Tag Archives: democracy

Linden Crain: Votes, Decisions, and Controversies

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Delegations Discouraged At This Time – Murray Street Closure Concept

Posted on by

This is what delegates requesting to appear before the January 15, 2026 Economic Development Committee meeting might receive from admin:

Thank you for your delegation request submission. Upon review, the item that has been identified for discussion purposes is drawn from the Committees future work plan, and not something that is before the body at this time to make any determinations. For background, Council last directed that Administration consult with businesses in the Downtown area regarding the concept of closing Murray Street and then report back to Council. This consultation will be done this year and the report will then be brought back for consideration. The action item associated with this issue in the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) work plan is simply to bring this future report to the Committee first before presenting it to Council so that the Committee can provide its comments. To be clear, there is no report or recommendation regarding the closure of Murray Street being presented to either the Committee or Council at this time.

For this reason, should you wish you delegate regarding the merits of closing Murray Street, the appropriate time would be when this report is completed and presented to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for discussion. At this time, the only thing on the agenda is a notation of that future work, not a discussion in relation to what recommendation may be made with regards to that future report. Furthermore, it should be noted that section 9.4. (d) states that, “Delegations appearing before Council, who have previously appeared before Council on the same subject matter, shall be limited to providing only new information in any subsequent delegation request.” What this means is that, should you choose to delegate to the Committee either now, or in the future when the report on closure is before the Committee, you will not be able to delegate on the same matter to Council, except to provide any additional information not provided to the Committee. For all of these reasons your delegation requested will be noted in relation to this matter and when the report moves forward to come to the committee, we will contact you to inquire if you continue to desire to speak to it, have any need to change your previous submission upon having the chance to have read the report, and, provide you the opportunity to delegate at that time.

Majority Rules – Right Or Wrong?

Posted on by

Jack Edwards told Councillor Pouget that ‘the majority has to rule on this’ during the Open Air Report discussion at the November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting.

And we frequently see the 4 votes at council meetings.

The following article is reprinted with permission of the author, Registered Parliamentarian Eli Mina.

Is the majority always right?

During a coffee break at a training session, a newly elected municipal official spoke to me
privately and said this: A wise person taught me that with a council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can
provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish.
After all, the majority is always right. What do you think about these words of wisdom?

On the surface, what he said sounded correct. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a basic
principle of decision making is that the majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a
measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the motion is
defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are ultimately the only thing that matter. Right?

Not so fast. Something significant is missing with this logic.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its
will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being
stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and
thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but
this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed; possibly leading to
flawed decisions that the majority, the minority, and the community, will regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it
may be making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, and loud and
aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a
careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end—getting enough votes—justifies the means, which
may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they’ll vote. On the other hand,
with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a
meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to and learn from
everyone, and treat minorities as partners in decision making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With
knowledge-based democracies, the individuals with the most relevant information and the most
astute and compelling analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning,
inquiry and excellence in decision making.

Ultimately, numbers-based democracies are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone
decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce
informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for affected organizations.