Details

There was a time not so long ago when John Blommesteyn would bring a deputation to Council neatly dressed in a dark suit and wearing a collar and tie.

Yesterday, I observe a hot and sweaty John Blommesteyn wearing trainers and a billowing  white golf shirt. He has let himself go a bit.

Despite his pasty-faced appearance, he is all suppressed fury, like a coiled spring. He is here to defend his wife, former Newmarket Councillor Maddie Di Muccio, now President of the York Region Taxpayers Coalition.

On 30 March 2015, the Council adopted a motion calling on staff to

“prepare an Information Report advising whether former Councillor Maddie Di Muccio’s use of her expense account for obtaining personal legal advice and for payment of advertisements while seeking the provincial nomination are permitted by Town policy.”

In his presentation Blommesteyn seems to suggest that the Motion was off-point because, by the time it appeared in the Era newspaper, the former Leader of the Ontario PCs, Tim Hudak, had banned her from standing as a PC candidate. He didn’t explicitly say this but that’s what I took it all to mean. (The transcript is set out below.)

Fancy Dancing

Personally, I think Blommesteyn’s argument amounts to nothing more than a lot of fancy footwork. He forgets the old legal maxim: He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

Blommesteyn spends much of his time rolling in the gutter. His campaign a few years ago surreptitiously to buy up Tom Vegh domain names (a practice, he confesses, his wife would never have approved of) tells us everything we need to know about the moral universe he inhabits.

Whether the ad was placed while seeking the Provincial nomination or afterwards is immaterial. The advertisement should never have been paid for using public money. It is tendentious. It is partisan. In my view it would be impossible for any reasonable person on reading it to conclude that this was an appropriate use of public money.

If Maddie Di Muccio wants to place an advertisement in the Era, excoriating and demonizing her political opponents, using her own funds, that’s up to her. We live in a free country and, so long as the ad is not defamatory, she can do what she wants with her money. But what she cannot do is bill you and me. But she did.

Blommesteyn, full of injured innocence, says the Era is being sued for libel. This has been threatened before.

Legal action threatened (again)

As someone who has previously been threatened with legal action by Maddie Di Muccio (which was all hot air) I hope he is serious. There is nothing more damaging to a person’s credibility than to threaten legal action and not follow through, relentlessly and with absolute conviction. My advice to Blommesteyn is this: don’t say it if you don’t mean it.

As it happens, I wrote to the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, on 24 August 2013 drawing his attention to the half page advertisement Di Muccio placed in the Era on 22 August 2013 about the Mayor’s record on property taxes. I told him:

“It seems to me this is an improper use of her councillor’s expense account.

“Can you point me to any Council policy, advice or guidance which sanctions the use of councillors’ expense accounts in this way? And has Councillor Di Muccio ever sought advice from you on the advisability of placing such an advertisement which is tendentious and personally attacks another member of the council.

“If Councillor Di Muccio wished to draw attention to the Mayor’s statements on property taxes she should have paid for the advertisement out of her own private funds.

“In the absence of a Council policy sanctioning such advertisements paid for by the taxpayer, please take this as a formal complaint which I should like to see investigated.

New Expenses Policy

Shelton replied saying the Town was going through a process of creating an expense policy. He said there were opportunities for input and I should contact the Town Treasurer which I did.

The Town’s Treasurer told me on 8 October 2013 that Council did not want staff to make decisions about the appropriateness of Council expenses.

“It is acknowledged that you would like your email to be accepted as a formal complaint. My investigation indicates that there is nothing further that I or any member of staff can do on this issue. If you would like to pursue this further, I could refer you to the Clerk’s Office to make a request for deputation to Council.”

I allowed myself to believe that Di Muccio’s lapse was a one-off and I let the matter drop.

History Repeats Itself

In April 2014, I was again in touch with Bob Shelton:

“I am sorry to trouble you again but I wonder if you would confirm that no public money was used to pay for the half page advertisement placed by Councillor Di Muccio in the Newmarket Era of Thursday 10 April 2014.”

I heard from the Town’s Treasurer on 26 April 2014 saying he was reluctant to comment on specific cases until these were posted as a claimed expense on the Town’s website. Expenses are reported on a quarterly basis so expenses for the period 1 April to June 30 would be posted within 30 days – by 30 July 2014.

I was told it was the responsibility of the Town’s Treasurer:

“to make individual councillors aware of any potential non-compliance and to attempt to resolve the situation. If a dispute cannot be settled, then it is brought to Council for a decision.”

I don’t know if there were any discussions between the Town’s Treasurer and Maddie Di Muccio once she had lodged her claim for $1,225.19 for the advertisement. But I did not see any report to Council which was supposed to happen if a councilor and the Town were at loggerheads over a disputed expense.

The whole thing flared up again as an issue with the Council motion of 30 March 2015. Once again, I asked if I could  lodge a formal complaint, asking for the Integrity Commissioner to be brought in despite the existence of the “six month rule” (which prevents an investigation going ahead if the alleged violation happened more than six months before the filing of the complaint.)

After all I had been flagging up the issue with senior staff for ages.

But it seems the six month rule is an absolute and there the matter rests – until the next deputation.

Who said what yesterday.........................................

John Blommesteyn: I am here to talk about the information report that was published on April 26 that was made out to the public and to give you a bit of background. In April, you know, there’s been a lot of talk between myself and Town staff regarding this report. In April I met with the Acting CAO, the CEO (?) and Director of Human Resources to complain about harassment my wife has been receiving from members of this Council.

I believe and many members of the public have been fooled into believing my wife has been implicated in some sort of Mike Duffy type of expense scandal. And, were that to be true, then at a very minimum you owe the public some type of explanation and evidence that backs up your 30 March motion.

Now it is a matter of public notice or public information already that the Newmarket Era is going through the process of being sued for libel and, last week, published a notice withdrawing certain implications made in its reporting on this information report.

After this report came out I asked the authors of the report for two pieces of information which are posted up top there (Blommesteyn points to the screen).

I’ve asked to see a copy of the ad that was the subject of the report and I’ve asked to know why the report did not mention anything about the legal expense when your motion specifically asked for information about legal advice. And for the record, I’ve not received anything that resembles what I’ve requested there. And the question that should be before you right now is why not?

The report you asked for requires two pieces of information regarding former councillor Maddie Di Muccio. The report asks for information about an ad and about legal expense. But Mr Taylor’s motion, seconded by Ms Twinney, chose the wording very carefully. The report was to look at an ad quote

“while seeking the provincial nomination” and quote “personal legal advice”.

If there is any evidence of either then she would be off-side on the Council’s expense policy. But without those two amendments to the words “ad” and “legal expense” because, on their own, these two are very legitimate expenses for Council.

You all voted on this. You must believe that this information as modified is true. So I am here to ask you to produce what your staff cannot or will not provide me.

Where is this ad placed “while seeking the provincial nomination”? And what personal legal advice are you referring to? And, for your information, don’t point to the Kinahan invoice. Because when I visited your staff in April I brought with me a letter that was signed by Leo Kinahan confirming that Councillor Maddie Di Muccio’s expense related to her work as a councilor.

And I am very curious to know why the authors of this report didn’t include this fact when they published information the information report on April 26th.

On March 3rd I spoke before this Council imploring you to meet best practices in your work. None of you made a comment to me after my deputation. No. The way you responded at that same meeting was to table this information report that singles out my wife that was ultimately adopted on March 30th.

Now some people may think that Council expenses account motion was retaliatory or  vengeful or mean. And we’ll leave that up to someone else to judge. But if you can’t sit in your chairs here and lie about somebody. If you don’t feel you have lied, then produce the evidence I am seeking. It is as simple as that.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Thank you. I take exception to the fact that you are suggesting that this Council lied. And I am going to rule that as an out-of-order comment. And I’ll just leave it at that. Regional Councillor Taylor.

Regional Councillor John Taylor: Thanks very much. You are asking questions about an ad and legal expenses and, out of an abundance of transparency, perhaps you would help things along if you would just tell us what the expenses were for since they were expenses…

John Blommesteyn: There was no expenses. Sorry. There was no ad “while seeking the provincial nomination”. There was no ad whatsoever and there was no personal legal advice.

John Taylor: Can you just tell us what the expenses were for then?

John Blommesteyn: I don’t know what to tell you. There was no expense. How can I tell you about this expense when there was no expense. There was no ad “while seeking Provincial nomination” and there was personal legal advice. So I can’t. It is almost asking me to prove a negative. There’s no such thing. It doesn’t exist.

John Taylor: Just tell us what those two expenses were for.

John Blommesteyn: And it doesn’t exist is what I am telling. You published those wordings very carefully when you published this Motion. If you go back to your motion…

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: OK. It’s just not clear. The Town did pay some expenses.

John Blommesteyn: But that’s not the wording of your motion. If that’s what you were interested in - those two expenses -  then why don’t you pass a motion regarding those two expenses?

Mayor Tony Van Bynen….

John Blommestyn: No! You chose expenses to make it look like there was a Mike Duffy expense scandal and it wasn’t.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Thank you.

John Taylor: Just to acknowledge. There were two expenses. Can you just tell us what they were for?

John Blommesteyn: I cannot speak to any expenses in relation to your motion. I would be out of order.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Thank you.

John Blommesteyn: It is not relevant. It does not relate to you order.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Any questions? Clarification? Being none, Motion to receive the deputation?

Proposed by Tom Vegh and seconded by Jane Twinney.

Carried nem con.

(You can view this at 1 hour 19 minutes in on the tape)

Update on 17 June 2015: The Information Report Bloomesteyn refers to was published on 26 May 2015 not 26 April 2015

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Details

Paul Ferguson, Director of Newmarket Hydro and President of Newmarket-Tay Power Distribution Ltd, will be presenting the 2014 financial statements of Newmarket Hydro Holdings inc and Newmarket-Tay Power Distribution Ltd on Monday morning (15 June) to Newmarket’s Committee of the Whole.

The hydro company, Newmarket-Tay, is jointly owned by the Municipalities of Newmarket (93%) and Tay (7%). There are around 70 mostly municipally owned distribution companies in Ontario.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the reports to show how much Board Members receive by way of remuneration.

In an exchange of emails in May I learned from Mr Ferguson that the Directors of Newmarket-Tay Power Distribution receive an annual retainer of $8,000 plus a per diem of $200 for attending Board of Director or Board Committee meetings. He says that there are six Board and four Committee meetings per year so the average annual remuneration is $10,000.

I was left wondering whether this information was publicly available and, if so, where it would be found. So I politely asked him.

Mr Ferguson helpfully pointed me to a Newmarket by-law passed in 2000 which set the remuneration which, he says, has not been adjusted since.

Pear Shaped

It was at this point that things went a bit pear-shaped.

Noting that Mr Ferguson would be presenting the financial reports to councillors on 15 June, I courteously asked him if there was any reason why the details of Board remuneration could not be included. I suggested it would be helpful if the sums actually disbursed (and not simply the annual retainer) could be shown. Entitlement to an annual retainer does not indicate whether it is, in fact, taken up.

Mr Ferguson’s testy and intemperate response invited me to contact those Board members directly “who capture your interest”.

Why shouldn’t this information be routinely disclosed? Why should Newmarket taxpayers who pretty much own the hydro company be expected to act as sleuths digging out ancient by-laws that are not on-line and writing directly to Board members?

Sunshine List controversy

After the brouhaha over Tony Van Bynen’s salary as reported in the Sunshine List I was left wondering if his declared remuneration included moneys paid by Newmarket-Tay Hydro. The Mayor is appointed by the Town to serve on its Board but any remuneration is neither paid by, nor reported by, the Town of Newmarket. It is left to the hydro people to disclose or not, as the case may be.

But that is not the end of it.

Annually, in March, every municipality in Ontario has to produce a Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for Members of the Council and Council Appointments to Boards and Other Bodies. You can see the one for Newmarket (March 2015) here.

Section 284 (1) (a) of the Municipal Act 2001 obliges

The treasurer of a municipality shall in each year on or before March 31 provide to the council of the municipality an itemized statement on remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to each member of council in respect of his or her services as a member of the council or any other body, including a local board, to which the member has been appointed by council or on which the member holds office by virtue of being a member of council;

What the law says

284(3) of the same Act says a statement shall be provided to a municipality in the following circumstances:

If, in any year, any body, including a local board, pays remuneration or expenses to one of its members who was appointed by a municipality, the body shall on or before January 31 in the following year provide to the municipality an itemized statement of the remuneration and expenses paid for the year. 

It seems to me that Newmarket-Tay Hydro should provide details of the Mayor’s remuneration to the Town of Newmarket and that information should be made publicly available without people like me having to make a big song and dance about it.

And who precisely does the Hydro Company report to at the Town?

Mayor Maurizio Bevilacqua and his hydro remuneration

For purposes of comparison, I’ve had a look at the City of Vaughan’s Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for members of the Council and Council Appointments to Boards and Other Bodies. You can read the latest statement here.

I went to Vaughan (not just because it is in York Region) but because it had its own Hydro Company. Details of the remuneration paid to the Mayor, Maurizio Bevilacqua, for serving on Vaughan Holdings Inc (previously named Hydro Vaughan Holdings Inc) and Hydro Vaughan Energy Corp are set out in the statement above. In the case of the former, Mayor Bevilacqua received $8,125 remuneration and $158 benefits and in the case of the latter, $1,750 and $34 respectively.

The City of Vaughan’s 100% owned hydro companies were restructured in 2013. The new Vaughan Holdings Inc. holds 45.3% of PowerStream Holdings Inc. Six Members of Vaughan Council sit on the PowerStream Board of Directors and are paid. You can see the details here. Maurizio Bevilacqua is now Chair of Powerstream.

It seems to me that if the City of Vaughan can report these matters so too can the Town of Newmarket.

I shall be asking for details of the remuneration and expenses paid by Newmarket-Tay to the Mayor of Newmarket for the last five years for which figures are available.

I am taking this up with Bob Shelton, Newmarket’s Chief Administrative Officer who, wearing another hat, is also a director of Newmarket Hydro Holdings.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Mayor Tony Van Bynen fought last year’s election on a pledge to bring lightning fast broadband to the Town:

“Bringing broadband connectivity to Newmarket is essential as technology plays an increasingly bigger role in our daily lives. A robust internet infrastructure is as essential to our economic future as rivers, railways, and roads were to our past. We are working towards connecting with Orion & Canarie, a high-speed 10 gig research network by the end of 2014.”

The Town is doing work on this but so too is York Region. In fact, the Region is setting up a Broadband Task Force and will decide on its membership at the Council meeting on Thursday 25 June.

My candidate is Tony Van Trappist but, first, he will have to shake off the torpor that descends on him as soon as he enters the Regional Council Chamber.

He relies on Newmarket staff to do his thinking for him but, nevertheless, broadband was his top priority in last year’s municipal election and that must count for something.

Everyone agrees (I think) that Newmarket needs super-fast broadband but how to make it happen?

The Town’s Committee of the Whole gathered last month (May 19) to chart the way forward.

The Town says it wants

a partner that will invest in the design, construction, ownership and operation of an open access, ultra high-speed broadband infrastructure at affordable rates for residents, businesses and organizations.

Town staff have a partner in mind but, typically, they are not telling us yet.

Three areas – an interconnected corridor – are to be given priority:

(1) Main Street Business District (from Water Street to Davis Drive)

(2) Davis Drive Health/Life Sciences Corridor(from Main Street to Leslie Street)

(3) Leslie Street/Harry Walker Parkway Business Corridor

But should these areas get priority?

Step forward John Heckbert, mortgage broker, indefatigable tweeter and champion of Davis Drive. His deputation of one is well received. He seems to know what he is talking about and that is always a good start.

He wants to know why Main Street with 75 business addresses is getting wired up but not Newmarket’s section of Yonge Street with 200-250 unique business addresses.

I learn there are plans for free wi-fi in Main Street and the Riverwalk Commons area. This is to get “community buy-in” for the super fast broadband initiative.

The Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, says staff is working with the Region. No-one wants to duplicate work that is being done at Regional level. Or, he might have said, take credit for it.

Now Susan Chase, the Town’s Director of IT Innovation, and Christopher Kallio, the Town’s Economic Development Officer are fielding questions.

Christina Bisanz wants details of how the community will benefit. Kelly Broome-Plumbley wants a time line. Will it be cheaper than the service offered by other internet service providers? Joe Sponga is banging the drum for Main Street – there’s lots of innovation there. Dave Kerwin wants to know what kind of financial return the Town is going to get from its investment. All this stuff is going to become clear when staff report back with a “favoured model”. But councillors are assured they will be made aware of all the models.

John Taylor tells us there are lots of high tech companies in Harry Walker Parkway – it’s just we are not aware of them.

Yet.

The Mayor is going to change all that. He says so.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

I am in the cavernous Council Chamber at York Region (11 June 2015) expecting a debate on super fast broadband. Instead, I find two deputations of Italian Canadians complaining vociferously about traffic infiltration in their neighbourhood in Vaughan. They are arguing about the solution and the rest of us look on, bemused. We are intruding on a family quarrel.

I learn about the neighbourhood’s Italian demographics. Every second person has a surname ending with a vowel (not unlike York Regional Council itself).

Vaughan Mayor, Maurizio Bevilacqua, jocularly tells one of the deputants, Anthony Francescucci, he shouldn’t anglicize his name just to help the Chair, the struggling Wayne Emmerson, get his tongue round it. He should stick with the authentic Italian pronunciation. This produces approving smiles from Francescucci's deputation.

Emmerson is now calling people to the lectern using their first names, finding it easier.

One group wants to ban peak hours rat-running by the clever device of placing turning restrictions at key entry and exit points. New traffic signs would order no left turns into the residential area. Another group from a different part of the same neighbourhood argues this “solution” would create another set of problems and would impact adversely on them.

I hear about the volume of traffic on some residential streets increasing exponentially over recent years. One vehicle whizzes by every 12 seconds. And they are travelling at the speed of light.

Emmerson, completely at ease in his role as the home spun philosopher, tells us people nowadays don’t get up early enough to take their kids to school and end up rushing.

Ahhh! So that's it.

After much argument and counter-argument a truce of sorts emerges. The Regional Transportation people say that stopping people from using some roads will have a displacement effect, transferring the problem elsewhere. Another study is needed!

They promise to look further at the issue of traffic infiltration into residential neighbourhoods and report back. Honours are even and this is enough to satisfy everyone.

I hope the findings will be as relevant to Newmarket as they are to the West Downs community in Vaughan.

We have huge and growing traffic infiltration problems of our own.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Details

At York Region’s Committee of the Whole (11 June)

The Region’s Chief Planner, Valerie Shuttleworth, takes us through the paper “Affordable Housing Measuring and Monitoring Guidelines”.

But first, her colleague, Rick Farrell, prepares the ground with some arresting statistics.

A new single detached home in York Region now costs on average $890,804.

Twelve months ago, that very same house sold for $799,000.

And between 2004 – 2014 the average resale house price rose by 90% yet average hourly wage rates rose by 21%.

I hear that the average condo rent in 2014 was $1,564 which Farrell describes quaintly as:

“a very substantial debt for those who are challenged with income.”

Now Shuttleworth is calling for more powers from the Province to tackle the housing crisis. She says the Region is using all the powers currently available from the Province and

“We haven’t even made a dent.”

She wants  inclusionary zoning.

Newmarket’s John Taylor is thinking outside the box. What about secondary suites? What about promoting ownership where homeowners have a rental income stream via a secondary suite?

Now he asks if the Region’s housing policy is achieving what we want to achieve. (Manifestly not.)  He says the Region’s policies could end up creating a lot of one bedroom condos.

“That’s helpful but it is not a solution”.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

  • You are here:  
  • Home