I appreciate what Dave said, especially on the subject of transparency. However, i knew right away he wasn’t gonna get elected based on his aggressive and persistent criticism of council. I believe they see him as an antagonist and a contrarian. And with all fairness, it isn’t a stretch to see it as such. I think if he just runs again in the next municipal election, he’ll have a half decent chance of winning his seat. Regardless of the result, I as a citizen of West Nip, I’m content with the fact that this was expedited and cost effective. After all, we are talking about a Ward in a small community. No need to get all worked up is how I see it. Just a note that I have no bias in my opinion.
As you stated Dave Lewington has been a solid presence in West Nipissing for many years with much experience in many areas….this information is concerning …..
The first thing to question is the pay to play leadership choices. The second thing is your funding and following the local friendships of incompetence claiming your voice you're the problem. Fixing you fixes everything. Blessings sent
I read with great interest your opinion piece entitled “Most important qualification to be a councillor”, in which you make some very bold assertions and question the legitimacy of my appointment as Councillor by stating that it was “a complete disregard for the democratic process”.
I would say quite the opposite, that my appointment was, in fact, the direct result of a democratic process, whether you agree with the outcome or not. Not only does municipal law allow for councils to adopt a process of appointment, but it is also fast becoming best practice to fill mid-term vacancies in municipal councils. Markstay-Warren recently filled two vacancies using a similar process, and Sudbury did the same in two wards after it was reported that it would cost taxpayers in excess of $600,000 for a byelection. It is often the same people advocating for tax cuts who also want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a byelection. Go figure.
There is certainly a strong case for choosing the appointment option, especially in a small ward like ours where voter turnout was a mere 27% at the last election and, knowing that traditionally, voter turnout at byelections is far lower. Some would certainly disagree that a by-election with, say, a 10-15% turnout is any more democratic than any other method. At the end of the day, and in keeping with municipal law, it was voted on last year as the preferred method of selection by a democratically elected council, which in itself makes it exactly that: a proper democratic process. And let’s be real: there’s a big difference between replacing the Mayor of Toronto and the Councillor for Ward 8 in West Nipissing.
But I and many others will find the very bold statement that Mr Lewington would have won a by-election against any or all of the candidates very presumptuous indeed. I would have welcomed the opportunity to go head-to-head with him in a by-election by setting out my own stall and debating the issues that concern Ward 8 and the whole of West Nipissing, and maybe one day, I will have this opportunity. But nobody can second-guess what the electorate would have eventually decided in an election campaign that has never happened. Mr Lewington enjoys a lot of support in Ward 8, but in my conversation with constituents, many people also oppose his stance and his policies on many issues, especially recent ones. Council was there to make an informed decision by choosing who they felt was the best candidate based on what they heard from them on the night, not from any whipped-up social media popularity contest or from a room full of banner-carrying supporters, and that’s exactly what Council did.
Just because the process did not yield the desired result for some does not mean that it was “an affront to democratic values.” Saying so shows a total lack of understanding of what democracy really is. And you only have to look south of the border to see what happens when you question the legitimacy of an election: you undermine democracy itself.
I responded to your public comments earlier today on Facebook. Here they are.
First I’d like to thank Mr. Pharand for reading what I wrote and taking the time to share his thoughts on it. Although we may disagree on certain issues, I really do hope that as a councillor he continues to be this engaging with the public.
In his presentation to council last week, Mr. Pharand emphasized the problem of “misleading information” but unfortunately in his comments he purposely made several obviously misleading statements.
1. In response to my observation that a by election may have been a better option, Mr. Pharand stated that it would be a waste of money because Lavigne had such a low voter turnout traditionally. While implying that Lavigne voters seemingly don’t care, he states that only 27% of them chose to vote in the 2022 elections. But he refused to acknowledge that in 2022 the councillor was unopposed. Certainly, if more people (like Pharand) would have run, voter turnout would have been higher. Dave Lewington ran for mayor in those elections so he couldn’t run for ward 8. Where were you Mr. Pharand?
2. Mr. Pharand claims that I am questioning democracy simply because I am stating the obvious. The obvious that absolutely everyone knows. Agree or disagree with Lewington’s position on any issues, we can all agree that this council did not want him at that table. That was obvious. My observation is that although the bylaw was followed, council a) still had the right to hold a by election and b) had a duty to consider what the public wanted (they didn’t).
3. Mr. Pharand then said that council made their decision based on what they heard that night (that Pharand agreed with all they have done so far and Lewington didn’t) not “from a room full of banner-carrying supporters”. This divisive and poorly chosen statement reaffirms what I was pointing out. Yes, it was important to hear what these people had to say, but council should have voted based on what the public wants (not which candidate agreed with them more).
Again I’d like to thank Councillor Pharand for engaging in this important conversation but I am disappointed that he resorted to using easy U.S. style political attacks by claiming that my observations are a danger to democracy. I will never try to discourage anyone from sharing their opinion by claiming it is dangerous. When politicians play that game (as we have increasingly seen in Canada), that is the real danger to a healthy democracy.
I think that before you give us any lecture on 'democracy' Mr. Pharand, you should study the petitions on short term rentals. Councilor Fern Pellerin did the leg work, under considerable time restraint, to receive close to 1,000 signatures that opposed the proposed short term rentals bi law. Conversely, a petition favoring the bi law was available on line for months before hand, accessible to everyone, and that petition only garnered 38 signatures! One petition favoring the bi law received 38 signatures and was available for months before, the second petition opposing the bi-law received close to 1,000 signatures. During the Council meeting on the proposed bi-law the true democratic process was on display when Mr. Jamie Restoule said, ''Thirty-eight signatures is good enough for me." Given that Council has too often and too completely ignored the voice of the people and given that you also chose to ignore the voice of the people in that you agree with the bi law {while many other municipalities appealed to the Ministry of Municipalities to have an investigation and consequently the bi law was removed} There is NO strong case for going with the appointment option! Not when the residents are already grumbling about lack of transparency {awarding contracts} illegally using survey drones over private property without the property owners permission and without first filing an Privacy Impact Assessment with the Privacy Commissioner! Please Mr. Pharand, don't lecture us about democracy and 'best options'. You know and we know that you were chosen only because your position on issues was in agreement with the Mayor and her sycophants.
I appreciate what Dave said, especially on the subject of transparency. However, i knew right away he wasn’t gonna get elected based on his aggressive and persistent criticism of council. I believe they see him as an antagonist and a contrarian. And with all fairness, it isn’t a stretch to see it as such. I think if he just runs again in the next municipal election, he’ll have a half decent chance of winning his seat. Regardless of the result, I as a citizen of West Nip, I’m content with the fact that this was expedited and cost effective. After all, we are talking about a Ward in a small community. No need to get all worked up is how I see it. Just a note that I have no bias in my opinion.
As you stated Dave Lewington has been a solid presence in West Nipissing for many years with much experience in many areas….this information is concerning …..
The first thing to question is the pay to play leadership choices. The second thing is your funding and following the local friendships of incompetence claiming your voice you're the problem. Fixing you fixes everything. Blessings sent
I read with great interest your opinion piece entitled “Most important qualification to be a councillor”, in which you make some very bold assertions and question the legitimacy of my appointment as Councillor by stating that it was “a complete disregard for the democratic process”.
I would say quite the opposite, that my appointment was, in fact, the direct result of a democratic process, whether you agree with the outcome or not. Not only does municipal law allow for councils to adopt a process of appointment, but it is also fast becoming best practice to fill mid-term vacancies in municipal councils. Markstay-Warren recently filled two vacancies using a similar process, and Sudbury did the same in two wards after it was reported that it would cost taxpayers in excess of $600,000 for a byelection. It is often the same people advocating for tax cuts who also want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a byelection. Go figure.
There is certainly a strong case for choosing the appointment option, especially in a small ward like ours where voter turnout was a mere 27% at the last election and, knowing that traditionally, voter turnout at byelections is far lower. Some would certainly disagree that a by-election with, say, a 10-15% turnout is any more democratic than any other method. At the end of the day, and in keeping with municipal law, it was voted on last year as the preferred method of selection by a democratically elected council, which in itself makes it exactly that: a proper democratic process. And let’s be real: there’s a big difference between replacing the Mayor of Toronto and the Councillor for Ward 8 in West Nipissing.
But I and many others will find the very bold statement that Mr Lewington would have won a by-election against any or all of the candidates very presumptuous indeed. I would have welcomed the opportunity to go head-to-head with him in a by-election by setting out my own stall and debating the issues that concern Ward 8 and the whole of West Nipissing, and maybe one day, I will have this opportunity. But nobody can second-guess what the electorate would have eventually decided in an election campaign that has never happened. Mr Lewington enjoys a lot of support in Ward 8, but in my conversation with constituents, many people also oppose his stance and his policies on many issues, especially recent ones. Council was there to make an informed decision by choosing who they felt was the best candidate based on what they heard from them on the night, not from any whipped-up social media popularity contest or from a room full of banner-carrying supporters, and that’s exactly what Council did.
Just because the process did not yield the desired result for some does not mean that it was “an affront to democratic values.” Saying so shows a total lack of understanding of what democracy really is. And you only have to look south of the border to see what happens when you question the legitimacy of an election: you undermine democracy itself.
Hi Mr. Pharand,
I responded to your public comments earlier today on Facebook. Here they are.
First I’d like to thank Mr. Pharand for reading what I wrote and taking the time to share his thoughts on it. Although we may disagree on certain issues, I really do hope that as a councillor he continues to be this engaging with the public.
In his presentation to council last week, Mr. Pharand emphasized the problem of “misleading information” but unfortunately in his comments he purposely made several obviously misleading statements.
1. In response to my observation that a by election may have been a better option, Mr. Pharand stated that it would be a waste of money because Lavigne had such a low voter turnout traditionally. While implying that Lavigne voters seemingly don’t care, he states that only 27% of them chose to vote in the 2022 elections. But he refused to acknowledge that in 2022 the councillor was unopposed. Certainly, if more people (like Pharand) would have run, voter turnout would have been higher. Dave Lewington ran for mayor in those elections so he couldn’t run for ward 8. Where were you Mr. Pharand?
2. Mr. Pharand claims that I am questioning democracy simply because I am stating the obvious. The obvious that absolutely everyone knows. Agree or disagree with Lewington’s position on any issues, we can all agree that this council did not want him at that table. That was obvious. My observation is that although the bylaw was followed, council a) still had the right to hold a by election and b) had a duty to consider what the public wanted (they didn’t).
3. Mr. Pharand then said that council made their decision based on what they heard that night (that Pharand agreed with all they have done so far and Lewington didn’t) not “from a room full of banner-carrying supporters”. This divisive and poorly chosen statement reaffirms what I was pointing out. Yes, it was important to hear what these people had to say, but council should have voted based on what the public wants (not which candidate agreed with them more).
Again I’d like to thank Councillor Pharand for engaging in this important conversation but I am disappointed that he resorted to using easy U.S. style political attacks by claiming that my observations are a danger to democracy. I will never try to discourage anyone from sharing their opinion by claiming it is dangerous. When politicians play that game (as we have increasingly seen in Canada), that is the real danger to a healthy democracy.
You simply continue to fail yourself in redundancy and ability to lead unfortunately. Few will follow
I think that before you give us any lecture on 'democracy' Mr. Pharand, you should study the petitions on short term rentals. Councilor Fern Pellerin did the leg work, under considerable time restraint, to receive close to 1,000 signatures that opposed the proposed short term rentals bi law. Conversely, a petition favoring the bi law was available on line for months before hand, accessible to everyone, and that petition only garnered 38 signatures! One petition favoring the bi law received 38 signatures and was available for months before, the second petition opposing the bi-law received close to 1,000 signatures. During the Council meeting on the proposed bi-law the true democratic process was on display when Mr. Jamie Restoule said, ''Thirty-eight signatures is good enough for me." Given that Council has too often and too completely ignored the voice of the people and given that you also chose to ignore the voice of the people in that you agree with the bi law {while many other municipalities appealed to the Ministry of Municipalities to have an investigation and consequently the bi law was removed} There is NO strong case for going with the appointment option! Not when the residents are already grumbling about lack of transparency {awarding contracts} illegally using survey drones over private property without the property owners permission and without first filing an Privacy Impact Assessment with the Privacy Commissioner! Please Mr. Pharand, don't lecture us about democracy and 'best options'. You know and we know that you were chosen only because your position on issues was in agreement with the Mayor and her sycophants.
Démocratie of the empire