Reading commentary from the last three days it's clear that the comments here and those making them are as divided and polarized as the rest of the township. I have had to turn away comments that have nothing to do with political issues and everything to do with personal malice. At this point, no minds are being changed, no arguments are being made and nothing constructive is taking place.
For the record, to those it concerns: My relationship with the MRA is similar to my relationship with the Conservative Party of Canada. I sent them a cheque once, for $20 or so. I take no active part in either organization. It might surprise some readers to know that up until last week only one of the 'MRA candidates' even knew me by sight. None of them know me as a friend or acquaintance except through this blog. If you're reading this, you know me as well as they do. If you've written more than one or two comments here, then I know you better than I know most of the members of the MRA.
This was an experiment in 'citizen journalism'; to see what happened if something extremely valuable - the blogosphere - was brought to bear in a local situation. This used to be a lighthearted political blog with a Tory slant on the issues but also concerned with various other fun stuff in life. In the last 30 days, my experiment has seen it become an acrimonious forum - just another place for Montagu-ites to fling mud at each other.
To that extent, I feel the experiment has failed. This is my last word on the Montague situation; we'll all vote next week and we'll all see what happens.
To those of you accusing me of stifling free speech: it takes just five minutes to sign up with Blogger and get your own blog going - that's free speech. Comments here are a courtesy; it's like I'm inviting you into my home. I don't have to allow any free speech here - I've tried to extend that courtesy to you all, but when it's abused it's my right (and responsibility) to put some limits in place.
It's clear where I stand on the issues - but don't assume you know how I'm planning to vote, because I suspect some of those answers would surprise some people. I do hope that the new reality in Montague is one in which people of all backgrounds get to work together, if only because they're forced into it.
If, when the dust has settled, anyone wants me to step up and take a role in some constructive development of Montague, whether online or in real life, I'll be here. For now, the last week of the campaign belongs to the old fashioned door-to-door visit and the election sign. This blogger is done.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Montague : That Didn't Fly
So the suggestion of being nice to one another didn't fly huh? I suppose that tells us something. Warning: I am not in the best of moods tonight, having had to bathe a skunked dog for the second time this week. I thought corgis were supposed to be smart. Anyway...
Despite best efforts in places, this whole blog has degenerated into a reflection of the divide in our township. Now, this is good in parts: it's a safe place to let the debate take place. It airs the issues out, even if no resolution takes place. I'm not sure I expected to become a lightning rod for the whole thing and there are times I wish I'd never got into this in the first place.
Today, I was thinking about another great divide and seemingly intractable dispute that was a very real part of my life in the past. I had a number of encounters with the IRA back in the day. When I was about 13, I missed the bombing of Harrods by a matter of 90 seconds or so. A policeman stopped me from exiting the Underground by the entrance opposite the car bomb. I turned around and walked back underground. That policeman most likely died. Later, as a student in a military college we had to deal constantly with the security threat. As a naval reservist I had to search under my car whenever I was out in uniform. I was personally acquainted with one of the military musicians who lost their lives when the IRA bombed the Royal Marines School of Music.
All of which is to say that I wasn't a huge fan of the IRA or Irish Republicanism.
However, Northern Ireland is on the way to peace. A final settlement of the whole issue is within reach. How did we get there? The whole thing started with a few courageous people, who recognised that they had to get out of the spiral they were in. It took courage on the part of the British government to open a dialogue with the IRA, in secret. It took perhaps more courage for members of the IRA leadership to begin to push their members into a peaceful approach. Above all, it took people who could rise above the events of the past and make decisions based not on where they'd been, but on where they needed to go.
Our little community is as divided as sectarian Ireland ever was. So the question becomes, who will have the courage to overlook the past and look at the future? Who will talk with the other 'side' in good faith? Who will get over their own pride and their own wounds? Who will put their agenda to one side in the greater interest of the community?
This election is going to be about the divide, like it or not. So when you vote, think about how the individuals you're voting for have handled themselves and the issues. Don't think about the group or affiliation so much as the individual, because it's the individual who's going to be in council and who's going to make a difference. Pick someone you honestly believe can rise above old issues and who can really heal the community. Pick someone who will listen more than they talk. Pick someone who might just be able to put their pride to one side and make things better.
Look at performances in the all-candidates. Who's mind is closed? Who showed they can listen? Will you step back from your own knee-jerk reactions about someone's affiliation and look honestly at how they handled themselves as an individual?
This election could put us on the path to healing, or it could cement the division for several decades. Choose carefully. Sometimes, when we are honest, someone can earn our respect even though we disagree profoundly. He led a movement that killed my friends and fellow servicemen; he nearly killed me. But I respect Gerry Adams, because in the end he was able to recognise the futility of IRA terrorism, he took the massive risk of talking to the British, and he led Republicans into the peace process.
Despite best efforts in places, this whole blog has degenerated into a reflection of the divide in our township. Now, this is good in parts: it's a safe place to let the debate take place. It airs the issues out, even if no resolution takes place. I'm not sure I expected to become a lightning rod for the whole thing and there are times I wish I'd never got into this in the first place.
Today, I was thinking about another great divide and seemingly intractable dispute that was a very real part of my life in the past. I had a number of encounters with the IRA back in the day. When I was about 13, I missed the bombing of Harrods by a matter of 90 seconds or so. A policeman stopped me from exiting the Underground by the entrance opposite the car bomb. I turned around and walked back underground. That policeman most likely died. Later, as a student in a military college we had to deal constantly with the security threat. As a naval reservist I had to search under my car whenever I was out in uniform. I was personally acquainted with one of the military musicians who lost their lives when the IRA bombed the Royal Marines School of Music.
All of which is to say that I wasn't a huge fan of the IRA or Irish Republicanism.
However, Northern Ireland is on the way to peace. A final settlement of the whole issue is within reach. How did we get there? The whole thing started with a few courageous people, who recognised that they had to get out of the spiral they were in. It took courage on the part of the British government to open a dialogue with the IRA, in secret. It took perhaps more courage for members of the IRA leadership to begin to push their members into a peaceful approach. Above all, it took people who could rise above the events of the past and make decisions based not on where they'd been, but on where they needed to go.
Our little community is as divided as sectarian Ireland ever was. So the question becomes, who will have the courage to overlook the past and look at the future? Who will talk with the other 'side' in good faith? Who will get over their own pride and their own wounds? Who will put their agenda to one side in the greater interest of the community?
This election is going to be about the divide, like it or not. So when you vote, think about how the individuals you're voting for have handled themselves and the issues. Don't think about the group or affiliation so much as the individual, because it's the individual who's going to be in council and who's going to make a difference. Pick someone you honestly believe can rise above old issues and who can really heal the community. Pick someone who will listen more than they talk. Pick someone who might just be able to put their pride to one side and make things better.
Look at performances in the all-candidates. Who's mind is closed? Who showed they can listen? Will you step back from your own knee-jerk reactions about someone's affiliation and look honestly at how they handled themselves as an individual?
This election could put us on the path to healing, or it could cement the division for several decades. Choose carefully. Sometimes, when we are honest, someone can earn our respect even though we disagree profoundly. He led a movement that killed my friends and fellow servicemen; he nearly killed me. But I respect Gerry Adams, because in the end he was able to recognise the futility of IRA terrorism, he took the massive risk of talking to the British, and he led Republicans into the peace process.
Fellow Blogging Tories: Please Help!
We apologise for the interruption in normal Blogging Tory service due to the Montague Township election. This blog has been monopolized by the issues - or rather, the one issue - at stake in this tiny corner of Eastern Ontario.
From a sleepy backwater, this blog has become a lightning rod for the divisions in this community stemming from the nationally famous defamation lawsuit launched by council against Don Page.
Are any BT's still out there reading? Or have you turned off due to the Montague monotony? If you are reading, as outsiders, take a stroll through previous posts and the now extensive comment threads. I know there's so much wisdom out there in BT land. How can we put this community back together again? As outsiders, how would you vote if you lived here? Would you choose change, or go with the council that sued Don Page?
I really would value outside input on what can be done to heal the divide in this community, because although many people here want this, and many more say they do, I don't see it happening easily... and maybe not without outside intervention. So if any BT's from the rest of Canada have similar experiences or insight, please share it with us...
From a sleepy backwater, this blog has become a lightning rod for the divisions in this community stemming from the nationally famous defamation lawsuit launched by council against Don Page.
Are any BT's still out there reading? Or have you turned off due to the Montague monotony? If you are reading, as outsiders, take a stroll through previous posts and the now extensive comment threads. I know there's so much wisdom out there in BT land. How can we put this community back together again? As outsiders, how would you vote if you lived here? Would you choose change, or go with the council that sued Don Page?
I really would value outside input on what can be done to heal the divide in this community, because although many people here want this, and many more say they do, I don't see it happening easily... and maybe not without outside intervention. So if any BT's from the rest of Canada have similar experiences or insight, please share it with us...
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Montague : A Challenge or Two
Reading the commentary from the last week or so, it seems to have been exclusively focused on the Page lawsuit, the firefighters and the atmosphere of intimidation that may or may not exist in the township.
Since moving the discussion to other things is likely to be impossible, I have two ideas to throw out there and see if you want to take part.
First: to anyone identifying with one 'side' or the other in the lawsuit issue: Here's your challenge. Pick someone you really disagree with - for some this might be Mr. Doyle, others Mr. Page. Write something nice about that person. Find something good about them. Find something you can respect and admire, and put it out there.
Second: I'd like to find just two individuals who have been personally affected by the 'divide', one from each side. I want two people who are willing to share their stories, but not in a 'he said, she said' kind of way. I want someone to tell the story from their perspective. What did you see? What did you feel? Talk about yourself, not the other parties. I want two smart, articulate people (lots of you out there in the comments) to step up and tell us what it was like for them.
If you are willing to be one of the two, please email me: doggerelparty@gmail.com. I'll need to know who you are, but I'll keep that confidential. My hope is that we can get an understanding of each side's experiences and emotions, without the accusatory stuff. Only by hearing each other like this, by listening more than talking and by being completely non-judgemental can we ever hope to bridge the divide.
UPDATE: This whole new father thing really brings out the mushy side, eh? Oh well, maybe it's a good idea anyway...
Since moving the discussion to other things is likely to be impossible, I have two ideas to throw out there and see if you want to take part.
First: to anyone identifying with one 'side' or the other in the lawsuit issue: Here's your challenge. Pick someone you really disagree with - for some this might be Mr. Doyle, others Mr. Page. Write something nice about that person. Find something good about them. Find something you can respect and admire, and put it out there.
Second: I'd like to find just two individuals who have been personally affected by the 'divide', one from each side. I want two people who are willing to share their stories, but not in a 'he said, she said' kind of way. I want someone to tell the story from their perspective. What did you see? What did you feel? Talk about yourself, not the other parties. I want two smart, articulate people (lots of you out there in the comments) to step up and tell us what it was like for them.
If you are willing to be one of the two, please email me: doggerelparty@gmail.com. I'll need to know who you are, but I'll keep that confidential. My hope is that we can get an understanding of each side's experiences and emotions, without the accusatory stuff. Only by hearing each other like this, by listening more than talking and by being completely non-judgemental can we ever hope to bridge the divide.
UPDATE: This whole new father thing really brings out the mushy side, eh? Oh well, maybe it's a good idea anyway...
The Youngest Blogging Tory in Montague Township
First off, sorry to those of you waiting patiently for moderated comments to appear. I have been otherwise engaged.
A week early, Ewan James made his entry to the world at 10:27pm on Friday 3rd November at the Queensway Carleton hospital in Ottawa. Mother and baby are doing well. Big sister doesn't even know yet...
Blogging will be light for the next few days. Montague folks, I am going out on a limb and turning comment moderation off. Anything you post will appear immediately. Keep it clean and try not to break the furniture.
A week early, Ewan James made his entry to the world at 10:27pm on Friday 3rd November at the Queensway Carleton hospital in Ottawa. Mother and baby are doing well. Big sister doesn't even know yet...
Blogging will be light for the next few days. Montague folks, I am going out on a limb and turning comment moderation off. Anything you post will appear immediately. Keep it clean and try not to break the furniture.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Montague 26 : Re-Framing The Discussion (Again)
There are a lot of comments coming in from people concerned about allegations of fraud and/or corruption. I'm not sure what these allegations are, or who is supposed to have made them. However, I thought I'd step in to redraw the boundaries of debate in the hopes that we can stick more to politics.
I've said this several times, but let's try again. Two issues are being confused, that I think ought to remain seperate. First, the rights and wrongs of the actual Riceville fire matter. As I've said before, I don't know who's right and who's wrong. Nasty things were said about the firefighters. To anyone who was defamed or wrongly accused of anything, you have my sympathy and my support to go ahead and defend yourself individually. Again, I don't doubt I'd get an excellent response if, God forbid, I ever needed the fire department. I don't know who's right and who's wrong about the facts. But I think the time has come for those individuals who feel defamed to either sue Mr. Page, or leave the matter behind them. That's just my opinion. I don't doubt they were hurt, upset, angered and embarrassed. But holding on to those feelings is, in the end, only going to hurt the person doing it.
Entirely seperate from the Riceville incident is the issue of Council's response to the situation and the lack of leadership and maturity that they have exhibited throughout. Reeve Doyle immediately over-reacted to the situation, when he fired off his threat of legal action just three weeks after the fire. Just as Mr. Page should have let the official investigation take its course, so should Reeve Doyle. What was he doing, pre-judging the investigation with such a threat of legal action? At that point he could not have known the facts as the investigation was ongoing. But he still fired off the threat. It was not his last resort, it was his first response.
When an extremely contentious issue arises in a community, to my mind, it's the Reeve's job to try to bring people together and to resolve the issue as effectively as possible. Reeve Doyle made no effort to resolve the situation, except through legal threats. To me, that's pouring gas on the fire, not helping to put it out. A real leader would have risen above the situation, taken charge and brought the parties together. We should expect a higher standard from our elected leaders than from citizens at large. Gary Doyle immediately sank to the level of an acrimonious dispute between individuals, instead of standing tall above the situation.
Then we come to Council's decision to sue. This was simply a mistake. They were not entitled to do this; that's what the judge found. Doyle still doesn't get that. He still thinks the Charter is an 'interference'. Why is it so hard for him to stand up and say 'We made a mistake'? Again, real leadership includes knowing when you got it wrong and being prepared to admit it. Instead, Reeve Doyle hides behind the firefighters and deliberately confuses the two seperate issue of the alleged defamation itself and his own political actions. Even if Mr. Page was entirely wrong and the firefighters were indeed defamed, Council's lawsuit was still a grave mistake.
That's my position. I don't make allegations of fraud, or corruption, or incompetence, or anything else in relation to the Riceville fire. But our current Reeve and Council failed dismally when called upon to show leadership in this situation. They might even be able to salvage something if they would admit to that, and show some respect for concerned citizens. But in their complete arrogance there is no chink of openness to questions or other opinions. Doyle thinks he is right. Period. Until he learns humility he can't function as an effective leader of our community.
This attitude and this way of doing politics in Montague is not unique to the Page matter. This is how Doyle and council run the township, whatever is the issue at hand - with contempt for citizens, wilful ignorance and refusal to hear questions, and deliberate use of in-camera sessions to hide much of their deliberations from the public.
This is why I am 'partisan'. I want open government where everyone can be heard equally. I want my local government to be transparent and to be able to understand what they are doing and the reasons for it. I want them to be leaders who can take charge of difficult situations and resolve them, rather than sink straight into the mud and start flinging it themselves. In short, I want the same standards from them as I would expect from a provincial or federal government - the improvement of which is a work in progress right now, and remains the raison d'etre of this blog.
The firefighters need to understand that an attack on Reeve Doyle and council is not an attack on them. The fire department and council are seperate. There is the widespread perception in the township, created and encouraged by Reeve Doyle that the two are one and the same. If this were true, it would mean that there is indeed an unhealthily close relationship between the fire department and the political process of the township. If it's not true, then the firefighters need to realise it and keep their own personal issues with Mr. Page seperate from the political level of discourse.
I've said this several times, but let's try again. Two issues are being confused, that I think ought to remain seperate. First, the rights and wrongs of the actual Riceville fire matter. As I've said before, I don't know who's right and who's wrong. Nasty things were said about the firefighters. To anyone who was defamed or wrongly accused of anything, you have my sympathy and my support to go ahead and defend yourself individually. Again, I don't doubt I'd get an excellent response if, God forbid, I ever needed the fire department. I don't know who's right and who's wrong about the facts. But I think the time has come for those individuals who feel defamed to either sue Mr. Page, or leave the matter behind them. That's just my opinion. I don't doubt they were hurt, upset, angered and embarrassed. But holding on to those feelings is, in the end, only going to hurt the person doing it.
Entirely seperate from the Riceville incident is the issue of Council's response to the situation and the lack of leadership and maturity that they have exhibited throughout. Reeve Doyle immediately over-reacted to the situation, when he fired off his threat of legal action just three weeks after the fire. Just as Mr. Page should have let the official investigation take its course, so should Reeve Doyle. What was he doing, pre-judging the investigation with such a threat of legal action? At that point he could not have known the facts as the investigation was ongoing. But he still fired off the threat. It was not his last resort, it was his first response.
When an extremely contentious issue arises in a community, to my mind, it's the Reeve's job to try to bring people together and to resolve the issue as effectively as possible. Reeve Doyle made no effort to resolve the situation, except through legal threats. To me, that's pouring gas on the fire, not helping to put it out. A real leader would have risen above the situation, taken charge and brought the parties together. We should expect a higher standard from our elected leaders than from citizens at large. Gary Doyle immediately sank to the level of an acrimonious dispute between individuals, instead of standing tall above the situation.
Then we come to Council's decision to sue. This was simply a mistake. They were not entitled to do this; that's what the judge found. Doyle still doesn't get that. He still thinks the Charter is an 'interference'. Why is it so hard for him to stand up and say 'We made a mistake'? Again, real leadership includes knowing when you got it wrong and being prepared to admit it. Instead, Reeve Doyle hides behind the firefighters and deliberately confuses the two seperate issue of the alleged defamation itself and his own political actions. Even if Mr. Page was entirely wrong and the firefighters were indeed defamed, Council's lawsuit was still a grave mistake.
That's my position. I don't make allegations of fraud, or corruption, or incompetence, or anything else in relation to the Riceville fire. But our current Reeve and Council failed dismally when called upon to show leadership in this situation. They might even be able to salvage something if they would admit to that, and show some respect for concerned citizens. But in their complete arrogance there is no chink of openness to questions or other opinions. Doyle thinks he is right. Period. Until he learns humility he can't function as an effective leader of our community.
This attitude and this way of doing politics in Montague is not unique to the Page matter. This is how Doyle and council run the township, whatever is the issue at hand - with contempt for citizens, wilful ignorance and refusal to hear questions, and deliberate use of in-camera sessions to hide much of their deliberations from the public.
This is why I am 'partisan'. I want open government where everyone can be heard equally. I want my local government to be transparent and to be able to understand what they are doing and the reasons for it. I want them to be leaders who can take charge of difficult situations and resolve them, rather than sink straight into the mud and start flinging it themselves. In short, I want the same standards from them as I would expect from a provincial or federal government - the improvement of which is a work in progress right now, and remains the raison d'etre of this blog.
The firefighters need to understand that an attack on Reeve Doyle and council is not an attack on them. The fire department and council are seperate. There is the widespread perception in the township, created and encouraged by Reeve Doyle that the two are one and the same. If this were true, it would mean that there is indeed an unhealthily close relationship between the fire department and the political process of the township. If it's not true, then the firefighters need to realise it and keep their own personal issues with Mr. Page seperate from the political level of discourse.
Spooky : A Late Halloween Experience
I was shopping in the early evening of Halloween, picking up a few necessities. I dropped by the LCBO for some suitable refreshment (Wychwood's excellent Hobgoblin and Black Wych seasonal brews).
I'd just made it through the checkout when the red light atop the automatic exit door started to flash. I approached with the confidence we all now have that doors will slide open for us. Not a movement. I waved at the motion sensor. Nothing. People began to line up behind me. An assistant came over and also waved at the sensor.
Vainly, he tried sliding the door by hand. It didn't move more than a couple of inches. We were trapped.
Eight Wychwood beers: Approximately $22. Being trapped in a liquor store: Priceless.
I'd just made it through the checkout when the red light atop the automatic exit door started to flash. I approached with the confidence we all now have that doors will slide open for us. Not a movement. I waved at the motion sensor. Nothing. People began to line up behind me. An assistant came over and also waved at the sensor.
Vainly, he tried sliding the door by hand. It didn't move more than a couple of inches. We were trapped.
Eight Wychwood beers: Approximately $22. Being trapped in a liquor store: Priceless.
Montague 25 : Peter Kavanagh Writes
Here's a guest post from Peter Kavanagh:
To begin, I’d like to say thank you for putting the effort into this blog and providing this platform. Many of us check this often. It is especially valuable because of the way you have moderated it – opinions on all sides are expressed here but most of them are expressed with respect (the ones you post anyway). We’d be a lot further ahead if everyone communicated this way in person.
The second all candidates evening was certainly an experience! Some of the questions, as you point out, were clearly motivated by nasty vindictiveness and nothing else – they backfired if the motivation was some kind of political damage. Those questions said far more about the people asking them, than they did about any of the candidates. But most of the questions, if perhaps difficult, were fair and deserved fair answers.
I don’t know how anyone could still maintain that this is not a divided community. And it isn’t just a divide represented by a small group of malcontents vs. some core Council supporters. Most of the residents in this township are disgusted by what has been going on these past couple of years and sympathize with one side or the other (election day will show us which side predominates).
I agree with one of the posters here who cautions us not to paint every member of a group with the same brush. I believe that most of our fire fighters simply want to serve and contribute to this community vice owning and controlling it and I also believe that most MRA associated people are only interested in open and transparent government with equal treatment for all residents. I understand why some of our fire fighters feel outraged and I also understand why some residents feel intimidated – to the point of fearing for their safety.
Set aside for a moment who caused what. Or whether or not there were/are real reasons for fire fighters to be outraged or whether or not there were/are real reasons for residents to never travel alone, write down license plates every time a vehicle slows down in front of their house etc etc
The fact is, that this is the reality in Montague. And our current Council has done nothing to try and solve it. And that is, in the final analysis, an utter failure in leadership. We will not fix this and move on until that is rectified. Which means we need change.
At the end of the meeting the other night, I met many residents who came to shake my hand, or ask questions about some of the issues I had talked about. Two of those people were associated with fire fighters (a wife and a mother I believe). We talked for a good ten minutes about the divide, the lawsuit, fire fighters and the MRA. I don’t believe I have their support and it was clear that there were some things we were not going to convince each other about. But throughout the entire conversation, I felt I was being listened to and treated with utmost respect and I certainly tried to give it right back. And I learned a thing or two which allows me to continue to increase my understanding of where everyone is coming from.
So, to those two ladies who took the time to engage in dialogue, I say thank you. This mess isn’t going to be repaired with a group hug and a sing-along. We have work to do. But you guys reinforced my belief that we can fix this.
To begin, I’d like to say thank you for putting the effort into this blog and providing this platform. Many of us check this often. It is especially valuable because of the way you have moderated it – opinions on all sides are expressed here but most of them are expressed with respect (the ones you post anyway). We’d be a lot further ahead if everyone communicated this way in person.
The second all candidates evening was certainly an experience! Some of the questions, as you point out, were clearly motivated by nasty vindictiveness and nothing else – they backfired if the motivation was some kind of political damage. Those questions said far more about the people asking them, than they did about any of the candidates. But most of the questions, if perhaps difficult, were fair and deserved fair answers.
I don’t know how anyone could still maintain that this is not a divided community. And it isn’t just a divide represented by a small group of malcontents vs. some core Council supporters. Most of the residents in this township are disgusted by what has been going on these past couple of years and sympathize with one side or the other (election day will show us which side predominates).
I agree with one of the posters here who cautions us not to paint every member of a group with the same brush. I believe that most of our fire fighters simply want to serve and contribute to this community vice owning and controlling it and I also believe that most MRA associated people are only interested in open and transparent government with equal treatment for all residents. I understand why some of our fire fighters feel outraged and I also understand why some residents feel intimidated – to the point of fearing for their safety.
Set aside for a moment who caused what. Or whether or not there were/are real reasons for fire fighters to be outraged or whether or not there were/are real reasons for residents to never travel alone, write down license plates every time a vehicle slows down in front of their house etc etc
The fact is, that this is the reality in Montague. And our current Council has done nothing to try and solve it. And that is, in the final analysis, an utter failure in leadership. We will not fix this and move on until that is rectified. Which means we need change.
At the end of the meeting the other night, I met many residents who came to shake my hand, or ask questions about some of the issues I had talked about. Two of those people were associated with fire fighters (a wife and a mother I believe). We talked for a good ten minutes about the divide, the lawsuit, fire fighters and the MRA. I don’t believe I have their support and it was clear that there were some things we were not going to convince each other about. But throughout the entire conversation, I felt I was being listened to and treated with utmost respect and I certainly tried to give it right back. And I learned a thing or two which allows me to continue to increase my understanding of where everyone is coming from.
So, to those two ladies who took the time to engage in dialogue, I say thank you. This mess isn’t going to be repaired with a group hug and a sing-along. We have work to do. But you guys reinforced my belief that we can fix this.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Montague 24 : The 2nd All Candidates Part 2 : Fanning The Flames
So, in the previous post I covered the meeting last night as factually as possible from the notes I took. Now I'm going to throw my observations and opinions out there, and I do so not from any partisan motivation at this point but out of real fear for the future of Montague.
Right from the top of last night's meeting the atmosphere was very different from the first meeting. There were a few more people present, I think, although many of the same faces were there. But there was much more tension in the room even before the event began.
Reeve Doyle's approach was confrontational and defensive from the beginning of his opening statement. He looked worried this time out. At the first meeting he was almost bored, but last night the impression was of a man realising his grip on power could be beginning to slip.
Things started out reasonably enough with the opening statements and even the first questions. Tensions didn't really begin to rise until a firefighter took the microphone and in what was clearly a personally motivated move asked Hal MacGregor to identify the causes of division within the township. There was some banter back and forth at this point, but even here it was really a predictable fencing match between the two. Obviously personal but not venomous
The question that started the downward spiral for me was the question of the $25 donation to the seniors club. That Reeve Doyle could actually stand there and defend the decision not to make this donation, basically because his precious feathers had been ruffled by some individuals in the seniors club, was beyond me. Peter Kavanagh used the word 'unworthy'. I don't have to be so polite; I'll call that decision what it was and is: petty, vindictive, and contemptible. It was nicely followed up by Vince Carroll's innuendo that the seniors had faked vandalism of their heat pump. Great work there. Good to know council's really got their heads screwed on.
The question to Dianne Coates about her alleged 'volatility' was predictable, but was asked and answered civilly. Throughout the evening, Dianne's cool, articulate handling of some inappropriate comments was a living answer to all of the questions of this nature that she's been asked. She was accused of being disrespectful to Doyle and Schoular; in fact this didn't happen, but plenty of disrespect was thrown her way.
Then, the lawsuit can of worms was opened good and proper. Again, Doyle was asked what he'd learned. Last time he'd been 'blindsided' by the Charter. This time it 'interfered'. Yes, your Reeve thinks the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an 'interference' in the way he does his job. He'd rather we didn't have such a thing, because it really does make running Montague Gary's way an awful lot harder. All those inconvenient things like people asking questions, speaking their mind, talking about him. How dare we. To me, this answer, the choice of the word 'interfere' is extremely revealing about Mr. Doyle's attitude.
It got better. Nobody wanted a lawsuit, said Doyle. It was a last resort. How does this square with the threat of 'immediate legal action' that was made on January 13, 2005 in writing by Mr. Doyle? Mr. Doyle apparently goes from zero to last resort in three weeks. Quick work, sure, but not necessarily mature, smart, or appropriate in an elected official. Evidence has since been provided to me that Mr. Doyle's issuing of threatening letters is a long term pattern of behaviour in matters other than the Don Page suit.
David Schoular, not to be outdone, followed up with an outright lie. The Charter, he said, was not an issue until the day of the court hearing. Uh huh... So those CCLA lawyers you refused to hear, what did you think they'd come to talk about? Also, the township must have been served with the pre-trial motion to dismiss well ahead of the actual court date. So David Schoular lied, on record.
Then we hit the low point of the evening when a grinning individual took the microphone and asked John McTavish about his alleged bankruptcy. The question was out of order. The motivation was purely personal animosity; it was visible and palpable. Pure vindictiveness at work. Almost worse was the sight of this individual returning to his place with a series of handshakes and high-fives from friends. Good one guys. Be proud of yourselves. It takes real heroism to crow over anothers personal misfortune.
The question to David Schoular about his dismissal was ruled out of order, although in fact it is highly relevant, because it concerns a conflict of interest related directly to his serving in elected office. So, since no question is out of order here, here's a reminder of the answer.
I've got a free piece of career advice for David; join the McGuinty Liberals. I think you'd make an excellent McGuinty MPP. You'd fit right in.
Last night, although the MRA folks haven't behaved anywhere near perfectly, it was my genuine sense that they are ready to move on and put things behind them. It was very interesting to watch the group at the back of the room all evening. Obviously they have their preferred slate of candidates. No secret there. But what I noticed was that even when one of their own talked about moving on, about leaving the division of the lawsuit behind, not one of them applauded. They stood stony faced. Didn't look too much like any of them actually want to move on. They struck macho poses and grinned that grin that teenage boys get when they're acting tough. To me, they looked like nothing more than a group of schoolyard bullies.
So here's the deal as far as I see it. Yes, some nasty things were said about the fire department. Yes, some were untrue and possibly defamatory. But, they had their day in court and the matter was resolved - and if not, then individuals should go ahead and sue Mr. Page themselves. They have every right. But they no longer have the right to paralyse the township by pursuing the feud or their personal vendettas against John McTavish, Dianne Coates, or anyone else, and neither do their supporters.
Neither do the MRA have the right to keep up with this. But life being what it is, sometimes one person or one group have to step up and make the first move. Sometimes you have to swallow a little pride. It makes you a better person and a stronger person. Last night showed the MRA group is ready to step up and move on. Will Doyle, council and the Fire Department? Vince Carroll tried; pity his colleagues couldn't join him.
It seems Mr. Doyle isn't prepared to listen to anyone, or to acknowledge any weakness or fault in his handling of anything. He uses secrecy and threats on a regular basis. Without openness and a willingness to listen, compromise, forgive and forget, we won't be getting anywhere. And last night I became convinced that we need a new council if that's ever to happen in Montague.
It's no longer about who's right and who's wrong. It's about who will and won't move on.
Right from the top of last night's meeting the atmosphere was very different from the first meeting. There were a few more people present, I think, although many of the same faces were there. But there was much more tension in the room even before the event began.
Reeve Doyle's approach was confrontational and defensive from the beginning of his opening statement. He looked worried this time out. At the first meeting he was almost bored, but last night the impression was of a man realising his grip on power could be beginning to slip.
Things started out reasonably enough with the opening statements and even the first questions. Tensions didn't really begin to rise until a firefighter took the microphone and in what was clearly a personally motivated move asked Hal MacGregor to identify the causes of division within the township. There was some banter back and forth at this point, but even here it was really a predictable fencing match between the two. Obviously personal but not venomous
The question that started the downward spiral for me was the question of the $25 donation to the seniors club. That Reeve Doyle could actually stand there and defend the decision not to make this donation, basically because his precious feathers had been ruffled by some individuals in the seniors club, was beyond me. Peter Kavanagh used the word 'unworthy'. I don't have to be so polite; I'll call that decision what it was and is: petty, vindictive, and contemptible. It was nicely followed up by Vince Carroll's innuendo that the seniors had faked vandalism of their heat pump. Great work there. Good to know council's really got their heads screwed on.
The question to Dianne Coates about her alleged 'volatility' was predictable, but was asked and answered civilly. Throughout the evening, Dianne's cool, articulate handling of some inappropriate comments was a living answer to all of the questions of this nature that she's been asked. She was accused of being disrespectful to Doyle and Schoular; in fact this didn't happen, but plenty of disrespect was thrown her way.
Then, the lawsuit can of worms was opened good and proper. Again, Doyle was asked what he'd learned. Last time he'd been 'blindsided' by the Charter. This time it 'interfered'. Yes, your Reeve thinks the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an 'interference' in the way he does his job. He'd rather we didn't have such a thing, because it really does make running Montague Gary's way an awful lot harder. All those inconvenient things like people asking questions, speaking their mind, talking about him. How dare we. To me, this answer, the choice of the word 'interfere' is extremely revealing about Mr. Doyle's attitude.
It got better. Nobody wanted a lawsuit, said Doyle. It was a last resort. How does this square with the threat of 'immediate legal action' that was made on January 13, 2005 in writing by Mr. Doyle? Mr. Doyle apparently goes from zero to last resort in three weeks. Quick work, sure, but not necessarily mature, smart, or appropriate in an elected official. Evidence has since been provided to me that Mr. Doyle's issuing of threatening letters is a long term pattern of behaviour in matters other than the Don Page suit.
David Schoular, not to be outdone, followed up with an outright lie. The Charter, he said, was not an issue until the day of the court hearing. Uh huh... So those CCLA lawyers you refused to hear, what did you think they'd come to talk about? Also, the township must have been served with the pre-trial motion to dismiss well ahead of the actual court date. So David Schoular lied, on record.
Then we hit the low point of the evening when a grinning individual took the microphone and asked John McTavish about his alleged bankruptcy. The question was out of order. The motivation was purely personal animosity; it was visible and palpable. Pure vindictiveness at work. Almost worse was the sight of this individual returning to his place with a series of handshakes and high-fives from friends. Good one guys. Be proud of yourselves. It takes real heroism to crow over anothers personal misfortune.
The question to David Schoular about his dismissal was ruled out of order, although in fact it is highly relevant, because it concerns a conflict of interest related directly to his serving in elected office. So, since no question is out of order here, here's a reminder of the answer.
I've got a free piece of career advice for David; join the McGuinty Liberals. I think you'd make an excellent McGuinty MPP. You'd fit right in.
Last night, although the MRA folks haven't behaved anywhere near perfectly, it was my genuine sense that they are ready to move on and put things behind them. It was very interesting to watch the group at the back of the room all evening. Obviously they have their preferred slate of candidates. No secret there. But what I noticed was that even when one of their own talked about moving on, about leaving the division of the lawsuit behind, not one of them applauded. They stood stony faced. Didn't look too much like any of them actually want to move on. They struck macho poses and grinned that grin that teenage boys get when they're acting tough. To me, they looked like nothing more than a group of schoolyard bullies.
So here's the deal as far as I see it. Yes, some nasty things were said about the fire department. Yes, some were untrue and possibly defamatory. But, they had their day in court and the matter was resolved - and if not, then individuals should go ahead and sue Mr. Page themselves. They have every right. But they no longer have the right to paralyse the township by pursuing the feud or their personal vendettas against John McTavish, Dianne Coates, or anyone else, and neither do their supporters.
Neither do the MRA have the right to keep up with this. But life being what it is, sometimes one person or one group have to step up and make the first move. Sometimes you have to swallow a little pride. It makes you a better person and a stronger person. Last night showed the MRA group is ready to step up and move on. Will Doyle, council and the Fire Department? Vince Carroll tried; pity his colleagues couldn't join him.
It seems Mr. Doyle isn't prepared to listen to anyone, or to acknowledge any weakness or fault in his handling of anything. He uses secrecy and threats on a regular basis. Without openness and a willingness to listen, compromise, forgive and forget, we won't be getting anywhere. And last night I became convinced that we need a new council if that's ever to happen in Montague.
It's no longer about who's right and who's wrong. It's about who will and won't move on.
Montague 23 : The Second All Candidates
So, here's what we'll do, with thanks to you-know-who-you-are for the suggestion. Two posts. Here's the factual account of last night's meeting. In a later post, my personal opinions and comment. Hopefully keeping these entirely seperate will minimize the risk of misunderstanding and allow everyone to share their point of view peacefully.
The meeting followed a similar format to the first.
Opening Statements
Reeve Doyle gave a robust defence of his record, focusing primarily on the financial stability of the township. He also stressed the importance of this election as council will serve for four years instead of three. He gave a detailed breakdown of the reserves held by the township. He described the budget process, and the scrutiny given to each of the over 600 line items in the township budget. He stated that in his view the township is not divided.
John McTavish promised an open, responsible and respectful council. He promised that any inquiry would receive a response within three business days. He promised to review all contracts and agreements currently in force. In-camera sessions of council would be minimized if he is elected, and reports on their outcome would be made available. He would immediately form a recreation committee and a roads committee. He would instigate audio / video recording of council meetings, and install a PA system in the Council chambers. He would restore an open question session at council meetings.
Kenneth Hunter reprised his opening address from the first all candidates meeting.
Peter Kavanagh introduced himself as the 'new kid on the block' but assured the audience that Montague was now his home and that he was as committed as anyone else to the township. He stated that he was hearing from people that they want change. Denial of the divide in the township is not going to help; the township must move forward. To do that requires leadership and this is what he has to offer. Currently, he said, we are not seeing leadership from the current council, especially in dealings with other levels of government. He also promised fewer in-camera sessions of council, open questions and open government. He promised a communications plan for the Fire Department, to better link them to the community. He also promised within 12 months to develop a long-term, strategic plan for the development of the township.
David Schoular said he has enjoyed his three years as Deputy Reeve and feels that he has represented the township well. He highlighted the accomplishments of the term: the roads needs study, the Master Fire Plan, development charges, the property standards bylaw and minimal tax increases. If re-elected, he promises leadership and dedication.
Mark Baker described living in the township for over thirty years, and hearing the same issues raised over and over again throughout that time: taxes and basic services. Council is spending money on consultants, but it is the residents voices that need to be heard. He spoke of development being urgent and the need to be more aggressive in defending the Rideau Regional Centre. He will not take the commitment lightly if elected and looks forward to serving on council.
Bonnie Burson reiterated her business background and strengths and stated that she could bring her business skills to bear on council as well as honesty and integrity.
Vince Carroll said that the township was financially secure, that he wanted to push for more recreational facilities and more development, and sat down again.
Dianne Coates described her 25 years of experience in the federal government. She promises fairness, openness and accountability if elected. She wants to restore balance to council. She would push for prudent spending decisions, with a focus on infrastructure. She would work hard to attract industry to Montague and to make it a 'real' community once again.
Bill Dobson said that the community needs to unite in order to move forward. He would replace arrogance with respect, and put the past behind us. The future of Rideau Regional would be a top priority for him. He highlighted the experience of the Montfort Hospital, slated for closure but now a major centre of excellence, thanks to the robust campaign residents mounted in its defence. He would like to see a similar campaign for the Rideau Regional. He would encourage small business in Montague and look for development opportunities at the airport.
Bill Eckersley gave the same opening address as at the first all candidates night.
Hal MacGregor said that the overwhelming message was that the township wants change. His priorities are: lower taxes, cleaning up waste at all levels, listening to residents concerns and making sure that bylaws reflect the rural character of Montague. He would record all council votes. He would like to see parks and playgrounds created to reinforce pride in subdivisions and create neighborhoods in the township. He feels that residents are fed up with the current council.
Questions
To David Schoular: Why did you oppose the spending of $120 for a laptop for the OPP, but award yourself a 70% pay increase? Mr. Schoular explained that the laptop issue had been a point of principle; that the OPP already receives over $350,000 for policing services and that if they needed a laptop it should have been budgeted for in the agreement with Montague. On the issue of the raise he explained that the township auditor had carried out a comparison study and recommended a level of compensation to bring Montague up to the Lanark county average.
To John McTavish: Describe the divide in the township. John spoke of social functions that are now attended by one of two solitudes; the firefighters don't come to the seniors functions and vice-versa. The township is divided into groups that never overlap.
To Hal McGregor: What caused the divide in the township? Hal spoke of the confrontational attitude of the current council and suggested the question be directed to the incumbents as to why they don't attend seniors functions any more.
To Gary Doyle: Why did you refuse a $25 donation for the seniors cookbook. Doyle commented that he had been an original member of the Forget-Me-Nots, and he said our seniors need support. However, he said, the seniors club has become politicized. Council does not feel welcome. The seniors need an attitude adjustment to remove the political overtones. The decision not to give the $25 was a whole council decision, not his personally. Peter Kavanagh said that although there might be politics involved in the seniors club, it was unworthy of council to allow personal animosities to deprive all of the seniors of support. He also highlighted that council did the same thing when they refused to help with the $500 insurance deductible when the heat pump at the hall was vandalised. Vince Carroll suggested that the 'vandalism' of the heat pump had been fabricated.
To Dianne Coates: You were 'curt' when answering a question at the last meeting. Will this be your attitude to all questions, or will you only answer questions you want to answer? Dianne gave essentially the same answer as at the previous meeting, explained that she had only spoken at council once, and that she had left after David Schoular had told her to leave the township if she didn't like the way it was run. She said that she had been passionate, as well she might as the court case was a landmark Canadian decision upholding the rights of all.
To all Reeve / Deputy Candidates: What are your views on the CRF? None of the candidates knew what CRF was.
To the current Reeve / Deputy: During the last council term, one councillor was 'forced out' and the treasurer and deputy had been dismissed. What was going on? David Schoular referred the question to the councillor who had resigned.
To Gary Doyle: What did you learn from the lawsuit experience? Doyle said that he'd learned that the council should have taken a different tack. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms 'interfered' with council's suit. He reiterated that nobody had wanted the lawsuit. He described council's role in the investigation and pointed out that the issues were to be resolved by the police and Fire Marshall, and that council should not and could not have been involved in the investigation or interviewed witnesses.
Peter Kavanagh spoke to the firefighters and identified the launching of the lawsuit as the real start of their problems - it was the lawsuit that catapulted them into the public eye and the national and local media. He said that with real leadership the matter could have easily been resolved inside the township and that even if the complaints had continued they would eventually have been starved. He also pointed out that the first threat of legal action from Gary Doyle was made just three weeks after the fire, on January 13, 2005.
David Schoular denied that council had 'jumped in' to the lawsuit and pointed out that they had consulted with all parties before suing. He said that the Charter had not even appeared as an issue until the court date.
To all Candidates: What would they do about preserving the quality of water in the Rideau system? Hal spoke of Smiths Falls occasionally dumping sewage and that the RVCA didn't take any action. Bill Eckersley pointed out that we all share responsibility for water quality, as individual residents.
To Peter Kavanagh: You travel a lot; how would you keep up with your commitment to council. If using telecommunications, who will pay? Peter explained that he would be minimizing travel and had already prepared his consulting business for this contigency. He will pay any costs personally.
To Bill Dobson: Name a positive initiative of the MRA. Bill named the first all-candidates meeting, the Rosedale road cleanup and a litany of social events.
To Incumbents: What is the Master Fire Plan and how did it come about? Reeve Doyle explained that the plan is a province wide initiative of the Fire Marshall's office, that it sets out standards and plans for fire response in the township and that Montague is one of the first in the province to complete the process.
To John McTavish: How can you stand for election when filing for bankruptcy? The moderator ruled this question out of order, but John answered anyway, that his business was in bankruptcy, but that he personally was not.
To All Candidates: The leader of the CUPE local at Rideau Regional asked why they were all talking about RRC in the past tense, and what they were prepared to do to fight for the Centre. Peter Kavanagh said that there was inertia in the current council's response and that only the union was actually doing anything at present. Council is allowing the province to set the agenda. He worries that the levels of government will continue finger pointing while the Centre gradually slides its way to closure. Bill Dobson again spoke of the Montfort example and said that he had discussed the issue with Mayor Staples. There is the chance that a change in provincial government in 2007 could bring a reprieve. Gary Doyle said that the province had agreed to consult the township and that is all we can ask for.
To Dianne Coates: Will you be able to work with the current Reeve if elected? Diane said that as a professional of 25 years standing she can work with anyone.
To David Schoular: Why were you dismissed from your government job? Ruled out of order by the moderator.
To Reeve Doyle: How did cancelling the open question session at council help? Gary said that the question session was being misused by people with 'agendas'. David Schoular claimed that people are still free to speak at council. Hal MacGregor stated this was untrue, and that he had been present at meetings where council refused to hear any questions.
To members of the MRA: Why have you not apologised to the Fire Department? Dianne Coates described how her first home had burned down and how she had ended up married to one of the founding members of the Montague Fire Department. Bill Dobson stated again, that the issue was with council and if council had been willing to talk there need have been no lawsuit.
To Dianne Coates: Clarify your statement on the outcome of the lawsuit. Dianne responded that her statement was that council had been incorrect in bringing the suit and that this was the judge's ruling. Vince Carroll said he had not come to talk about a lawsuit and we should move on. Bonnie Burson echoed that.
In Closing
Gary Doyle said that financial stability must come before all else.
Kenneth Hunter said that there is something in Montague for everyone.
Peter Kavanagh said we need to increase the tax base to achieve things like the required road improvements and that his strategic plan was required to make this happen.
David Schoular said that the township was strong, but bogged down in issues.
Mark Baker said that the township requires leadership.
Bonnie Burson said that she was here because she believes in Montague.
Vince Carroll expressed disappointment that we had not discussed taxes, garbage collection, recreation, roads, or any 'real' issues. What can voters hope to have learned from the evening?
Dianne Coates thanked all for their attendance and involvement.
Bill Dobson said he would look for a project or event to help the township come together and work for a common goal again.
Bill Eckersley read the back of his flyer.
Hal MacGregor said that everyone agrees that we need to move on, and a change in council is required for that to happen.
The meeting followed a similar format to the first.
Opening Statements
Reeve Doyle gave a robust defence of his record, focusing primarily on the financial stability of the township. He also stressed the importance of this election as council will serve for four years instead of three. He gave a detailed breakdown of the reserves held by the township. He described the budget process, and the scrutiny given to each of the over 600 line items in the township budget. He stated that in his view the township is not divided.
John McTavish promised an open, responsible and respectful council. He promised that any inquiry would receive a response within three business days. He promised to review all contracts and agreements currently in force. In-camera sessions of council would be minimized if he is elected, and reports on their outcome would be made available. He would immediately form a recreation committee and a roads committee. He would instigate audio / video recording of council meetings, and install a PA system in the Council chambers. He would restore an open question session at council meetings.
Kenneth Hunter reprised his opening address from the first all candidates meeting.
Peter Kavanagh introduced himself as the 'new kid on the block' but assured the audience that Montague was now his home and that he was as committed as anyone else to the township. He stated that he was hearing from people that they want change. Denial of the divide in the township is not going to help; the township must move forward. To do that requires leadership and this is what he has to offer. Currently, he said, we are not seeing leadership from the current council, especially in dealings with other levels of government. He also promised fewer in-camera sessions of council, open questions and open government. He promised a communications plan for the Fire Department, to better link them to the community. He also promised within 12 months to develop a long-term, strategic plan for the development of the township.
David Schoular said he has enjoyed his three years as Deputy Reeve and feels that he has represented the township well. He highlighted the accomplishments of the term: the roads needs study, the Master Fire Plan, development charges, the property standards bylaw and minimal tax increases. If re-elected, he promises leadership and dedication.
Mark Baker described living in the township for over thirty years, and hearing the same issues raised over and over again throughout that time: taxes and basic services. Council is spending money on consultants, but it is the residents voices that need to be heard. He spoke of development being urgent and the need to be more aggressive in defending the Rideau Regional Centre. He will not take the commitment lightly if elected and looks forward to serving on council.
Bonnie Burson reiterated her business background and strengths and stated that she could bring her business skills to bear on council as well as honesty and integrity.
Vince Carroll said that the township was financially secure, that he wanted to push for more recreational facilities and more development, and sat down again.
Dianne Coates described her 25 years of experience in the federal government. She promises fairness, openness and accountability if elected. She wants to restore balance to council. She would push for prudent spending decisions, with a focus on infrastructure. She would work hard to attract industry to Montague and to make it a 'real' community once again.
Bill Dobson said that the community needs to unite in order to move forward. He would replace arrogance with respect, and put the past behind us. The future of Rideau Regional would be a top priority for him. He highlighted the experience of the Montfort Hospital, slated for closure but now a major centre of excellence, thanks to the robust campaign residents mounted in its defence. He would like to see a similar campaign for the Rideau Regional. He would encourage small business in Montague and look for development opportunities at the airport.
Bill Eckersley gave the same opening address as at the first all candidates night.
Hal MacGregor said that the overwhelming message was that the township wants change. His priorities are: lower taxes, cleaning up waste at all levels, listening to residents concerns and making sure that bylaws reflect the rural character of Montague. He would record all council votes. He would like to see parks and playgrounds created to reinforce pride in subdivisions and create neighborhoods in the township. He feels that residents are fed up with the current council.
Questions
To David Schoular: Why did you oppose the spending of $120 for a laptop for the OPP, but award yourself a 70% pay increase? Mr. Schoular explained that the laptop issue had been a point of principle; that the OPP already receives over $350,000 for policing services and that if they needed a laptop it should have been budgeted for in the agreement with Montague. On the issue of the raise he explained that the township auditor had carried out a comparison study and recommended a level of compensation to bring Montague up to the Lanark county average.
To John McTavish: Describe the divide in the township. John spoke of social functions that are now attended by one of two solitudes; the firefighters don't come to the seniors functions and vice-versa. The township is divided into groups that never overlap.
To Hal McGregor: What caused the divide in the township? Hal spoke of the confrontational attitude of the current council and suggested the question be directed to the incumbents as to why they don't attend seniors functions any more.
To Gary Doyle: Why did you refuse a $25 donation for the seniors cookbook. Doyle commented that he had been an original member of the Forget-Me-Nots, and he said our seniors need support. However, he said, the seniors club has become politicized. Council does not feel welcome. The seniors need an attitude adjustment to remove the political overtones. The decision not to give the $25 was a whole council decision, not his personally. Peter Kavanagh said that although there might be politics involved in the seniors club, it was unworthy of council to allow personal animosities to deprive all of the seniors of support. He also highlighted that council did the same thing when they refused to help with the $500 insurance deductible when the heat pump at the hall was vandalised. Vince Carroll suggested that the 'vandalism' of the heat pump had been fabricated.
To Dianne Coates: You were 'curt' when answering a question at the last meeting. Will this be your attitude to all questions, or will you only answer questions you want to answer? Dianne gave essentially the same answer as at the previous meeting, explained that she had only spoken at council once, and that she had left after David Schoular had told her to leave the township if she didn't like the way it was run. She said that she had been passionate, as well she might as the court case was a landmark Canadian decision upholding the rights of all.
To all Reeve / Deputy Candidates: What are your views on the CRF? None of the candidates knew what CRF was.
To the current Reeve / Deputy: During the last council term, one councillor was 'forced out' and the treasurer and deputy had been dismissed. What was going on? David Schoular referred the question to the councillor who had resigned.
To Gary Doyle: What did you learn from the lawsuit experience? Doyle said that he'd learned that the council should have taken a different tack. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms 'interfered' with council's suit. He reiterated that nobody had wanted the lawsuit. He described council's role in the investigation and pointed out that the issues were to be resolved by the police and Fire Marshall, and that council should not and could not have been involved in the investigation or interviewed witnesses.
Peter Kavanagh spoke to the firefighters and identified the launching of the lawsuit as the real start of their problems - it was the lawsuit that catapulted them into the public eye and the national and local media. He said that with real leadership the matter could have easily been resolved inside the township and that even if the complaints had continued they would eventually have been starved. He also pointed out that the first threat of legal action from Gary Doyle was made just three weeks after the fire, on January 13, 2005.
David Schoular denied that council had 'jumped in' to the lawsuit and pointed out that they had consulted with all parties before suing. He said that the Charter had not even appeared as an issue until the court date.
To all Candidates: What would they do about preserving the quality of water in the Rideau system? Hal spoke of Smiths Falls occasionally dumping sewage and that the RVCA didn't take any action. Bill Eckersley pointed out that we all share responsibility for water quality, as individual residents.
To Peter Kavanagh: You travel a lot; how would you keep up with your commitment to council. If using telecommunications, who will pay? Peter explained that he would be minimizing travel and had already prepared his consulting business for this contigency. He will pay any costs personally.
To Bill Dobson: Name a positive initiative of the MRA. Bill named the first all-candidates meeting, the Rosedale road cleanup and a litany of social events.
To Incumbents: What is the Master Fire Plan and how did it come about? Reeve Doyle explained that the plan is a province wide initiative of the Fire Marshall's office, that it sets out standards and plans for fire response in the township and that Montague is one of the first in the province to complete the process.
To John McTavish: How can you stand for election when filing for bankruptcy? The moderator ruled this question out of order, but John answered anyway, that his business was in bankruptcy, but that he personally was not.
To All Candidates: The leader of the CUPE local at Rideau Regional asked why they were all talking about RRC in the past tense, and what they were prepared to do to fight for the Centre. Peter Kavanagh said that there was inertia in the current council's response and that only the union was actually doing anything at present. Council is allowing the province to set the agenda. He worries that the levels of government will continue finger pointing while the Centre gradually slides its way to closure. Bill Dobson again spoke of the Montfort example and said that he had discussed the issue with Mayor Staples. There is the chance that a change in provincial government in 2007 could bring a reprieve. Gary Doyle said that the province had agreed to consult the township and that is all we can ask for.
To Dianne Coates: Will you be able to work with the current Reeve if elected? Diane said that as a professional of 25 years standing she can work with anyone.
To David Schoular: Why were you dismissed from your government job? Ruled out of order by the moderator.
To Reeve Doyle: How did cancelling the open question session at council help? Gary said that the question session was being misused by people with 'agendas'. David Schoular claimed that people are still free to speak at council. Hal MacGregor stated this was untrue, and that he had been present at meetings where council refused to hear any questions.
To members of the MRA: Why have you not apologised to the Fire Department? Dianne Coates described how her first home had burned down and how she had ended up married to one of the founding members of the Montague Fire Department. Bill Dobson stated again, that the issue was with council and if council had been willing to talk there need have been no lawsuit.
To Dianne Coates: Clarify your statement on the outcome of the lawsuit. Dianne responded that her statement was that council had been incorrect in bringing the suit and that this was the judge's ruling. Vince Carroll said he had not come to talk about a lawsuit and we should move on. Bonnie Burson echoed that.
In Closing
Gary Doyle said that financial stability must come before all else.
Kenneth Hunter said that there is something in Montague for everyone.
Peter Kavanagh said we need to increase the tax base to achieve things like the required road improvements and that his strategic plan was required to make this happen.
David Schoular said that the township was strong, but bogged down in issues.
Mark Baker said that the township requires leadership.
Bonnie Burson said that she was here because she believes in Montague.
Vince Carroll expressed disappointment that we had not discussed taxes, garbage collection, recreation, roads, or any 'real' issues. What can voters hope to have learned from the evening?
Dianne Coates thanked all for their attendance and involvement.
Bill Dobson said he would look for a project or event to help the township come together and work for a common goal again.
Bill Eckersley read the back of his flyer.
Hal MacGregor said that everyone agrees that we need to move on, and a change in council is required for that to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)