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!)