

I witnessed no balance in council’s deliberation over Enbridge’s proposal. I did read of the deputy mayor’s glee in thinking of the money Enbridge would bring to the table by their proposal. I did not read of any tough questions asked by Donald or any independent research he had done on the subject though there is much available. By all accounts the tingle of gold coins makes our mayor, Donald, and others deaf to alternate considerations. And why, I ask, would the mayor be in opposition to a full environmental assessment? If he knows something the rest of us do not, then he should tell us. If he cannot let us in on his secret then we should question his position regarding Enbridge’s proposal. That is always the problem with the lack of openness; it makes the curious wonder.

The Windfarm Action Group held an information meeting last Wednesday evening. There were enough questions raised about the appropriateness of wind farms to make one want to think twice of supporting such projects as Enbridge’s. There were sources available for anyone to further research the issue. I would encourage all citizens to be in touch with this group and learn for themselves the other side of the issue at actiongroup@bmts.com and www.windaction.ca You owe it to yourself to see the future for you and your children. You owe nothing to those wanting to make a buck on your backs and those of your children. Even the peasant farmers throughout the developing world know that and have the courage to resist it. We should too.

It is sad that we cannot trust our mayor and deputy mayor to lead council in presenting full and balanced information on important issues. But when some folk face powerful companies they loose their perspective on what is truly important.

 September 20, 2006

Today I want to talk about the councillor-at-large candidates who deserve to be elected and will give us the best opportunity of being governed in a civil and open manner and improve council’s gene pool

Those candidates are: Kenneth Craig, Laura Haight, and Kevin Klerks.

Kenneth Craig was previously been on the amalgamated council and the former Kincardine Township council. He was known for his honesty and forthrightness. I have no problem with a councillor being forthright just so long as he or she does the research and communicates openly and honestly. We have had far too much of the opposite.

Laura Haight comes with a wealth of experience in rural government along with a degree in political science from Queen’s University. I was struck with Haight’s presentation to council during the mail-in-ballot discussion. She was articulate, could think on her feet, and had done her research. She ran rings around some of the councillors with their cock-eyed questions. She would definitely add quality to council’s gene pool.

Kevin Klerks is new to local politics and relatively young, both qualities being a plus to the gene pool. To prepare himself for this run for council, Kevin attended council and committee meetings throughout 2005-2006. He also walked out and about the municipality. I found it refreshing to learn that Kevin had actually gone to Sunset Drive and walked the road before coming to his own opinion. I have followed Kevin since he declared as a candidate and learned that he does his research and approaches issues with an open mind. I find him concerned for all citizens regardless of where they live and this is much needed in the municipality.

Craig, Haight, and Klerks are my top picks for councillor-at-large. Their names should be on every one’s ballot.

I give mixed reviews for a fourth candidate, Bob White, for councillor-at-large. Bob was certainly on the right side at amalgamation when he voted against having the full council on the BMTS Board of Directors and when he voted against the obscene pay they gave themselves as members. I applaud him for that. I am concerned that when Bob served as chair of the airport committee he appeared not to have taken the time to learn about the airport operations or of surrounding airports so that he could make independent decisions and ask pertinent questions of people about the operation. If Bob does his homework and communicates better, he could be an asset on council.

September 27, 2006

Last week I wrote of my choices for councillor-at-large. This week I look at Wards One where there is a clear choice. Guy Anderson should represent Ward One. Given better leadership in this current council, Anderson’s excellent qualities would have shone brightly. He knows the town and shows a concern for the ordinary citizen that I rarely saw in the parochial grandstanding of too many council members and the power tripping of Mayor Sutton and Sandy Donald. Guy wants fairness and openness in doing council business which, after all, is the citizens’ business. He comes with no aspirations of grandeur. Given my recommendations of last week, Guy would fit in well in bringing civility and openness to council. We need councillors who will listen and do their homework. Guy is one of those.

Barry Schmidt who is also serving on this present council seems a decent enough person but would add nothing that is critical to the new council. Following the council meeting at which council let the delegation from WAC wait three hours before letting them speak and that after council had passed the offending motions, Mr. Schmidt remarked that he was pleased with the process. Barry Schmidt was pleased with a process that broke all the rules of fairness and honesty. There is a crucial flaw in a person who applauds such a process. He should not be elected.

Norm Annetts gives a lot to this community with his volunteer work and is a fine person with whom to have a chat about the town but I cannot see Norm as a councillor. This may seem cruel but it is not meant to be. Norm’s assets lie elsewhere as a volunteer making an important contribution to this community. I wish him well in that role where he is a decided asset.

My concern with Nelson Boals is his plan to build two six-units apartment buildings on Princes Street South in spite of the current zoning for single dwellings. I have written on this issue previously and will only say now that councillors should be quite sensitive to the reasons for zoning in the first place. Mr. Boals lacks that sensitivity. Development should never be at the expense of citizens who have acted in good faith. Boals circumvented the wishes of his neighbours and defied the ruling of council with no better reason than profit. He needs to learn there is more to business than profit. We have seen enough of that attitude on council. Nelson Boals should definitely not be elected to council.

It should be Guy Anderson for Ward One – no baggage, no hidden agenda, just sound principles.