OPINION: "Cynicism" over drone surveillance

Is it cynicism to question if the mayor abused her authority?

On Friday, the CAO of West Nipissing issued his first public statement in regards to the drone story I have reported on over the last few weeks.

The CAO claims that the use of drones for an investigation at the mayor’s neighbour’s house was a “one off” occasion. In his statement he described it as a “honest mistake” by a bylaw officer. He revealed that the officer used a personal drone.

If this was any other investigation, the public might accept this conclusion. Obviously the two bylaw officers who are former police officers know the law and would have known that the use of drone surveillance for bylaw enforcement was illegal. But if this was an “honest mistake” that happened at any other property, or stemming from a complaint initiated by anyone else, it would be much easier to accept. But in this case, it was to prove an accusation that was more than likely made by the mayor herself in regards to a longstanding personal dispute with her neighbour.

The fact that the allegations could only be proven with drone usage makes the optics even worse.

I raised these concerns with councillors earlier this week while CCing the CAO. I told them that the public expects a better answer here. This obviously hit a nerve with the CAO whom for some reason is increasingly taking this story personally.

In a strange response to a resident, he stated that due to my “cynicism”, he would not need to respond further, even though I was not addressing him or asking him any questions.

Sometimes I can be cynical. I’ll admit that. It’s very difficult to avoid with this council. I am cynical when I see that certain bylaws seem motivated by personal conflicts. I am cynical when I hear that council will be awarding a $25,000 contract next week to a consultant to review (justify an increase) their compensation packages.

But in the case of the drone story, my concern cannot be described as cynicism.

Bylaw officers investigate hundreds of complaints every year in West Nipissing. If we accept the currently shared facts, they never used a drone during any of these hundreds of investigations.

A drone was only used a single time in the history of bylaw enforcement in this town.

This investigation was to determine if the mayor’s neighbour was improperly parking a tractor on a remote spot on their property which could only be confirmed by using a drone. The investigation was launched after an unnamed neighbour filed a complaint. The mayor and her neighbour are the only two property owners on a long private road.

Is it cynicism to question why the bylaw officer decided to break the law for this single occasion given who filed the complaint? Is it cynicism to question if the mayor abused her authority in this case given the obvious circumstances?

Is it cynicism to demand a full investigation and disclosure of all communication between the bylaw officer and the mayor regarding this file?

Cynicism is an easy word to throw around if it means you don’t have to answer questions. When the CAO released a list of “recognized news sources” a week before finally coming out with an official statement on this story, he purposely left this website off the list (while naming 14 others including out-of-town newspapers). I have yet to receive a response to my inquiry on the criterias to be on this list.*

I can only assume that “cynicism” is disqualifier. Fortunately for most other media outlets in 2024, they do not have this problem.

*When the CAO issued his statement on Friday he stated “With respect to the use of drones by the Municipality, my response remains the same…”. The "response” that the CAO is referring to is the email he sent councillors two weeks ago which only this website reported on publicly. So the only way to provide context to this public statement is with the reporting provided by this unrecognized news source.

The West Nip Voice is a regular newsletter covering issues in West Nipissing and the surrounding area. Please consider becoming a subscriber.