Tag Archives: Lena Lazanja

Lena Lazanja’s Campaign Policy: Transparency or Selective Engagement?

Posted on by
Reply

Social media has become the new town hall. Political candidates share their ideas, debate town issues, and—most importantly—answer questions from the people they want to represent.

But my recent experience with council candidate Lena Lazanja points to a bigger problem: candidates using social media settings to filter who gets to hold them accountable.

The May Question

This situation started back in May, when I first engaged with Ms. Lazanja to ask a question about removing barriers for Amherstburg’s Open Air weekends. In her email response she explicitly stated:

“I hope this answers your question. Also, I would be willing to continue to participate in your blog postings by answering any questions you might have throughout the campaign months ahead.”

The July Block

On July 14, I participated in a discussion on her campaign page, replying to a comment left by Arms Bumanlag. Shortly after posting, the burg watch was completely blocked, and my comment was deleted.

To ensure I had my facts straight, I verified the block by checking the page from a personal account and having another local user confirm the deletion. I immediately sent Ms. Lazanja an email on July 14 to establish the facts:

“This will confirm that earlier today, July 14, 2026, I commented on the Lena Lazanja for Amherstburg Council campaign facebook page in response to Arms Bumanlag’s comment. Shortly thereafter, I was unable to access the above page as the burg watch. I visited the page using my personal facebook page and observed my comment was deleted. While still on the campaign page, I switched back to the burg watch and a notification appeared, stating the content was no longer available. Another Facebook user verified that my comment was deleted. I believe I have verified that, as the burg watch, I was blocked from accessing the campaign page of Lena Lazanja.”

Three days later, on July 17, she finally responded. Rather than deny the block, she pointed to a rule she set for herself, stating that she pinned a post explaining she blocks pages designated as “Political Organizations” because she is not affiliated with them.

“As I stated to the public in my last post on this matter, which is pinned at the top of my campaign page, I have blocked social media pages designated as ‘Political Organizations’, as I am not affiliated with any political organizations as an Amherstburg Councillor candidate.”

On paper, that might sound like a candidate trying to stay independent. But in practice, it’s just splitting hairs. A page label doesn’t change the fact that a real local resident is behind the account asking genuine questions about our town.

The September Contradiction

Fast forward to September 24. It turns out that Ms. Lazanja’s rule about avoiding “Political Organizations” only applies to some pages, but not others.

She has commented and engaged on Amherstburg Votes 2026. Up until last week, that page was publicly and clearly categorized as a “Political Organization”—the exact type of page Ms. Lazanja claimed she absolutely could not be affiliated with.

What makes this even more troubling is the issue of anonymity. While the burg watch is run openly by me, a local community member, Amherstburg Votes 2026 is completely anonymous. The public has no idea who is actually running it, yet Ms. Lazanja has chosen to legitimize that platform with her engagement while locking out a transparent community watchdog.

Seeing the clear double standard, I emailed her on September 24 asking a simple question:

“You stated to the public in your pinned post at your campaign page that you have blocked social media pages designated as ‘Political Organizations’, as you are not affiliated with any political organizations as an Amherstburg Councillor candidate. However, you’ve answered on the anonymous Amherstburg Votes 2026 which is clearly publicly categorized as a political organization. Would you explain the inconsistency?”

While I received no reply to my email, the anonymous page itself suddenly reacted. On Monday, September 28, just days after my private inquiry to the candidate, Amherstburg Votes 2026 quietly altered its description. It now claims it is “not a political organization, not a club, not a group – just an information hub for Amherstburg politics.”

Fortunately, the burg watch has a screenshot of the original “Political Organization” designation from right before the email was sent. The sudden rebranding of an anonymous page directly following a private inquiry to a candidate raises serious questions about who is coordinating behind the scenes.

Screenshot 1: The “Political Organization” Proof

Screenshot taken prior to September 28 showing 'Amherstburg Votes 2026' officially categorized as a Political Organization by Facebook.
Screenshot taken prior to September 28 showing ‘Amherstburg Votes 2026’ officially categorized as a Political Organization on Facebook.

Why This Matters to Voters

When a candidate uses a public social media page to run a campaign, that page becomes a public forum. Using technicalities to block an open, local watchdog page while actively participating on a completely anonymous political page isn’t about maintaining independence. It looks a lot more like selective engagement.

Amherstburg residents deserve transparency that cuts through semantic loopholes. If a candidate claims a policy applies to everyone, it should apply to everyone.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Lena Lazanja

Posted on by

Sometimes they play favourites and don’t answer my questions. But I’m continuing the tradition I started in 2014. For now, I’m only asking about Open Air and will set aside a page just for their Open Air answers – IF they answer.

the burg watch: As you know, Open Air remains a contentious issue, especially because of Councillor Crain’s motion to not revisit it until the end of this term. Will you remove barriers that deny people with disabilities equal access to the community when streets are closed during Open Air weekends?

Lena Lazanja: In the planning/application stages of public events in Amherstburg, accessibility concerns are addressed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee to ensure that all events (including Open Air) are made accessible for residents/public.

To be clear, to provide “accessibility” (for Open Air) the event organizers should focus on the proactive design and/or modification of products, devices, services, or environments to ensure they can be used equitably by everyone, including people with disabilities.

The purpose of providing an  equitable environment is to remove physical, technological, and systemic barriers, allowing all individuals independent and equal access.
Sometimes, such barriers are not immediately recognized by event planners. For example, socio-ecomomic barriers are often overlooked, due to it being “invisible”.

Many times, barriers are only fully recognized once an event is underway, through lived experience. 

For this reason, it is critical that organizers and committees frequently re-evaluate event plans. refer to the public’s feedback, to fully understand accessibility issues and address them properly, as they come to light.

As a Councillor, I would assume that the Accessibility Advisory Committee was adept at ensuring all events including Open Air are accessible in Amherstburg, because that is their job. However, should new concerns arise, based on evidence and public input, it would be negligent of me if I did not look into the matter further.

Creating and maintaining accessible environments is a team effort, so that everyone is able to enjoy what Amherstburg has to offer.

Linda, I hope this answers your question. 
Also, I would be willing to continue to participate in your blog postings by answering any questions you might have throughout the campaign months ahead. However, I would appreciate you removing my/other candidates names from a “did not respond” section. Campaign time is a very busy time, and sometimes candidates are so inundated with information and requests, that some things slip through the cracks. We are not required to answer blog requests for public posting. Since it is voluntary, I know that we would appreciate not being singled out…as in my case, it makes me appear as though I refuse to reply, rather than a simple oversight.
I appreciate your support on this.
Also, for future reference, my last name is Lazanja (you have misspelled my name on your blog)

the burg watch: I did not include you, as you state, in a “did not respond” section. 

I will not remove your name or other candidates’ names because I reported factually, the “candidates that haven’t answered to date.”

You may not be familiar with my blog but in a 2014 post I acknowledged, “While the candidates have never been obliged to answer, by doing so allows for scrutiny beyond the campaign marketing materials. Some candidates’ answers are thorough, well thought out and responsive; others have ignored requests for specificity and others are misinformed.” 

I will always continue the tradition of naming candidates that aren’t responsive. Readers have a right to know if their concerns will ‘slip through the cracks,’ regardless of the excuse.

I’m sure you can appreciate people not coming to your facebook page and telling you what content you should or should not be sharing with your readers.

I have corrected the misspelling of your name, but I left your misspelling in place – another tradition to record verbatim responses.Answers and questions back from other candidates will be posted in future posts.Candidates that haven’t answered to date:
Frank Cerasa