the burg watch poll most accurate prediction

the burg watch poll most accurately predicted what the voters wanted with 4 of the 5 Councillors elected in the top 5 spots.

theburgwatch poll results:

DiCarlo, Aldo 46.69%  (113 votes) 

DiPasquale, Bart 66.36%  (142 votes)

Pouget, Diane 16.81%  (138 votes)
Lavigne, Jason 13.15%  (108 votes)
Meloche, Leo 8.04%  (66 votes)
Fryer, Rick 7.55%  (62 votes)
Renaud, Marc 6.46%  (53 votes)
Courtney, Joan 5.6%  (46 votes)

Aldo DiCarlo Elected Mayor

Congratulations to our new Mayor, Aldo DiCarlo, elected according to CTV news.

AMHERSTBURG MAYOR

CANDIDATE VOTES VOTE % STATUS
DiCarlo, Aldo 3,396 52.9 Elected
Sutherland, Ron 1,673 26.1
Sutton, John 907 14.1
Adler, Marty 445 6.9
VOTES: 6,421 / 16,276 = 39.5%     POLLS: 84.6%

Job Experience Needed?

Is previous council experience really needed? Four years ago, three candidates without any council experience were elected to council: Ron Sutherland, Carolyn Davies and Bart DiPasquale. During the past four tumultuous years, residents witnessed:

  • a high rate of staff turnover
  • a record amount of debt
  • flip flops on the:
    • financial audit
    • St. Joseph’s Church in River Canard
    • Sandwich Street repaving
    • installation of railings at what is now the Libro Centre
  • the discussion of the sale of a municipal asset – essex power shares
  • public input not being welcomed
  • two references to ‘lynching’ regarding a public meeting
  • Ombudsman Ontario’s finding that council contravened the Municipal Act by voting in a closed session in March 2011
  • Ombudsman Ontario’s Report that confirmed council repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law. Council discussed issues in closed session that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act, and also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors in December 2011
  • UCCU Centre naming scandal and subsequent lawsuit
  • no commitment to the cost-saving OPP policing option
  • grants for the tourist booth and Laird Avenue and not Texas Road
  • the decision to close the tourist booth due to budget
  • 5 CAOs in four years
  • the hiring of CAO Phipps, his notice to leave and then his decision to stay
  • a council approved secretive process to hire CAO Miceli
  • a lack of provincially mandated policies
  • a lack of commitment to accessibility, including the town’s website.

Is this the experience the community wants to continue with? Tomorrow’s the big day – it’s up to the voters to decide what they need.

Councillors Refuse To Rate Themselves Update

A November 11, 2011 sticky post, Councillors Refuse To Rate Themselves, pointed out that, with the exception of Carolyn Davies, not one member of council responded to the yearly request during the 2010 to 2014 term, “if you would provide a comment regarding how you think you have performed.”

Yet here we are at the end of the fourth year of the term being inundated with endless campaign promises of transparency and accountability.

the burg watch poll results

the burg watch poll has not been compromised, despite suggestions to the contrary. Mayoral Candidate Aldo DiCarlo is still in the lead with 45.73% and for some time the results have been consistent.

the number of votes so far: Mayor 234, Deputy Mayor 206, Councillor 787.

there have never been any scientific claims regarding this poll; it was set up to allow anxious voters to have an opportunity to cast a ballot while waiting to ‘officially’ vote. as reported by Mary Caton in The Windsor Star, a higher than expected amount of residents showed up at the advance polls.

kudos to those who have exercised their right to vote; it’s how we effect change in a democratic society.

two days to go – make it happen!

Town Hall Removing Election Signs

The Municipal Elections Act does not regulate signs, but an amended town Election Policy does and the candidates have been put on notice through a series of emails:

October 10, Paula Parker, Manager of Municipal Governance for the town emailed the candidates:

In light of a few election sign complaints, please note that all signs should be placed on private property.

Section 70(4) of The Municipal Elections Act specifically prohibits a municipality from making a contribution to a candidate’s election campaign. The Act also prohibits a candidate, or someone acting on the candidate’s behalf, from accepting a contribution from a person who is not entitled to make a contribution.

Contributions, as defined in section 66(1) of the Elections Act are; money, goods and services. As such, any use by a candidate of the Corporation’s resources for his or her election campaign, would be seen as a contribution by the Town to the candidate, which is a violation of the Act.

As a result of the above noted, and as per the recently amended Town of Amherstburg Election Policy (attached again for your reference), please refrain from putting signs on municipal property. (this includes municipal road allowances)

If you have any questions regarding where your signs should be located, administration is always here to help. Feel free to call or email.

October 20 at 12:08 pm, Paula Parker advised the candidates that the town was still receiving complaints about election signs and that effective 12 pm on the following day, the policy would be enforced and signs on municipal property would be removed. Signs removed by the town would be available for pick up on October 22.

October 20, Aldo DiCarlo emailed Paula Parker that it would be helpful to know whose signs have been complained about.

October 20 Paula Parker responded: The purpose of the previous email was to provide all candidates with information as it relates to the Town’s Election Policy.  In cases where a contravention of the Town’s Election Policy were noted, the Town has been proactive and has directly contacted those candidates affected.

This email also serves as a reminder to all candidates that the Town will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action where necessary.

October 21 Marc Renaud notified Paula Parker that signs were removed on Fort and Balaclava without notification.

October 21 Paula Parker advised that yesterday’s email served as notice that signs would be removed today at 12pm if they were on Town property and available for pick up October 22.

October 21 Glenn Swinton emailed Paula Parker: Having not received ANY such notification, I will assume that all of my issued signage is compliant and exactly where I left it.

October 21 Paula Parker replied: On August 11, 2014, Council adopted the Election Policy. The report advised Council that the Election Policy would supersede the Town’s Sign By-law in accordance with Section 70(4) and 66(1) of the Municipal Elections Act. All candidates were advised of these sections of the Act via email on Friday, October 10, 2014. The Town will continue to enforce the Election Policy up to and including Election Day. We are asking all candidates to abide by the Council approved Election Policy.

I hope that you can appreciate that the Town does not only manage its responsibilities through a complaint driven process, but also takes the necessary steps to enforce Town policies as required, with a proactive approach. Elections are sensitive in nature and the Town must govern itself accordingly.

October 21 Glenn Swinton responded: Please don’t patronize me by trying to suggest the town takes a proactive approach on policies. Without beating a dead horse on the subject please note,

Your “Election Policy” as amended August 11, 2014 clearly states:

12-b) “Election signs shall be removed if a complaint is received about a specific sign;”

12-c) ” The candidate shall, within 24 hours after receiving verbal instructions from a municipal official, remove a sign that contravenes the above. The Town reserves the right to remove election signs if the candidate fails to remove the contravening sign/signs within the 24-hour time frame.”

By way of your own policy I suggest the Town of Amherstburg has illegally removed campaigning signs outside of the “election Policy” provided from your office. Since this chain of emails has been shared with all, including the current Council members of Amherstburg that are seeking re-election, perhaps one of them could jump in and direct their staff on the laws they have passed for the taxpayers.

This is ridiculous.

7 Days To Go!

Have you decided which of the candidates are a yes, no or maybe? Did you remember you do not have to vote for all seven seats?

the burg watch readers’ questions have made it easy to get to know the candidates; some of them:

  • have not answered any readers’ questions
  • were evasive
  • provided answers that were well thought out
  • provided flippant responses
  • were resentful of questions
  • promote accessibility, but create inaccessible websites
  • promote an inclusive community but refer to ‘those with special needs’
  • have relied on scare tactics
  • appear desperate
  • hope there are no fact checkers out there
  • have not done their homework
  • claim experience is required
  • have experience but will provide ‘new leadership’
  • have proven to be genuine

Candidate Evaluation Resources, if if you need them, were posted in 14 Days To Go.

Glenn Swinton’s Comment On All candidates meeting draws large crowd in Amherstburg

Glenn Swinton’s comment to the Windsor Star article is:
My apologies for anyone looking to connect with me that evening. The chamber was made aware well in advance that I was unable to attend their event. The Windsor Star’s report of me being a “no-show” was false. If there was a place set for me at the event it could have only been with ill intentions. As always, I am available 24/7 on my provided cell phone or via email for anyone who wishes to talk.

Aldo DiCarlo’s Comment On No Commitment To Remove OPP Clause In Police Contract

In response to the Commentary, “No Commitment To Remove OPP Clause In Police Contract,” Aldo DiCarlo’s comment is:

This is an issue that I have spent a considerable amount of time on, specifically because of the large potential savings, $1M or more. At last night’s debate, Deputy Mayor Suttherland stated that an OPP costing takes at least 18 months. As a taxpaying resident, not a just a mayoral candidate, this both angers and frustrates me. If it does indeed take this amount of time, why then did not a single council member make the motion to request the OPP costing. If one of them did, I would like to know who and why it was voted down. ALL contracts have an expiry date. Did a single one of the current council members do their due diligence in requesting an OPP costing early enough so that we could have reviewed our options now that the contract is being negotiated? I believe the answer is no, and I’d be happy to be wrong.

New OPP Billing Model for Municipalities

The new model, which takes effect January 1, 2015, reflects input from the Auditor General and municipalities to more fairly and transparently distribute policing costs.

Quick Facts

  • The OPP provides policing services to 324 Ontario municipalities.
  • The current OPP billing model was introduced in 1998 and has not been updated in 17 years.
  • The OPP acted on the Auditor General’s 2012 report in revising the billing model.
  • The average per property cost for OPP services in 2015 is estimated to be $355, compared to an average of $787 (estimated) for self-policed municipalities.

Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Newsroom