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.