Incumbents deserve careful review
Editor:
As the first person banned from corresponding with the township of Clearview except with one question of 20 words or less each month addressed to the non-elected CAO for simply asking for proof from staff of assertions they made publicly at an accessibility meeting, I’d like to give my reasons for not running for council and why I believe all of the incumbents need to be closely reviewed for the way they have supported the interests and pay cheques of staff ($1.158 million for just eight employees, including benefits) and themselves ($30,000 for swag and branded clothing!) over the needs of the residents of this community for a safer and better place to reside for the past four years.
Clearview township under the current mayor (a civil servant) has become a staff centric government with the elected councillors simply rubber stamping the flawed and in some cases blatant misinformation produced by staff.
The request for accessible (AODA) documentation is the latest example of a request being twisted by staff to cover the fact that for over 10 years staff with the full knowledge and support of any councillor with an understanding of the current legislation have failed to implement a known legal requirement to ensure all bylaws and their websites are AODA compliant and now expect to hire more staff to fix what they have failed to do.
There are two reasons beyond concerns for my health why I will not run for council in Clearview:
1) I cannot see sitting on the same table as councillors that banned me from corresponding without allowing me any opportunity to state my case refuting the accusations of staff and are still refusing to provide me with the way in which I can appeal their decision even when I have asked for that information under Freedom of Information. I don’t support their discrimination, bullying and the improper use of closed meetings to keep matters secret even from a superior court judge.
2) The voting system that has been approved by council based upon the flawed selection process of staff that rejected 250-plus votes in 2014 for no publicly disclosed reason. Both the Ontario government and the Ontario elections officer have stated that there are no internet based voting systems that currently meet the required standards for voting integrity in Ontario, yet the past and current council have forced the residents of Clearview to use a flawed system to vote for them. Council was made aware of these concerns using the numbers generated by the returning officer and as usual there was no response, nor action from council. This is not just a broken system, one engineered and built this way by non-elected bureaucrats.
When you have a Stayner-centric, ward-based council that will not perform even basic due diligence towards truth and accuracy on any matter placed before them by staff then I believe we have a broken system. If you don’t believe me, go to one of their council meetings and see how little discussion or questioning of staff takes place on anything brought before council. That will show you why we get stop signs voted in against the wishes of the ward councillor, jackets paid for with the taxes, libraries being built far outside of settled areas and special interest groups who get more discussion time than anything related to matters of concern to those of us that live and work here.
Peter Lomath,
Creemore.
