The Burg Watch: Why I Stand Up for Our Community

Featured

My name is Linda Saxon, an Amherstburg, Ontario resident, council watcher, disability rights activist and person with a disability.

As Amherstburg’s first local blogger since 2011 and creator of the burg watch, my goal has always been to keep our community informed. 

Through the burg watch I challenge the status quo because our community deserves better than the minimal efforts and performative gestures like promoting proclamations and raising flags.

A truly inclusive community removes barriers that prevent people from equally participating in their own community.

I’ve written about the barriers that need to be removed to end the exclusion. For example, the lack of accessible amenities like infrastructure, recreation, and civic engagement.

My disability rights advocacy isn’t a political hobby; it’s a commitment to a human right to belong.

Standing up for what I believe in and trying to hold our administration and council accountable has resulted in pushback and isolation. But I’d rather face criticism for defending our community’s right to equity than be liked for staying silent while residents are excluded from their own town.

I am proud of the conversations the burg watch has generated. I’ll continue to watch, write, and advocate—because a stronger, fully accessible Amherstburg benefits the entire community.

I appreciate the friends and allies that have joined me along this journey.

graphic image of brown wooden sign with white text that reads welcome to Amherstburg - a community for everyone with greenery at the base of the posts.
graphic image of wooden sign with text: welcome to Amherstburg – a community for everyone.

Curated Town Photos vs. Actual Accessibility: The Gingerbread House Reality Check

Now that the election is over, the standard public relations scripts are already rolling out, with a defeated candidate sharing his own post highlighting local volunteer recruitment to keep up appearances.

But we need to look past the glossy town photo and look at the actual municipal building being promoted.

Recently, Dhaval Prajapati shared a post advertising that approximately 5,000 people visited the Gingerbread Warming House at Toddy Jones Park last year, inviting more families to stop by this season.

While encouraging volunteers and supporting youth camps is always positive, inserting oneself as an outside coordinator to organize local volunteers provides a highly political backdrop that ignores a massive, ongoing barrier—one that The Burg Watch exposed last year, pulling in over 10,000 views according to Facebook page insights.

The Gingerbread House features the blue International Access Symbol sticker prominently displayed right on the front door. Yet the pavilion completely lacks an automated push-button door opener.

International wheelchair access symbol sticker on heavy entrance door to gingerbread house in Amherstburg Ontario

When the town’s official communications channels promote these spaces, and defeated candidates pass those curated images along without addressing the physical barriers, it normalizes performative compliance.

Slapping an accessibility sticker on a heavy door without installing the actual mechanics to open it tells residents with mobility devices that they are accommodated on paper, but leaves them physically locked out in reality unless they have someone to open the door for them.

If a public pavilion expects thousands of visitors, accessibility cannot be treated as a decorative sticker. Amherstburg does not need more staged municipal photo ops.

We need systemic, table-level enforcement that ensures public buildings are actually accessible, not just treated as backdrops for political public relations.

The Shocking Deputy Mayor Upset: Petruniak Out-Polls the Mayor

Let’s talk about the absolute biggest story of election night in Amherstburg—and it isn’t the Mayor’s race.

In a massive political upset that has left Town Hall insiders completely stunned, newcomer Bill Petruniak soundly defeated the heavily favoured Linden Crain for the Deputy Mayor seat.

Petruniak didn’t just win; he captured the second-highest seat in our municipality with an overwhelming 5,146 votes, leaving Crain far behind at 3,590.

But if you look closely at the data, the real story is the staggering gap between our top two new leaders.

As a newcomer to the council table, Petruniak actually out-polled our incoming Mayor, Chris Gibb, by a massive 1,218 votes.

Think about that for a second. While Gibb managed to squeeze through a three-way mayoral race with 3,928 votes, Petruniak walked away with a dominant, town-wide mandate from over 5,000 taxpayers.

This enormous gap sends a clear message about the true mood of Amherstburg voters.

By completely rejecting incumbent platforms like Crain’s, voters demanded independent, new leadership at Town Hall.

Chris Gibb may hold the Mayor’s gavel, but Bill Petruniak holds the true mandate of the people.

The Burg Watch will be watching very closely to see how this dynamic plays out at the council table!

Linden Crain: Votes, Decisions, and Controversies

As the election approaches, voters are analyzing the public records of candidates running for higher office. Councillor Linden Crain—currently campaigning to become Deputy Mayor—has generated several prominent debates regarding transparency, procedural rules, and public access during his term.

While independent regulatory reviews confirmed that Crain did not violate the town’s Code of Conduct rules, voters are looking at his voting history, campaign actions, and communication choices to evaluate his approach to leadership.

1. The Stance on Spontaneous Delegations

A central point of discussion during Crain’s term has been his approach to public participation inside council chambers. Under Amherstburg’s current procedural by-law, gallery members cannot spontaneously speak on an agenda item unless council votes unanimously to waive the rules. (Under the previous by-law, only a simple majority vote was required).

  • The Record: Prioritizing the agenda.
  • The Inconsistency: Residents have noted that Crain departed from this strict procedural stance on a limited number of occasions, voting in favour of waiving the rules to allow specific individual gallery members to speak, which raised questions from critics regarding the consistent application of council protocols.

2. Administrative Alignment vs. The “Homework Assignment”

Beyond the debate over spontaneous delegations, observers have noted a distinct pattern in Crain’s approach to town hall bureaucracy.

  • The Administration Record: Throughout his term, Crain has demonstrated a strong penchant for supporting administration recommendations and relying on staff-led reports.
  • The Reporting Pushback: However, his support for administrative processes stopped at requiring council members to produce their own reporting. When a policy was debated requiring councillors to submit formal summaries after attending municipal conferences, Crain strongly opposed the mandatory paperwork.
  • The Council Chamber Quote: Quoting the draft policy directly on the floor, Crain stated:

“It says here, the report shall include, at a minimum, the name and date summary of the seminars, workshops and or sessions attended. Feels like a homework assignment.”

  • The Public Reaction: While supporters saw this as a practical rejection of redundant paperwork for part-time elected officials, critics noted the irony of a councillor who routinely relies on administrative reporting pushing back against completing basic transparency logs himself.

3. The Open Air Format and Public Input

Amherstburg’s Open Air Weekends have been a significant point of discussion regarding downtown accessibility for seniors and residents with mobility disabilities.

  • The 2022 Stance: When asked by The Burg Watch in 2022 if he would remove Open Air barriers that block people with disabilities from navigating town, Crain responded directly: “Yes. It is important that all members of the community can experience Open Air. If there are particular barriers in place, I am more than willing to investigate further and help find a solution.”
  • The Term Lock-In: Once elected, Crain’s approach shifted from investigating solutions to preserving the status quo. He introduced a motion to maintain the Open Air setup completely unchanged until the end of the council term.
  • The Impact: By cementing the program through the end of the term, the motion effectively prevented further public delegations from formally addressing council on the matter. This locked out individuals with disabilities from presenting ongoing feedback regarding downtown physical obstacles—a stance mirrored by his choice not to participate in the recent candidate accessibility audit organized by The Burg Watch. This legislative lock-in occurred despite municipal survey data revealing that accessibility was the number one resident complaint regarding the Open Air format, a file on which council took no meaningful corrective action.
  • The 2026 Stance: Four years later, Crain’s public rhetoric maintains the exact same conditional framing, deflecting the documented reality of the town’s own survey back onto the public: “I am absolutely open to removing barriers if they exist. Accessibility and inclusion are important. Could you please share the barriers you believe exist during Open Air? You asked if I would remove barriers, but you haven’t explained what those barriers are.”

4. Campaign Protocols: The Malden School Visit

Crain’s campaign actions also drew scrutiny regarding a visit to Malden Central Public School. Following public inquiries, the Greater Essex County District School Board confirmed that established board protocols regarding political campaigns were not followed, issuing the following formal statement:

“We have reviewed the school visit you referenced and determined that established guidelines and procedures were not followed.

The school has been advised that the appropriate protocols were not adhered to, and we requested that the photographs from the visit be removed from social media. We can confirm that the photographs have since been removed.

A reminder will be sent to staff this week reinforcing the Board’s position regarding the distribution of campaign materials in schools during an election period.” – Madeline McEachern, Communications Officer, Greater Essex County District School Board

5. Intergovernmental Communications: Ford and Dilkens

Crain faced pushback from fellow council members for independently engaging with external political figures outside of standard municipal channels.

  • The Windsor Policing Meeting: Crain and Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb met privately with Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens to discuss regional policing options. While a motion to launch a formal integrity review was defeated by council, the controversy led to a unanimous vote to make all previous private policing discussions public.
  • The Doug Ford Call: Crain independently contacted Ontario Premier Doug Ford regarding the economic impact of the Diageo plant closure. A subsequent independent review regarding his authority to speak on behalf of the town concluded that his actions were fully compliant with municipal codes.
  • The Burg Watch Interview: Crain’s response to an interview request was, “I really appreciate your interest, but I respectfully decline the interview at this time.”

6. Chamber of Commerce Sponsorship Vote

In early 2026, questions were raised regarding Crain’s participation in a vote to approve a $500 municipal sponsorship for the local Chamber of Commerce’s Business Excellence Awards, given his personal business ties to the organization. The Integrity Commissioner reviewed the matter and ruled that his standard membership ties did not constitute a financial conflict of interest, confirming his participation in the vote was procedurally correct.

The Choice for Deputy Mayor: An Established Municipal Record vs. A Newcomer Perspective

This factual record sits at the center of the race for Deputy Mayor. With Crain’s opponent entering the race without prior municipal council experience, voters are presented with a clear contrast in leadership backgrounds:

  • Evaluating the Incumbent: Voters can judge Crain based on a definitive four-year paper trail. His record demonstrates a clear preference for strict agenda management, specific intergovernmental networking choices, and locked-in program formats. For some residents, this represents structured governance; for others, it represents an unnecessary restriction on public feedback.
  • Evaluating the Newcomer: Choosing his opponent means electing a candidate with a clean slate regarding municipal governance. While they carry none of the procedural controversies or voting baggage detailed above, they also lack a public voting record, meaning voters must weigh campaign platforms without a historical legislative baseline to verify how they will govern.

Ultimately, Amherstburg voters must decide whether to cast their ballots based on an established, debated municipal record or a fresh perspective.

Opinion: Linden Crain’s School Visit: A Failure of Campaign Due Diligence

By Linda Saxon, The Burg Watch

As we head into the final days before the October 26 municipal election, accountability remains a priority for Amherstburg voters.

Recently, Deputy Mayor candidate Linden Crain’s visit to Malden Central Public School sparked justifiable community concern regarding where campaign boundaries start and stop.

In online discussions, some defenders have asked how a candidate could possibly be expected to know the intricate ins and outs of school board rules.

Under Ontario law, ignorance of election guidelines is never an acceptable defence—especially for an incumbent politician.

Two Hats of an Incumbent

Linden Crain is not an inexperienced candidate launching a first-time campaign. He has spent the last four years sitting at the Amherstburg council table.

He has visited local schools in the past, so he is well aware that entering a public school requires strict clearance, formal office check-ins, and a completely non-political presence.

However, when you go from being a neutral town councillor to actively campaigning for Deputy Mayor, the rules change drastically under Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act. A candidate cannot simply be a visitor while simultaneously using public school classrooms and student faces as promotional content for an active election campaign.

The Legal Framework

There is a strict, legally mandated framework designed to ensure every single certified candidate understands where they can and cannot campaign:

  1. The Statutory Deadline: Under Section 88.18 of the Municipal Elections Act, the Greater Essex County District School Board (GECDSB) is required by provincial law to have its specific election resource rules finalized, locked in, and publicly available before nominations even open.
  2. The Clerk’s Information Package: When any candidate files their nomination papers at Town Hall, the Municipal Clerk hands them an official candidate package. This package explicitly lists resources, including the Education Act.
  3. The Standard Vetting Protocol: Experienced campaigns know that school board properties must remain strictly non-partisan. To protect student privacy, compliant campaigns maintain a zero-tolerance policy against uploading pictures of minors to active political pages. If an invite is issued by a teacher or parent group, standard protocol dictates routing it through the Principal and Board Communications for formal administrative sign-off first.

The Bottom Line

The ultimate proof that a boundary was crossed does not come from political discourse—it comes from the school board itself.

Following the classroom visit, the GECDSB issued a formal written finding confirming that “established guidelines and procedures were not followed”. The board subsequently requested the immediate removal of the political materials and student imagery from the campaign’s social media platforms.

Part of basic campaign due diligence is verifying where you are legally permitted to campaign.

Public school classrooms are never on that list, and our elected officials must be held to the standard of knowing better.

Opinion: TJ Botsford and the Spousal Gatekeeping Issue

By: Linda Saxon, The Burg Watch

Let’s talk about a growing trend in Amherstburg politics that should have every taxpayer paying close attention.

We all know it is completely normal for a spouse to help out on the campaign trail, hand out flyers, or knock on doors.

But lately, the line between a candidate and their partner has started to look thin.

Over the last weekend, The Burg Watch faced some serious tone-policing and defensive pushback from a candidate’s wife.

This occurred simply because I responded to her comment on her husband’s campaign Facebook page.

Looking closely at the digital trail, it appears the candidate himself actually shared her post directly from her personal page.

Candidate TJ Botsford prefaced his wife’s shared post on his official campaign page by writing: “You know your wife has your back when she makes it FB official.”

When a candidate shares a spouse’s personal commentary directly onto an official campaign page, the line between private family support and public political platforms might be blurred.

The public needs to remember a fundamental rule of democracy: we do not vote for the spouse.

A spouse takes no official oath of office, is not bound by the municipal Code of Conduct, and cannot be held legally accountable under the Municipal Act.

Yet, when we see campaigns like the deeply intertwined political operations of Chris and Sarah Gibb, or inner-circle deflections from campaign teams—it raises a red flag about how town business will be conducted after the election.

When a candidate’s family member steps in to address civic scrutiny during a campaign, it raises an important question for taxpayers: how will the boundaries of independent decision-making and public accountability be maintained at the council table once elected?

Around The Kitchen Table

The issue with spousal gatekeeping isn’t just the tone-policing we see on Facebook.

In a candidate profile interview with the River Town Times, Candidate TJ Botsford explicitly confirmed the origin of his political aspirations: “I’ve been living here for six years. I’ve been coming to town for 12 years… I have friends who like politics and we talk about things. My wife said I should consider running for council.”

When a candidate openly acknowledges that their spouse said they should consider running, the public has a right to question where that spousal direction ends.

Deflection and Speculation

What makes this spousal tone-policing particularly notable is its reliance on pure speculation to shield politicians from transparency.

In the comment exchange below, the candidate’s spouse openly defended the 10 non-responsive candidates to the burg watch accessibility audit.

She claimed she “can understand why some candidates chose not to participate,” asserting that I would “be critical no matter what.”

In reality, a candidate’s decision to ignore a structured human rights audit is their own choice.

A campaign family member—who has never met the author of this blog—cannot possibly speak for the inner workings of ten separate independent candidates.

The Independent Leadership Standard

Running for council means you have to be ready to stand on your own two feet.

But when a candidate’s spouse jumps into the comment section to tone-police the community because she cannot handle evidence-based civic scrutiny of his platform, it blurs the lines of accountability.

Taxpayers have a right to wonder how a candidate will maintain clear, independent boundaries at a $65-million council table if their inner circle steps in the moment a difficult policy question is raised.

When The Burg Watch replied to a public comment with an evidence-based human rights analysis of Candidate TJ Botsford’s verbatim accessibility audit response—pointing out how he conflated private paralegal restrictions with a lawmaker’s authority—his spouse immediately doubled down.

Instead of addressing the actual municipal policy, she implied that I should feel honoured that he simply took the time to acknowledge and respond to the audit, arguing that any criticism of his answers was just a personal lack of “liking” his platform.

Copy of exchange between the burg watch and TJ Botsford's wife on his campaign Facebook page.
TJ Botsford’s wife’s comment on his campaign Facebook page

Amherstburg does not need campaigns where family members intercept public questions, or treat human rights audits like participation trophies.

We need elected officials who can stand on their own two feet, answer for their own policy words, and face the public on their own.

When you cast your ballot, look closely at the independent leadership of each candidate and consider how they plan to maintain clear, transparent boundaries at the council table.