ELECTED AUTHORITY VERSUS APPOINTED AUTHORITY

In 2010 Woolwich electors, or perhaps thirty percent of them, elected a bunch of strangers to office namely Herteis, Cowan, Bryant, Poffenroth and Mr. Flip Flop, Mark Bauman. In 2014 it was newcomers Merlihan, Larry Shantz, Scott Hahn along with old timers Sandy Shantz, Murray Martin and Mr. Flip Flop again. Last month we had two newcomers namely Mr. McMillan and Mr. Redekop joining Merlihan, L. Shantz and S. Shantz and Murray Martin. As with all councils we have a disparate group. There are the honest, the intelligent, the unintelligent and the dishonest plus various mixtures. Par for the course. Obviously it would be best for the public interest to have more mixtures of honest and intelligent than say of dishonest and unintelligent.

Then we have appointments to committees of council. Guess who make these appointments? You got it. Elected councillors who are mixtures of honest, dishonest, intelligent and unintelligent. Personal friends, colleagues, campaign supporters etc. are all in the mix of council appointments. A few may have a proven track record of research and commitment to the issue being addressed by the committee. A few may have a proven track record of collaboration of various kinds. Unsurprisingly some of them are honest and intelligent and others are dishonest and or unintelligent. What a way to run a railroad folks.

Going back to the thirty percent of voters who even bother to cast a ballot. Is there any way to test their knowledge of the issues beforehand? There is not. Is there any way to test their knowledge of the candidates standing before them? There is not.Is there any way to test the voters character or their commitment to the public interest? There is not.

There is an old saying that electors get the politicians that they deserve. Wow. I really don't think that Woolwich citizens deserve as bad as they've generally gotten over the last fifty years. That said I actually think that our council today has the potential to be a little bit better than most past councils. Of course I can't be sure because there are two or three of these councillors that I really don't know.

Is there some pearl of wisdom or insight in all of this? Maybe. Firstly be suspicious. Somebody has to be elected. There is absolutely zero guarantee that they are smart or honest. Secondly be suspicious of committees appointed by these same councillors. Again they could be excellent or they could be a direct reflection of a corrupt council although most usually they are somewhere in between.

That said any committee of council had better follow the dictates of those who appointed them. The 2010-2015 CPAC did that and did a great job until the October 2014 council of Sandy Shantz was elected and chose to appease Chemtura Canada by condemning the CPAC who constantly pressured Chemtura for their environmental dishonesty and delay.

Thirdly citizens need to be more involved locally. Read both the Record and the Observer. Neither are perfect but both are very good. Secondly at least once in a long while attend either Council meetings or committee meetings such as RAC and TAG. You will learn so much from both. I don't guarantee you will like what you have learned but you will be in a better position to vote next time around. Why do you think councillors are so confident in mostly doing exactly what they please? It is because practically nobody regularly attends council meetings and too few of us regularly read the newspapers.

DIPLOMACY VERSUS BRUTAL DISHONESTY

Yes the reality is that the Todd Cowan council had exactly zero intentions of ever reappointing any of the old CPAC guard. That is despite my recommendations to mayor Cowan to reappoint at least Ken Driedger and Gerry Heidebuurt and likely Sandra Baer although thank god he didn't listen to me in regards to her. This Council and mayor had already decided prior to winning the election that the public advisory committee was just way too chummy with Chemtura and the MOE. The Council viewed that as a roadblock to progress and wanted stronger, more aggressive citizen representatives to push the two guilty parties harder for results. That said they were not prepared to throw the current citizen volunteers under the bus or to the wolves to achieve want they wanted. Yes they did it incompetently but not maliciously.

Meanwhile the Sandy Shantz council listened way too much to Sandy and Mark Bauman who pretended that Chemtura's and the MOE's tantrum needed to be accommodated. Appeasement was on their agenda but despite some failings in the 2010-2014 council culminating in Todd Cowan's self-destruction, that council were not mean, petty and malicious like Sandy's 2014-2018 council. This appeasement was well described in the January 7, 2016 Woolwich Observer when they wrote "Looking to woo Chemtura and the MOE back into the fold, Woolwich scrapped the citizen watchdog that monitors the Elmira chemical company in favour of a new, less adversarial format." Sandy and Mark with help from two disgruntled and highly offended former CPAC members went about slandering and libeling the current citizen volunteers on CPAC who had been appointed by the Todd Cowan council. They did this in order to hide their true agenda of appeasement.

Something else needs to be said and this is to confront the lies from Chemtura and the MOE suggesting that CPAC were rude or mean to them. Good God are they babies or what? CPAC confronted them in regards to their plethora of lies. CPAC confronted them about their false promises. CPAC confronted them over their refusal to supply requested data or answer questions directly related to the local environment and their impact upon it. Chairman Dr. Dan Holt always ran a tight ship and controlled the meetings. This mayor Cowan insisted upon and it was delivered by Dr. Holt despite the lying by gutless, alleged "stakeholders" at the April 9, 2015 private meeting held at the Township offices.

Perhaps a better title above might be "Incompetent Diplomacy versus Brutal Dishonesty".

RICHARD CLAUSI ASKS SANDY SHANTZ DURING A COUNCIL MEETING IF SHE PERJURED HERSELF

Yes there have certainly been some high moments and drama over the last four years. Fortunately the mud thrown by the so called nice people on Woolwich Council has often rebounded right back onto themselves. Following is an example.

On August 25, 2015 Richard Clausi attended Woolwich Council as a Delegate. He presented them with 10 Recommendations that would dramatically improve both the integrity and the transparency of the electoral process. Unsurprisingly few have been given more than lip service. The Woolwich Observer reported on Mr. Clausi's Delegation to Council in their August 29, 2015 edition.

Mr. Clausi started his Delegation thusly: "As we know, half of this council have had encounters of the worst kind with the MEA (Municipal Elections Act)." Mr. Clausi continued "As often happens though, people will, in defence, blame the MEA for being "grey" and "confusing". And vague. I respectfully suggest that the requirements of the MEA are clear and understandable for almost all candidates in Ontario. Any "grey" is an optical illusion, and in the eyes of the beholder."

Richard also pointed out that both the matter of acclaimed candidates having to file a Financial Statement (Mark) as well as what an associated company is (Sandy) are clearly explained in the handbooks given out as well as in the FAQs (frequently asked questions) provided by the appropriate Ministry.

Then Richard got into one of the more chilling and devious behaviours of the whole perverted MECAC process. Sandy distributed a new but later shown to still be incomplete Financial Statement and a private Audit done by her own accountant. She did this at ten minutes to ten a.m. just prior to the start of the July 2/15 MECAC meeting in the Woolwich Council Chambers. MECAC Chair, Carl Zehr, did not arrive until 10:05 due to construction at the south end of Elmira. He immediately started the meeting without so much as opening the large package that Sandy submitted. MECAC members stated that this information from Sandy was new and that without seriously examining it that they were satisfied that it was adequate to resolve the multiple problems with Sandy's Financial Statement. MECAC accepted her months late filings allegedly unread and at surface value. It was disgraceful.

Then shortly afterwards we determined that Ms. Shantz according to law had to forfeit her mayor's chair because she had failed to meet the March deadline for filing her Audit along with her Financial Statement. She herself had admitted this with her late filing on July 2, 2015. She went to court where she filed papers advising Superior Court Justice David Broad that she had submitted her audited statement to MECAC on June 29/15, three days prior to the public MECAC meeting.

Sandy made the mistake of interrupting Richard Clausi and arguing with him during his Delegation to Woolwich Council. At that point Richard asked her his famous question namely "Are you telling me that you perjured yourself?" Sandy's response according to the Woolwich Observer was "Clearly taken aback, Shantz said the date given to the court was an error, one she raised with her lawyer who was to talk to the judge about it." Of course we the public have received exactly zero feedback or evidence that Sandy's lawyer James Bennett, who is somewhat infamous in his own right due to his unfortunate and perhaps sexist comments about the civil lawsuit against the Waterloo Regional Police by their own female officers, did "talk to the judge about it."

My educated guess is that Sandy told the truth to the Judge and she and MECAC lied on July 2/15 about MECAC just receiving the documents. If that is correct then we have a conspiracy between MECAC and mayor Shantz. If it isn't correct then we know that mayor Shantz misinformed Justice David Broad and that it was a helpful to her misrepresentation that assisted in her reinstatement. I already believe that she violated the terms of her conditional reinstatement but unless she can prove that the Justice was formally advised after the fact of the error than this is more evidence that she has not been properly reinstated to office.

NEW FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE COMING

That is six of them. Six brand, spanking new Financial Statements to pour over. Some might think that this would be six brand new opportunities to embarrass and humiliate this council all over again. They would be wrong. Sure I had some fun last time around. Putting Mark and Sandy through their paces was necessary. Scott was a little different. For him it wasn't personal at the beginning. His Financial Statement was just too incredibly buggered and wrong to be ignored hence Dr. Dan Holt didn't. That said at least Scott submitted the one Financial Statement required and on time unlike both Mark and Sandy. Mark's screw up was just laziness whereas Sandy's was the most deceptive of the three. She submitted her major Financial Statement on time but did not submit her mandatory Audit Report until months after the deadline and only when confronted about it.

Now we have Murray, Larry and Sandy all as acclaimed candidates. Anyone want to guess if any of those three are dumb enough to try what Mark got away with for at least two Acclamations before I dropped the hammer on him? There is lots of dumbness potential there but I'm equally sure that the Municipal Clerk will also step up this time and do her job.

Then we have Patrick, Scott McMillan and Fred Redekop. The last two are brand new and most susceptible to honest mistakes. That is not only because they are brand new but because I suspect they are also honest. Patrick knew better four years ago and I'm pretty confident he will do it right this time as well.

Finally we have the Financial Statements of the unsuccessful candidates. Yes they too must submit them. I've never seen a Financial Statement from Julie-Anne Herteis although she is some sort of book keeper apparently. But then so is Sandy allegedly. That didn't stop Sandy from using some illegal creativity four years ago so maybe there is hope yet for some rule bending and and ignoring this March when the Statements are required.

Citizens are learning and watching. Political oversight and transparency are generally pathetic but every now and again the old adage about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time comes true.

NEW WOOLWICH COUNCILLOR SCOTT McMILLAN

I recently came across an old Woolwich Observer Letter to the Editor from May or June 2015. It was written by Scott McMillan who has just become our new councillor in Ward One. I really don't know the person although although I did introduce myself and shook his hand at a council meeting this past week. Possibly Richard Clausi may have advised me that he taught him at EDSS (Elmira District Secondary School) a long time ago.

In his Letter to the Editor Mr. McMillan suggested that if one or two councillors had run afoul of the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) it could be written up as simple bad luck or incompetence. However as literally half the council (ie. 3) were found with major and serious errors, with two of them being by law supposed to have been immediately removed from office, something else is involved. Mr. McMillan felt that there was likely a serious staff problem involved in this situation.

I suppose I could nitpick and suggest that councillors are ultimately responsible for their Financial Statements (they are) and I could also suggest that two out of the three most likely intentionally were trying to deceive with the third just being self-servingly lazy, but Mr. McMillan actually is correct. Both the Municpal Clerk and the CAO screwed up royally. The Clerk was new, having taken over after the recent sudden departure of Clerk Christine Broughton. I've always wondered about that but am so inured to the misstatements and gobblygook put out by Woolwich Township, that I wasn't going to waste more of my time asking just to receive an unlikely answer.

Financial Statements are submitted to the Clerk prior to the March deadline. She is supposed to take a look at them and spot any glaring errors. This of course recognizes that she is not an accountant but then neither am I, Dr. Dan Holt or Richard Clausi and we had no trouble seeing and smelling them for what they were. In the case of Mark Bauman she and he both knew that he was supposed to file a Financial Statement, whether he was acclaimed or not. They both chose to ignore provincial law and got caught red handed. The Clerk's followup attempt to coverup her and Mark's failure was not appreciated.

The CAO is ultimately responsible for the performance of all Township employees. Knowing that Val was new on the job he should have
confirmed to himself that she was on top of things especially the Municipal Election and the followup legal responsibilities of candidates. It is fair to say that he did not. Also I have to wonder how many other municipal employees are kept on the job more due to their loyalty to council and senior staff than their loyalty to the citizens paying their salaries and for whom they ultimately work.

FORGOTTEN LESSONS

Yesterday I mentioned Dr. Robert Case's recent article published on-line in "Community Development". Dr. Case discussed certain lessons learned from an oral history of citizen activists. Today I would like to focus on two other lessons that have not been learned by most citizens, including those who believe they are activists.

Page 90 of Dr. Case's article discusses CEAC or the Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee, a committee formed by and under the authority of Woolwich Council. Council also appointed their Chair, Dr. Murray Haight. As Council also did during the sham MECAC hearings in 2015, they had their lawyer provide allegedly independent legal advice to CEAC about not going public with the at the time, secret Uniroyal incinerator plans. Of course in both instances the lawyer was working in the Council's interests, not for the citizens. There were also two town councillors on this committee, shades of the Quentin Martin and Grace Sudden early UPAC days (January 1992).

Council and their appointed Chair did not want the Uniroyal proposal going public for fear of a strong citizen backlash. Susan Rupert and Sandra Bray, recent additions to CEAC were appalled. They had concerns that the Chair was too under the thumb of "...a town council seen by some as too cosy with Uniroyal." They both quit CEAC and along with Esther Thur founded APT. The lesson here that has been lost is very simple. Municipal councils may or may not honestly represent the local citizens. In most cases they represent the local business and industrial interests very well. Ordinary citizens not so much. Therefore how could the APT membership and coordinating council have allowed Susan Bryant and councillor Pat McLean to take CPAC into the fold of being a municipal committee in 2000? Esther Thur, Henry Regier and I all spoke against this but Pat and Susan had done their backroom lobbying ahead of time and had the votes they needed on CPAC. Disgusting and stupid. Lessons not learned.

On page 98 Dr. Case refers to CEAC and the ruptures within it i.e. Susan Rupert and Sandra Bray leaving and with Esther Thur forming APT. I believe there is a lesson here that was also lost on the APT general membership in January 1994. APT was formed directly because CEAC were seen as too close to a town council that was far too friendly with Uniroyal. The Elmira EH-Team was formed in January 1994 because Sylvia Berg managed via the cult of the personality to convince the APT coordinating committee that nothing was wrong with APT going along with the MOE's contemptible rollover on DNAPLS. While I should have split from Susan Bryant and CPAC years before I did, at least I bailed from APT at the right time. The coordinators had drifted back to their comfortable lives and left the environmental business solely in the hands of Sylvia and Susan. What a mistake. To this day on-site DNAPLS are still the major problem along with Dioxins and DDT which for the record are DNAPLS in their own right.

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND THE CITIZEN ACTIVIST...

The title above is just part of the following very long title namely "Environmental oversight and the citizen activist: Lessons from an oral history of activism surrounding Elmira, Ontario's 1989 water crisis". This is an approximately twenty page long article submitted to "Community Development" an on-line journal, by Professor Robert Case of Renison College, affiliated with the University of Waterloo. I received this full article only this morning from my daughter in British Columbia. You can imagine my surprise when I see that one date for it being published online is October 2016 and the other date is 2017. I was surprised because while I know the name Robert Case it is partly from his work with the Wellington Water Watchers over in Guelph. Then a little more thought ensued and yes I certainly was interviewed by him however I thought that it was many years ago and not nearly so recently as 2015-2016.

Therefore I jumped into reading this quickly this morning as I have to take my car in for snow tires, oil change etc. today. It turns out that my daughter has e-mailed Prof Case and mentioned she enjoyed the article and also enjoyed seeing her father's (moi) name in it. Frankly I was a little concerned that there might be some inaccuracies based upon the author's close relationship with the Bryant's at Renison College. Well I'm over half done the article right now and pleased to report that so far so good. Professor Case has been very good at presenting the words of the interviewees accurately including Richard Clausi and myself. Perhaps I'm correct on the timing and based upon what I've read so far Prof Case may well have sent me a Draft a few years back.

The focus of the article is on citizen organizing and activism and certainly tells how citizens can mobilize for the public good. Unfortunately,so far, it's a little light on how the story and the citizen organization has eroded. Perhaps when I finish the article I will report some more on it.