Maddie Di Muccio

We often hear the rising concern about increasing public sector benefits that are causing massive problems with sustainability as our own taxes increase enormously.

It’s becoming unsustainable.

But it seems like Newmarket Council has been jumping on the bandwagon of public sector-like perks for ten years now.

Most people aren’t aware of a wonderful benefit we get to enjoy as Council members: a nice 1/3 break on our personal taxes.

That’s over $15,000 for us members of Council.

Here’s some background.

Section 283(7) of The Municipal Act, 2001 requires that municipal by-laws maintaining tax free allowances for Council are reviewed by their members at a public meeting during the period corresponding to the term of office of its members after a regular election.

Newmarket had that public meeting yesterday, with no public (sadly) in attendance.

The Ontario Municipal Act of 2001 which took effect January 1, 2001 eliminated the provision that 1/3 of Council remuneration was considered to be a tax free expense allowance - unless Council passed a by-law under Section 252(2) of the previous Act (prior to January 1, 2003), setting out its intention that 1/3 of the remuneration paid to elected Members of Council should continue as expenses incident to their duties as Members of Council.

My guess is that since then, many municipalities have implemented personal budget expenses and car allowances to address the issues of remuneration concerning our work, thereby eliminating the need to shave it off our taxable income.

In Newmarket, here’s the breakdown:

-$5,500 personal budget (no guidelines);

-$1,500 personal environmental fund (no guidelines);

-$410.64 monthly car/travel allowances totalling $5338.32 a year (no guidelines);

AND

-1/3 off on our personal taxes: on every Councillor’s yearly salary, that’s a whopping $15,239.90 tax free perk.

In total these perks amount to over $27,577 per Council member.

For the Mayor and Regional Councillor, those numbers would at least be doubled.

Do you feel these figures are justified for remuneration?

Yesterday’s vote gave Council two options:

Option number 1: That Council maintain the 1/3 tax free status relative to Council remuneration;

Or

Option number 2: That Council repeal Resolution R7-2002 thereby removing the 1/3 tax free status effective January 1st, 2013.

Yesterday, all members of Newmarket Council voted in favour of keeping a 1/3 tax free status with the exception of myself.

Councillor Kerwin was absent.

It was the only vote that was done quietly and with no discussion, debate, or questions, other than my own query asking who seconded the resolution in 2002. The staff report itself contained no comparison to other municipalities. If it did one would note that some municipalities such as Vaughan, East Gwillimbury, Markham, Richmond Hill, the Mayor of Aurora, Peel, Mississauga, Ottawa and even York Region have eliminated this perk.

In September 2002, the resolution (R7-2002) for Newmarket Council to grant themselves a 1/3 tax free perk was moved by former Councillor Ray Snow and seconded by (now Mayor) Tony Van Bynen.

Since that time, this Council has consistently voted to give themselves a handsome benefit every term while increasing your taxes every year.

Yesterday’s Committee meeting covered over 28 issues, but there are 4 I want to talk about specifically to you. I will be posting the fourth issue in a separate blog.

Item #8: Newmarket Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes: Discussion on the Use of Environmental Funds

Last month I put forth a motion to eliminate what I call a Council “Green Slush Fund.” Each Councillor has the privilege of a tidy $1,500 personal fund (in addition to their $5,500 and a nice 1/3 personal tax break). None of this public money has guidelines. Council rejected my motion that they do.

My issue with the personal environmental fund allocated to Council members include the fact that they have no guidelines, have been used in the past to purchase jackets with “green” logos, and are used as an opportunity for scoring points in photo ops for political purposes.

Council rejected my motion to eliminate this fund last month. When I suggested pooling our funds together to support local environmental incentives they rejected that too.

I was a little surprised to read Councillor Twinney’s concerns about my recommendations and that this issue actually made it on yesterday’s agenda. While she voted against staff recommending guidelines last month, she oddly insisted the Environmental Committee do so a few days later.

I was concerned with the communication Councillor Twinney was providing NEAC members so I wrote this letter to them today:

May 23rd, 2012

Newmarket Environmental Advisory Committee

RE: Council Committee meeting May 22nd, 2012

Dear Members,

It had come to my attention at yesterday’s Committee of the Whole meeting during a discussion on an Item Agenda (Item Eight) that Councillor Twinney approached the committee during your scheduled April 4th meeting indicating a motion on Council suggesting the “elimination of Council’s Environmental Fund” was put forth.

There are several things the Committee should understand which I fear may have been left out and not communicated on this particular issue as follows:

-It was I who had brought the motion forward recommending the cut after I learned in the past the fund had no guidelines. It still doesn’t. The CAO confirmed this with Council yesterday. Council voted against my motion recommending guidelines for our personal expense accounts at that same meeting. This would include the environmental budget. My concern is that past expenditures for this fund (such as green logo jackets) are not properly being funnelled into initiatives that have solid impact on our community.

-I therefore suggested all nine members of Council pool their personal environmental fund together and use it for local environmental initiatives. This suggested was rejected.

In addition:

-Please note that I am very supportive of environmental initiatives and work regularly with my own ward residents (particularly students) on implementing them.

-Additionally, last year I worked with staff ensuring (and confirming) our fields were treated with natural fertilizers.

Many thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Maddie Di Muccio

Cc: Councillor Jane Twinney

Item 13: Ontario’s Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program- Rooftop Solar Projects up to 500KW – Request for Council Support

Solexia Solar Development requested Newmarket staff for Council to prepare a letter on their behalf indicating support for the very controversial FIT program created by the McGuinty government.

Here’s some background into FIT and why it’s 100% responsible for increasing your hydro rates by over a whopping 56%:

The provincial Liberal government introduced a “feed-in-tariff” system for energy companies (wind, solar, etc.) who would be subsidized very handsomely with taxpayer’s money. This money is coming out of your increasingly unaffordable hydro bills.

European nations, such as Germany and Spain, are backing out of similar expensive green energy experiments after discovering it was expensive and killing jobs. This project here in Ontario is responsible for causing massive difficulties for taxpayers (such as seniors on fixed incomes) in being able to afford to heat their homes.

It’s a subject that affects us all, and one I feel very strongly about.

Even the Auditor General, less than 6 months ago, confirmed that FIT was too expensive and would increase your energy bills. The Auditor also confirmed McGuinty’s FIT program was killing up to four jobs in the economy for every job he created through the program.

Yesterday’s staff report included the following:

“In March of 2012 the Province released their two year review of the FIT Program and recommended changes in six areas. One of the proposed changes involves improving municipal engagement. The Program recommends that applicants (in this case Solexica) who work closely with municipalities and have support receive points during the application process to help move their projects forward.”

While I have absolutely nothing against Solexia, I have serious issues with a provincial government playing partisan politics on the municipal level and using the program to gain support from municipalities forcing them to write endorsement letters for it.

All members of Council (with the exception of Councillor Kerwin, who was absent) voted in support of the recommendation. I voted against it. Perhaps what I found most amazing was Councillor Twinney’s vote – I’m specifically singling her out here because she spent last summer campaigning for PC MPP Frank Klees, whose party ran very specifically on eliminating the FIT program due to the hardships caused to Ontarians. Here’s what he had to say about it: “The unsustainable FIT program is a threat to the 400 jobs at (a) solar plant in Newmarket…” (Sept. 9th, 2011).

Item 25: Katimavik Resolution

I applaud residents who come to Council with issues they are deeply passionate about and present their views. This is an important forum for democracy.

It’s important to make decisions based on the merits of what they do for society as a whole and not to score points with the individual bringing forward their concern. It’s also important to make sure we have facts about our decisions, how they will impact working with other levels of governments, and how they affect the level of government we’re elected to represent.

Yesterday a gentleman approached Council with his concern about the Federal Government suspending a youth program called “Katimavik.” Like FIT, Katimavik is also a controversial program. Here’s why:

Katimavik was a program that was brought in by the former Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau in 1977 in order to “give youth the chance to participate in a structured, time-proven program that opens more career options, brings valuable life experience and challenge…”

In fact, his own son and Liberal MP was a member.

I believe at that time, despite some controversial spending uncovered recently and the charge of using the program to engage youth in selective political activity (see here) http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/05/20120502-200351.html Katimavik may have been a good concept over 30 years ago. Since then, Canada has been inspired by leaps and strides by bringing in fantastic youth programs (sponsored by your taxes) in our schools, police forces, army forces, and other various organizations including those sponsored by private businesses.

Heritage Minister James Moore said the government would continue to fund other programs for youth, but that Katimavik was simply far too expensive. No one likes to make cuts in government, but Minister Moore indicated it was “one of the easiest decisions he ever had to make” after looking at the books.

Here are some facts about Katimavik from the Minister’s office:

-It costs more than $28,000 per participant;

-It has a one-third dropout rate;

- It received up to $21 million a year from taxpayers for the past 30 years.

Yesterday Council adopted a resolution urging Newmarket-Aurora MP Lois Brown to request the Government of Canada she represents to “honour the original (Katimavik) funding agreement…and restore full funding…and to negotiate towards a new funding model…”

The resolution also requires “for the Town of Newmarket to issue a press release recognizing the positive impact Katimavik groups have had….and that the Town of Newmarket has asked MP Lois Brown to try and get funding reinstated.”

I’d like to stop there for a moment and illustrate the impact such a resolution would have on our working relationships with the MP. Not once has MP Lois Brown (nor MPP Frank Klees) ever issued press releases indicating their displeasure with Newmarket Council (despite many reasons I could think of).

Yet here we are on Council getting involved in areas of government we have absolutely no business in being in while we should be talking about parks, recreation, roads, and your municipal taxes (which have been steadily increasing every year).

I question how Councillor Emanuel, who was once a federal Liberal candidate for Newmarket and who serves on FCM representing us, tasking him to with work in harmony with our MP, can possibly do so after comments such as the one he made last year after MP Brown was elected: “"Next time, Newmarket-Aurora is going Liberal.": http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1001475--brown-dances-over-opponents

The reality is that as Council members we need to be diligent in working with other members of government – and to hold them to proper account when real issues arise – not including the cutting of expensive tax funded projects.

The following is a copy of my statements made in Council Chambers on May 7th, 2012:

Over the past few weeks I’ve received a few emails from Ward 6 residents outlining concerns regarding the construction of Belinda’s Place on the corner of Yonge Street and Sawmill Road. I want to address some of those questions, concerns and state my own position on the project.

Belinda’s Place is designed to be a homeless shelter for woman that is coming from the York Regional Government. It falls under the Housing & Long Term Care, Community and Health Services and it was adopted by a former York Regional Council in 2010 order to address the lack of emergency and transitional housing needs for women in York Region.

The Region of York was very lucky to have had the Society of Friends (Quakers) generously donate the land to make this project possible. The location is close to bus lines and important amenities in the community.

York Region Government, in my opinion, has been diligent in communicating the upcoming project with nearby residents and in keeping open lines of communication. On March 28, the Region held an Open House for residents on the project and it was well attended.

I invite you to contact me to find out how you can be a member of an important future initiative that York Region will be establishing. In an effort to provide the neighbourhood with full details of the project as it progresses, and to provide a vehicle for addressing concerns such as fit in the community, security, privacy, noise and light pollution a "Community Liaison Committee" is being organized. I encourage you to contact me should you wish to become a part of this committee at mdimuccio@newmarket.ca or 905-716-1290.

Some of you may have become familiar with a charity called ‘Belinda’s Place’. There was some confusion by members of the public that this private board were the creators of the project because Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen sits on the board. The charity was created to raise awareness and funding for the project by a group of private citizens and it has done so very successfully; proving that partnerships with private donors and government can work at easing the burden for the taxpayer.

The project is moving ahead and will likely be completed, I am told, by fall of 2014. Zoning requirements for the area will come before the Town of Newmarket Council for approval this spring. The house will also include a terrific community room available to the public for use.

One or two residents raised concerns that included an effect on land tax values; which subsequent reports show unequivocally that these theories are unfounded, and I believe that.

Another concern indicated issues such as noise and crime: and here is where I hope to have residents understand what this shelter means and what it will do. This is an emergency, transitional house that will have an incredible impact on women in York Region.

They are our mothers, our daughters, and our friends.

These are women from all walks of life, who have been dealt a sudden change in their card deck.

They are not drug addicts.

They are not criminals.

They are not thugs.

My own position is that I fully support this project – in fact, I organized my own fundraiser for it in 2010 and donated all the proceeds – which sit in trust with the Town – to the shelter.

We are a compassionate community.

We are a caring one.

I’m not minimalizing concerns from all residents because part of this discussion is sharing and addressing them, and you have my full commitment that your needs will be heard and given a voice.

I am asking Ward 6 to join me in reaching out their hand and welcoming these women with compassion, and I encourage you to contact me should you need any information and so I can liaison with the Region.

Last night after our regularly scheduled Council meeting, as Council was reconvening in another room to discuss an in camera item, I heard some debate outside in the hallway.

I left the meeting and stepped outside. I witnessed Councillor Vegh standing in front of my husband, John Blommesteyn, very close to his face, in a menacing and threatening manner. My young son was next to his father and he looked terrified. There were three other witnesses present: a Newmarket Town staff member, Councillor Vegh’s son, and the husband of Library Chair Wendy Van Stratten. With the exception of staff they had been present during the scheduled Council meeting and were waiting around.

(My husband told me prior to Vegh’s confrontation he had been enjoying pleasant conversation with Mr. Van Stratten).

Hearing some loud voices I immediately grew concerned and asked my husband if he was okay and if there was a problem. He replied, yes, there was. He stated that Councillor Vegh, reeking of stale tobacco, suddenly ran up to him and began an unsolicited litany of verbal attacks and threats starting with “DON’T HIDE BEHIND A SHIELD!!” in a high pitched voice.

To which my husband replied, “I don’t know what you’re talking about…”

Councillor Vegh then stated, or rather, hissed: “Well then you don’t mind if I make it public!!”

Realizing that Councillor Vegh was about to break the Municipal Act regarding confidentiality rules and going against the advice of the Mayor, The CAO, and staff legal, my husband prudently escorted him away from members of the public towards the hallway and solicited assistance from other members of Council including Councillors Hempen, Sponga, Regional Councillor Taylor, and finally the Mayor. He asked Councillor Vegh to repeat his prior comments to these gentlemen, at which point Councillor Vegh scurried away into the conference room.

The Mayor confronted my husband with a loud voice, called for security (which we don’t have in the Town of Newmarket) and then demanded he and my son vacate the premises. My husband voluntarily did so when asked without incident. There were a few exchanges of words between the Mayor and my husband – both at elevated tones – in which John requested that the Mayor investigate the matter further because he felt his rights were grossly violated. The Mayor responded that John would have to go through other venues that didn’t include the Town of Newmarket.

Outside, my son was completely shaken and in tears at what he witnessed.

It’s clear to me that despite great work on developing our trail system, constructing the Magna Centre (ignoring the Maystar debacle) and opening the new Community Centre on Doug Duncan Drive, Mayor Van Bynen’s legacy in this town will be how he bullied and pushed around his elected colleagues using Council chambers more as his personal fiefdom rather than a public venue.

Last night’s Council meeting is a fine case in point. Until I was elected on a platform of being against the old boys, the Mayor and his cronies never had to face a determined opposition. No offence is meant to others before me such as Diane Springsteen and Dennis Ramsarran who were also found off-side by the Mayor: he never had to face the likes of me before. By asking smart questions, revealing the truth from the spin, and exposing hypocrisy, I have been a single, but strong voice for those who want accountable government.

So how does the Mayor, Regional Councillor Taylor and their allies deal with it? Well, if last night’s gong show is any indication, their attack is multi-pronged:

1) Interrupt with “Points of Order” whenever I speak. I could not speak more than 4 or 5 words before Regional Councillor Taylor and the Mayor were singing that tune.

2) Talk over me or rule me out of order whenever I am making a particular strong point. The public can’t hear what I have to say because someone is always yammering away simultaneously.

3) Allow their Council colleagues to speak well beyond their allotted time limit about matters that are completely irrelevant to the debate.

4) Dredging up and mis-remembering the facts of matters that happened in the first six weeks of Council. When challenged with the evidence that proves them otherwise, the Mayor demands an apology.

5) Shoot dirty looks at me, huff and haw, roll their eyes, shake their heads, sigh heavily when I speak, and make up stories about me that don’t have a scintilla of truth to them. If I ask for a point of privilege, it is refused outright without hearing what I have to say. It's amateur hour on Newmarket Council and it's embarrassing.

6) And most damningly, confronting my husband and young son, who is just a child after all, after the cameras are turned off to make threats. What a coward.

I do not condone the Mayor’s dirty politics. I would much rather that we spend our time debating the issues as opposed to playing his political games. Surely the residents of Newmarket deserve much better from these people.

So with this blog, I want to address the following:

1. My colleagues on Council are reminded that we have plenty of important work to do.

2. Stop dredging this Council into the mud, speaking specifically to the Mayor, Regional Councillor Taylor, Councillor Vegh and Councillor Hempen, and deal with the work we have before us. Its time you focus on your jobs instead of obsessing about me as you bring in prepared notes to address me even before I speak.

3. Let’s emphasize that Newmarket expects and deserves better. Show you understand this by improving your conduct in the chamber.

4. I promise to continue to take the high road, as I have done all along. However, I also promise that I won’t be bullied nor pushed aside.

5. Let everyone speak. You may not like that I bring a different point of view from the traditional “tax and spend” policies you support but I have a constituency that I represent and I should be allowed fair opportunity to voice my concerns to your agenda.

6. I am an elected politician so I expect to face criticism but if any of you attack my family again, I promise you that I will take every reasonable means to expose you. My son, who is just a child, was very upset and shook up by the bully tactics of Councillor Vegh. From what I witnessed of Councillor Vegh last night, Ward 1 residents need to know that he is a bumbling jerk and less than a man. I have no hesitation to say he doesn’t belong in office. What kind of coward confronts and threatens a member of the public in the presence of a young child?

I will be following this blog with an account of Councillor Vegh’s attack and the Mayor’s lack of response.

As I was going through my Council agenda a week ago I was utterly shocked at a resolution drafted by the Town of Newmarket as requested in an earlier Notice of Motion by Councillor Emanuel. Here is what it stated:

Whereas the Town of Newmarket is a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM);

AND WHEREAS the Town of Newmarket supports the work of FCM and wishes to support it further by approving a resolution with respect to appointment for the term of 2012 to 2013;

AND WHEREAS FCM is instrumental in assuring that the needs of the municipalities are considered by the Federal Government;

AND WHEREAS FCM has played a pivotal role in developing policy framework that has benefitted communities throughout Canada;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newmarket as follows:

THAT the Town of Newmarket Council supports FCM considering Councillor Emanuel as a candidate for re-election at the FCM elections on the Ontario Board of Directors;

AND THAT the Town of Newmarket will cover associated costs with an appointment to the National Board for Councillor Chris Emanuel.

FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) is an organization whose members (the municipalities that chose to join their network) lobby the federal government on behalf of influencing policy and programs. The organization has impressive (albeit expensive) yearly conferences that attract municipal officials. Last year, seven out of nine members of council and some staff attended their conference in Halifax, complete with lobster dinner at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to the Newmarket taxpayer: http://maddiedimuccio.webs.com/apps/blog/show/7303824-most-of-newmarket-town-council-decided-to-fly-off-to-halifax-this-weekend-and-guess-who-s-footing-the-bill-

Some of you may recall that nine months ago I called for the Councillors resignation as a result of the following:

-He worked himself into gross intoxication while formally representing the Town of Newmarket at the opening of the Pickle Barrel restaurant and ignored the advice of a bar patron who offered to call him a cab;

-He got behind the wheel of his vehicle and proceeded to drive on our roads, crashing into another parked car and causing serious damage;

-He was arrested, charged, and ultimately convicted of a criminal offense. His blood level was twice the legal limit.

Here is some of the media surrounding the issue: http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1057689--emanuel-guilty-of-impaired-driving  http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1052275--emanuel-should-resign-fellow-councillor http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/letters/article/1074766--impaired-driving-deliberate-criminal-act  http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1040337--councillor-fined-for-driving-drunk

It wasn’t just the hundreds of angry emails from residents calling for his resignation, the local paper’s editorial called for him to do the right thing and resign as well: http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/editorial/article/1070613--convicted-councillor-should-step-down

Councillor Emanuel refused to step down and the rest of council concurred. Some of my colleagues spoke of the Councillor’s excellent work and that the families of victims of impaired driving needed “to get over it and move on.” Some councillors felt that Emanuel already paid his dues and that this was enough for them. The Mayor, in an article, explained that Councillor Emanuel, who is 32 years of age, was “young” and that sometimes impaired driving was “a hard lesson for a young councillor to learn.”
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1050403--councillor-charged-with-impaired-driving

I have two good friends who lost lives of loved ones due to impaired driving. Their families will never be the same again. Ontario has tough impaired driving laws for a reason: four people are killed by a drunk driver every day in Canada.

If you don’t think it’s a serious issue think again.

There’s no excuse for it – ever.

I was concerned with Councillor Emanuel’s depth of his understanding when he explained to the media that he was thankful it was only a parked car that he hit and he was happy no one was hurt. This kind of statement illustrates what’s wrong with the whole picture: it could have been another human being.

That’s the whole point.

While I was disappointed, I accepted all eight of my colleagues’ decision in their refusal to ask the Councillor to step down because they felt he was a good example to others. The issue had been dealt with and the decision was ultimately his own.

What I cannot accept however is a resolution to be sent on behalf of the Town of Newmarket Council to endorse a convicted criminal to serve on a board that represents our town Canada wide.

To do so is to send a message to the tens of thousands of victims of drunk driving, their families, our children, and to the thousands of public safety workers who see the damage first hand: that if you have been found guilty of a criminal offense that takes lives every day, you deserve to be rewarded.

Perhaps Margaret Williams, from MADD York Region, who attended and spoke to Council at last year’s meeting when I called for the Councillor to do the right thing, sums it up best in her letter to the Era’s editor: “…by supporting a criminal in a community leadership role they have just sent a permissive message to impaired drivers.” http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/letters/article/1074757--council-behaviour-offensive-slap-in-face

I agree.

We create laws. We must live by them.

Council’s intention was to put the issue at rest and forget it entirely. Try telling that to a child who lost their parent because someone used their car as a weapon.

At Monday’s Council meeting, Council voted 8-1 recommending a convicted criminal to represent Newmarket across Canada. It’s no surprise my colleagues voted in favour of this: they also supported the Councillor when he was charged and convicted of a serious crime and felt that had no ethical bearing on his ability to lead.

This is serious stuff folks. I don’t pay lip service to it either, because the victims who can’t speak for themselves deserve better.

I asked for Councillor Emanuel to step down on his role as a member of Council because I felt his actions were grossly irresponsible. It would have been the right thing to do.

To endorse and illustrate to the public and the FCM organization that a convicted criminal is far worthier of representing a role of leadership on the FCM board over thousands of other elected officials and candidates across Canada who don’t have a criminal record is something I will not be supporting.

Last June I tabled a motion calling on Council to record our Committee of the Whole sessions. Previously there was no record (other than simple minutes) that defined how council came to a consensus on the decisions we made on your behalf. During these important Council meetings, we discuss recommendations from staff, table motions, and go to great lengths in our conversations defining our positions on issues.

Usually, there are only a handful of people in the gallery – the majority being staff and/or those coming in to make deputations.

Most people work during the day, and can’t be in attendance during these important meetings.

In 2012, there is no excuse for not having digital recordings of our meetings and so I was happy that Council finally adopted my motion last year to record these meetings, after a long process and much debate.

But months later, we still haven’t seen the equipment to put this in place. And yesterday’s Committee meeting proved why it’s essential it happens sooner rather than later.

One of yesterday’s items on the agenda included a review process for Newmarket Council’s Code of Conduct. It was recommended by the CAO that council direct staff to hire an outside and professional resource at the cost of $50,000 to deal with complaints towards council member to council members.

My position on this is that taxpayers shouldn’t be funding politicians’ personal behind-the-scenes battles.

Currently, the Code of Conduct review process goes like this: a councillor makes a complaint against another councillor. They try to work it out themselves. Should this fail, the Mayor and CAO attempt a judgement. Should the offending councillor disagree, the Mayor and the rest of council decide on that councillor’s fate, in closed doors and away from the public.

It’s a silly and meaningless process of course, because getting a private chastising from a hostile council does more for their own ego and power trips than anything else.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Newmarket’s Code of Conduct: it’s a document that has no legal merit, produced by Council members, to go into confidential closed meetings and decide how to punish one another should one member decide they don’t like what the other member did. If you have friends on Council, the more power to you.

It’s the same document that inspired this illegal resolution brought forward by Regional Councillor Taylor (and supported by the rest of Council) after I wrote a blog explaining why I voted against a CUPE wage increase: http://maddiedimuccio.webs.com/apps/blog/show/6374259-newmarket-council-passes-resolution-to-silence-opposition

And it’s the same document that ignored Councillor Emanuel’s gross inebriation at a public event while representing the Town of Newmarket which led him into an impaired driving arrest and criminal conviction drinking at more than more than twice the legal limit: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1040337--councillor-fined-for-driving-drunk

You can easily see why, dear reader, that the Code of Conduct is merely a political tool used by a council that clearly has no concept of unbiased judgement.

Yesterday’s exchange between myself, Regional Councillor Taylor and the Mayor during the Code of Conduct discussion item proved exactly why we both need to scrap this Code and record our sessions on council. It went something like this:

Me: “I would fully support a motion brought forward to Council to immediately scrap the Code of Conduct. This is the same Council who less than a year ago refused to discuss the issue of Council sanctions regarding Councillor Emanuel’s conduct of intoxication at a public event while representing the Town.”

Regional Councillor Taylor: “Point of Privilege Mr. Mayor. The Councillor is misleading and implying Council refused to discuss the issue of Councillor Emanuel’s impaired driving charge. I demand an apology”

Me: “Excuse me? Point of Privilege? How am I misleading…?”

Mayor: “Let me discuss this with the Clerk. I will determine and rule if Councillor Di Muccio’s comments are out of order.”

Lengthy discussion with clerk. These types of discussions and time wasters are becoming the norm now at almost every committee meeting, with Regional Councillor Taylor and Councillor Emanuel the regular offenders of “Points of Privilege!” orders.

Finally,

Mayor: “I’ve gone through the legislative process of Points of Privilege with the Clerk (as he has done multiple times, he spells out process to rest of council, which includes the offending member an opportunity to defend themselves, and should the Mayor rule the offender out of order they must vacate the meeting) and it is now my responsibility to determine whether Councillor Di Muccio’s comments were out of order. It is my determination that the Councillor’s comments were out of order. Does the Councillor wish to make a statement in her defense?”

Me: “I have a question Mr. Mayor: can you remind me what my comment you just ruled out of order was?”

Long pause.

Mayor: “uhhh….you said that this Council didn’t discuss Councillor Emanuel’s conviction….”

Me: “That’s not what I said. Mr. Clerk, do you have my comments on record?”

Clerk: “No…”

Mayor: “Well does the Regional Councillor recall the comments...? He is the one asking for the Point of Privilege…”

Regional Councillor Taylor: (long pause) “…..uhhh….I don’t know. Didn’t she say something about Council not discussing Mr. Emanuel’s conviction…?

Mayor: “Okayyyy….…uhmmm…hmmmmm....”

Regional Councillor Taylor (interrupts): “Mr. Mayor, I rescind my Point of Privilege. It’s not my intention to have you instruct the Councillor to leave the meeting….”

Clearly, a Mayor who is tasked with making judgements on comments that councillors make but can’t even remember what those comments are is in no way fit to be the final arbiter on Code of Conduct reviews.

This logic also extends to Regional Councillor Taylor and Councillor Emanuel – who suggested in yesterday’s meeting that Council should decide on sanctions against other council members in Code of Conduct reviews. In fact, Councillor Emanuel, along with Councillor Vegh, seemed more interested in pursuing (and demanding from the CAO) the identification of names from both members of the public and other councillors who requested Code of Conduct reviews so they could properly “sanction” them, than they did about discussing the merits of a review of council conduct.

This – coming from a councillor who arrogantly refused to step down after a judge chided him for gross inebriation and convicted him of a criminal charge only nine months ago.

Not only was the Councillor spared sanctions at that time, he was even given congratulations for his position courtesy of the Mayor, who gave each and every councillor the opportunity to do so at the committee meeting where I asked for his resignation last August. For those not present at last year’s Committee meeting, Council did indeed refuse to discuss the issue of Councillor Emanuel’s intoxication while representing the Town of Newmarket. I’m not worried about defending my comments yesterday, because the many witnesses at that meeting last year could verify that fact themselves. Here’s how MADD spokesperson Margaret Williams sums up that day in her public letter to the Era: http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/letters/article/1074757--council-behaviour-offensive-slap-in-face

With no doubt, the councillor’s flawed argument on making taxpayers complaints against councillors public defies the logic and importance of sanctity on privacy issues for the protection of members of the public. We must ensure, as responsible officials, that the public have a safe, anti-discriminatory outlet to air their grievances against any politicians representing them without fear of sanction.

Perhaps Councillors Emanuel and Vegh should be worried if members of the public are reportedly asking for reviews of their conduct.

When discussing items around Code of Conduct complaints in yesterday’s meeting, Councillor Emanuel posed an extremely inappropriate question to myself which in my opinion, bordered on harassment, in public session. The Mayor immediately ordered him to rescind the comment and it was ruled inappropriate.

But while the Councillor apologized, he still asked Council to “note” my non response.

He just doesn’t get it.

I agree with Councillor Emanuel’s comments when he refused to adopt my motion last month on policies for council expenses and guidelines: it’s the public – not the council – who should ultimately decide on a councillor’s worthiness of re-election.

Monday night’s Council meeting ratified an agenda item that I have deep concerns about.

In 2000 a prior Council attempted to push a motion to force a permit system on landowners in regards to their trees. A public consultation ultimately resulted in an outcry and the motion was shot down. Yet again, some time later, Council attempted a duplicate action with the same results.

Today, in 2012, in a vote 7-1, despite past public rejections, Newmarket Council attempted a third try at legislating your rights as a landowner and voted for a third public consultation calling for a “private tree by-law”.

Let me explain.

While the Town of Newmarket – to my satisfaction – has protection for certain woodlots and trees, the Town’s Environmental Committee felt it didn’t go far enough, and wanted to place more legislation on trees that are owned by private homeowners and landowners.

I appreciate the dedication the committee works towards in keeping Newmarket’s environment green and I applaud their passion.

I just don’t agree with them this time.

In fact, they even admitted they don’t have all the answers to a complex policy.

This agenda was mainly supported by Councillors Emanuel and Twinney. I disagree with the position that government should have a right to be able to intrude on your home with an expensive, tax funded arborist, decide if you should be able to cut down your tree should you wish to landscape or develop your property, and then force you to pay for it if they give you permission.

Councillor Emanuel originally insisted trees needed to be protected, and his comments were particularly directed towards the Glenway development area, despite this motion specifically addressing private properties.

The Town report indicates in the draft staff presented to Council that “measures are (already) in place” to protect woodlot trees, trees on developer owned properties and the regulation of the grading of lands and the placing or dumping of fill. Please contact me if you’d like to see this report.

As a result of these measures, the by-law in front of Council is specifically related to “only individual trees on private properties (that) remain unregulated.”

It is not for developer lands.

It is not for lots within woodlots greater than 1.0 ha in size.

These trees are already protected.

It is meant for your private homes.

It means any time you wish to remove a tree for any reason at all (with the exception of disease) you’ll have to ask the Town of Newmarket for permission and get a visit from an arborist who decides whether you have that freedom. It means it will cost you money. Aside from the red tape and bureaucracy, here are a few of many serious flaws with this by-law:

Scenario 1:

You own a lot that doesn’t have any trees on it. Your neighbor’s tree however has large branches that cut into your lot line. There is a potential that cutting those trees branches could harm the tree by exposing it to fungus, insects, other pests, etc. Do you need a permit to cut those branches too?

Scenario 2:

You want to do some landscaping. While digging you come across tree roots in your backyard – although the tree is in your neighbor’s lot. Do you lose the right to cut those roots and thus not complete your landscaping?

It’s important to note in both scenarios above that common law prevails, which dictates anything on your property line belongs to the landowner. The foundations of common laws exist for a reason: to protect our rights.

Scenario 3:

As the Town communicates this new policy to residents the tree cutting companies become busier than they’ve ever been, as homeowners rush to remove their nuisance trees before Big Brother comes knocking on your door – thereby contradicting the very environmental incentive the Town is attempting to promote.

Like most people, I love trees. Let’s face it: it’s fair to say that most of us appreciate our beautiful nature. We’re not a population of crazy tree-cutting, ax-wielding folk in need of government intervention in case we disagree with a few politicians' very specific agenda.

In our discussion Monday night some members of Council – including the Mayor – insisted that their vote didn’t approve the by-law but simply approved the public consultation and that they were willing to listen to the public’s opinion (I’m not sure why some prior members didn’t get the public feedback clearly the first two times).

In fact, here is what Council members approved at the last Committee of the Whole in a vote 8-1:

Staff Recommendation Option 4:

"A by-law that prohibits the cutting of certain trees (for example trees over a certain size or trees of specific species) unless a Permit is obtained from the Town."

One can see that such a by-law would require more staff in issuing administrative support, reviews, identifying of trees, permits with undefined costs; as well as additional costs associated with arborist reviews and site visits.

Does the public really need this?

Arguably one of the biggest issues I face as a councillor are the onerous by-law rules that Council seems determined to put in place and that are causing so much grief as neighbors fight, report each other on, and limit our rights to the land we own and pay taxes for.

To put more impediments, rules and restrictions on our homes is a process I am very much against - and they don’t come cheap either.

Let's not forget that this is also the same Council that not too long ago argued passionately against a "permit" guide designed to ensure kids play road hockey safely, without town fines, and that would ensure homeowner rights - all because they disliked the bureacracy of permit systems.

What's changed since then?

The Mayor insisted Council approved a simple consultation process – not necessarily the by-law. The reality is that Council approved not only a public meeting but also that staff “proceed with a private tree preservation by-law as outlined”; “that staff be directed to issue a draft by-law (as shown on staff’s report)” AND to distribute this report for public comment.

I voted against this motion because I’m not interested in wasting staff time and resources for a by-law I don’t support – and that the public didn’t support twice in the past.

If my colleagues agreed with this last point then they might have voted the same way. It leaves me to guess – based on sheer common sense – they will ultimately support this by-law when it comes to Council for final approval – or this entire exercise will have been for absolutely nothing and a complete waste of time.

The other day as I dropped off my boys at their lacrosse practice I noticed a woman struggling alone with some boxes – items she had for players. As I spoke to her I learned she was a volunteer for the league, and was tasked with one of many responsibilities that hundreds of volunteers all over communities across Canada dedicate themselves to in order to create caring, sustaining and accommodating neighborhoods.

The gift of one’s time is something that we in government especially should never take lightly. I say this because if not for the million hearts of passion of those who contribute to make us a better community, government resources would be stretched and higher budgets would be a reality.

As volunteers we give up a part of our time as it relates to our personal lives and offer it to someone else; be it a small child, a senior, a sick person, or anyone else who needs a hand.

Volunteers waking up at 5am to help teach kids how to play hockey;

The gentle touch of a hospital guide’s hand calming a patient;

Driving around the elderly to help them get to appointments;

Comforting an individual whose spouse passed away;

Teaching art to a group of students.

These are examples of how we touch lives when we give to one another, every day. By giving we become better – and happier –people.

We offer our hands, our hearts, our strengths, and we use them to make a difference in someone else’s life.

I want to thank all who have volunteered in order to help us grow as a community and I want to encourage anyone who hasn’t to explore how to do so and continue the cycle of giving.

A moment captured in time can make all the difference for someone who needs your time.


http://york.cioc.ca/

At our last Council meeting on Monday, March 26th, my colleagues voted down my motion 8-1 to instill the following:

-policies and guidelines on how we use our personal expense budget;

-posting senior staff personal expenses online;

-eliminating an environmental slush fund (that in my opinion is used to promote the politician over the environment).

Here are the reasons I felt these guidelines were important:

On policies and guidelines for spending:

Currently, the Town of Newmarket has no guidelines on how we spend the budget allocated from you, the taxpayer, on educating or putting money to good use for our constituents. For example, some of the following have been expensed from Council via the taxpayer:

-webcams

-family swim passes

-out of town conferences that include expensive lobster dinners x 7

-charity donations

-sponsorships

-lunches;

-golf tournaments

-tax funded fundraisers that make politicians look good on future election brochures;

-extra mileage despite having a personal allowance for it on our paycheques;

Councillor Emanuel made issue in the media and in Council on my expensing of senior lunches. The Era had asked me about this issue as well but unfortunately my answer didn’t make it in the article so I would like to address it here.

In my opinion, nobody has been hit harder by the results of some poor decisions by my Council colleagues than seniors have. Higher property taxes, higher water rates, and so on, are the legacy of some poor choices by the Mayor and Council. When you are on a fixed budget like most seniors are, the more money the Town takes in taxes and flat charges in water, the less money you have for food and other necessities. In a small way, the money I used to provide Newmarket seniors with an affordable, hot meal was in response to that.

As far as any allegations in campaigning for senior support: I was not present at the senior lunch, did not pose for any photos, nor did I issue any personal statements from myself to the Seniors Centre indicating my donations. This would address any allegations in using funds to "campaign."

On the other hand, you will see my colleagues repeatedly congratulating themselves by taking photos, making tweets, etc. on their support of local charities and various fundraising events they used your money to pay for.

Taxpayers deserve the kudos – not politicians.

As I always have, I support charities out of my own pocket, like almost everybody else.

Spending ‘free’ money for our personal budget deserves policies in place. Toronto, Mississauga and many other municipalities have these practices. It’s a no-brainer.

On refusing to post senior staff personal expenses online:

In Newmarket we have 60+ individuals on the Sunshine List. Some of these folks have personal budgets allocated to them. In our Council meeting, the Mayor seemed more focused on my motion as being some sort of an insinuation that our own staff was unprincipled in their spending. This is absolutely ludicrous. If we can’t even have basic discussions without being accused of ulterior motives debate is seriously failing.

The reality is that senior staff does have an expense account courtesy of the taxpayer and we shouldn’t have to go through Freedom of Information Requests to access this.

Why all the kerfuffle?

My motion included working with the Library Board and Newmarket-Tay Hydro to extend these policies to themselves as well. Council refused to do that.

It’s important for the public to remember that these organizations belong to the taxpayers.

Regional Councillor Taylor pointed out he felt staff was accountable to himself and the rest of Council, not to the public.

I have a serious issue with this logic.

On eliminating an environmental slush fund extended to every member of council:

In addition to our $5,500 budget, Council has an expense account that is used to spend money “promoting” green initiatives.

Council argued that this fund was important because it promoted environmental incentives.

I am all for the environment. In fact, I host regular clean ups in my ward every year. This initiative doesn’t cost me a dime. Last year, a local charity organized a big clean-up on graffiti in an area of town. It only takes people, passion and determination to help clean up our local environment. I find that local businesses are more than willing to donate or sponsor these initiatives, without having to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money.

When it was explained to me that one council member used this budget to purchase “green environmental” jackets for some of his constituents in the past, I could see why there might be a problem with what this fund is being used for.

The reality is that when we use these funds for the purposes I posted above we are creating a government that raises more red flags than not.

So far, I haven’t heard a single argument from my colleagues on why the above motions proposed wouldn’t be a good idea.

In fact, my colleagues spent more time discussing specific wording on agenda items, demands for apologies, points of privilege, points of order and legislative information from the clerk to muzzle me than they did the actual motion when it was presented in Council last week.

This is a very simple motion folks: you either support full transparency on government spending or you don’t.

Asking staff for yet another report simply doesn’t cut it.