This raises some serious questions:
- No other candidate makes direct reference to the Riceville incident in their campaign materials. Now, who is keeping the issue alive? Does Reeve Doyle see this issue working to his political advantage, and is this flyer distribution an attempt to keep it going?
- The Open Letter was already sent (at taxpayers' expense) to every household in the township and is available on the township website. Why send it out again?
- Was the open letter copied at Reeve Doyle's expense, or were township facilities used? Why was it kept on township letterhead when it is being sent out by Doyle's campaign and not by the township?
- Is it ethical or legal for an official Township communication on official letterhead to be used in election campaign materials?
The City of Kingston's logo, crest, coat of arms, slogan, etc. shall not be printed or distributed on any election materials or included on any election campaign related website, except in the case of a link to the City's website to obtain information about the municipal election.
So distribution of the Open Letter by any election campaign would be in clear violation of the policies of most major municipalities. It might be appropriate to seek further clarification from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on this issue.
(As for the title of this post, if you're not familiar with English counties, look it up!)
4 comments:
Personally I find this tactic a little disturbing, as it blurs the line between Mr Doyle, Reeve, and Mr Doyle, candidate for re-election. I would have absolutely no problem with the Doyle campaign referencing part of the letter in their (private) material, or referring people to the Twp website - Mr Doyle is very proud of his record as someone who fights for his employees - but to send it out on the letterhead etc, and in exactly the same format as the material was sent out earlier this year implies some kind of Council endorsement of Mr Doyle's campaign.
I would be interested to see the receipts for the photocopying etc....
Heard about your blog. Great forum for discussion but it seems you are campaigning for anyone but the incumbent councillors. It also seems you made the hot topic of the lawsuit off limits only once people supported the action of our township, but as long as someone wants to bash Doyle or Schoular, yourself included, then you are all ears :( Did you ask Mr. Doyle about who was distributing this information? Is it possible it is being circulated by a well intentioned citizen hoping that the facts of the matter remain clear? Hate to break it to you but the MRA candidates are banging on doors and continuing their barrage of negativity and insults...why do you not report any of this poor behaviour in your blog? If you want to take issue with the people themselves, to be fair, why not dig a little deeper into the past of the other candidates as well? Your findings might be quite shocking! For someone that keeps requesting your bloggers avoid personal commentary and stick to the facts of this particular election, you continue to make this matter personal. Are you a card carrying MRA member perhaps? Anyway, if you still are willing to discuss the real issues, then here are my thoughts -
Fiscal Responsibility - our taxes are mid range in comparison to others and we have a surplus sufficient to meet unexpected capital or emergency needs plus our services compare favourably to others - all in all we're not too bad off here in Montague. And this is and should remain the #1 issue for discussion.
Open Government - I agree that secret sessions should be avoided, unless required to protect privacy (privacy laws probably also govern council discussions I would imagine?). Did you find out the purpose of these private sessions by chance...maybe to discuss potential embarrassing issues for others like the sale of their properities due to tax arrears, another issue you mentioned? Once you find out I would be curious to know the reasons for the private sessions.
Time for change? Maybe. But be careful what you wish for. New blood may provide new ideas but the combination of some being both inexperienced and radical could also hit us all real hard in the wallet over the next four years! And the world of politics has indeed changed so experience goes a long way.
Development? I agree that we need to attract business for long term growth...but can we afford the infrastruture required to do this? Many businesses require site-ready locations and just like an arena, this may cost more than we are prepared to spend. Maybe we need to just capitalize on our strengths as a bedroom community? Great topic for debate! Look forward to more comments on this one :)
Local democracy - sounds like all candidates have lived here a while except Mr. Cavanaugh. Whether they've moved somewhere else recently or just now own building lots or farms in Montague and live close by, I don't personally see it as a huge issue. They all currently pay taxes so their spending decisions will affect them equally as candidates.
All in all good blog :) Just try to keep your comments fair and relevant to the issues. While you may not like the people currently on the council and might be friends with the MRA bunch, it would still be nice to see balance and fairness in your opinions.
Thanks... and point taken. People have posted comments here on some of the visits they've had from non-incumbents and they have reported that they are also preserving the divide and keeping the lawsuit issue alive.
The difficulty is in documenting things. What I have written about is stuff I can support with evidence or documentation. Hearsay is harder to write about. I'm happy for people to put their own experiences with non-incumbents into comments here. Bring me something that can be proved and I'll publish it, about anyone.
That said, any blog is necessarily a reflection of the writer's personal views. I don't pretend to be unbiased - I'm a member of the Blogging Tories group; this blog exists for partisan political purposes.
In this new world, everyone is free to publish themselves; there's nothing to stop anyone from setting up an alternative blog and supporting their own views and their own preferred candidates.
I wrote the comment alleging the MRA candidate was spreading ugly lies and accusations. I again want to stress that I do not subscribe to either “side”. I tried to stay out of the debate all together, limiting myself to reading the correspondence placed in my mailbox, and media accounts of the suit. As a lifelong resident of the area I have friends and acquaintances on both “sides” of the issue (including several firefighters and 2 candidates). I felt it best to keep my thoughts to myself, and make my own informed decisions on Election Day. I thought long and hard before writing that last paragraph.
I had never met the candidate that presented himself at my door that sunny Saturday afternoon. The day this debate landed on my doorstep, literally. The dialogue started innocently enough, my asking first my main concern about people being able to work together after the election. I want Montague to be thought of as a great place to bring up children, retire to, certainly not the portrait that was painted in the Macleans article for the whole country to see.
I ‘m not sure how we arrived at this point, but the discussion turned to the LLA rally for Mr. Page. “That’s when Joe Firefighter attacked Randy Hillier”, stated the candidate. Pardon me, but the picture I saw in the Recorder and Times was Joe Firefighter sitting in a chair, arms crossed, with Randy Hillier pointing his finger at Joe’s chest. This is the same Joe who has helped me with construction projects, taken my children bowling, boating. The same Joe who gave of himself so freely during the Ice Storm. Angry, but wanting more, I must have given an Academy-worthy performance. The candidate continued on, comparing Joe to a primate and alleged he had a drinking problem. This is the same Joe who is not running for office, why is this guy talking about Joe anyway?? Needless to say I let Joe know what was being said about him. That’s what friends do.
Of course I cannot prove any of this, but you can take it to the bank-- it happened. That is why he was not named in my original comment. If the candidate, and I know he is reading (we spoke about your blog too), was issue an apology to Joe I would certainly think higher of him as an individual. You still don’t get my vote though.
Post a Comment