In addition to Pat Gallagher Jette and Nancy Grant who are running for mayor, those seeking re-election to Rothesay Council include Matt Alexander, Peter Lewis, Bill McGuire, and Miriam Wells. The challengers are Grant Brenan, Michael Butler, Julian Cseszko, Nathan Davis, Tiffany MacKay French, and Don Shea.

In this post, we set the stage for a look at some of the current councillors who are seeking re-election. We’ll bring you more later as well as some of the challengers.

At election time, current Councillors have the benefit of greater name recognition over first timers. They are also helped by the bully pulpit of incumbency. But, they also have responsibility for their record of the last four years, a record that includes  a 250% increase in the Town’s debt.

If Council had been fully transparent, that record would be known to voters. But while Rothesay has recently made more information available on line, the Town Hall remains a virtual black hole when it comes to anything more than the limited information Council wants you to see.

Testament to that is the increasing number of Right to Information requests that saw Councillor Matt Alexander complaining  last year about the cost of responding to requests. We might have been better off if he had asked why the requests were being made in the first place.

Clearly some (including me) have been forced to use the Provincial Right to Information Act, because of the limited information the town makes available on a voluntary basis.

From my experience, what they do make public doesn’t always tell the full story nor is it produced in anything like a timely manner. I’m still waiting for an answer to a very simple question, “Did Councillor Wells’ provide Council with the reports required from the Commons Upgrade steering committee as required by the Town’s procedural bylaw?” Apparently the Town Clerk is too busy to answer and Councillor Wells has been tongue-tied on the matter.

It is understandable that Councillors might be reluctant to disclose any of their shortcomings in the middle of an election campaign. But if staff, whose public duty of responsibility goes beyond simple loyalty to councillors, are dragging their feet in answering requests for information, then that needs attending to before May 9th.

In 2014 Wells, in reaction to press coverage of the Rothesay Arena debate in June of that year, expressed her version of open government, ” We need to control the message”. (Yes, the email below was obtained via an RTI request, clearly not not what the Councillor would have wanted out when she proposed that the town hire communications expertise to sell their message to taxpayers at public expense.)

If councillors want to hire professional PR consultants to help them spin political messages, then let them do that with their own money, not the taxpayers’. Her email below is typical of  the kind of reaction I experienced as a critic of Council’s spending.

While those seeking re-election obviously need to explain what they’ve accomplished over four years, they also have to walk a fine line. Nothing turns off voters more than politicians who parade long lists of spending, especially if they’ve never advanced a business case for it in the first place. Chequebook politics is about freely spending taxpayers’ money and parading the results as your own accomplishments, all the while fuzzifying the costs and reasons for spending.

A look at candidates’ campaign material currently available shows this election has its share of checkbook politics.

Wells and Alexander have published the longest lists. These include; the Common’s project, “Enhancements to the Renforth Wharf Park”, McGuire centre renovation, An Active Transportation Plan (provided for in the 2009 recreation Master Plan adopted by a previous Council), Hillside trail (a project started by a previous Council), Oakville Acres stormwater retention pond (also initiated by the previous Council), curbside recycling, College Hill Road Crosswalk, all west of the highway, while Wells gets a dog park, and a yet to be completed ball field, and new walking trail.  None of this is costed in any of the campaign material that we’ve seen.

There is one big ticket spend that is not getting much air time. The flagpoles and flower beds on Hampton Road have been a sore point with many taxpayers. I found only Matt Alexander making any reference to the project. His facebook page has a word cloud graphic that includes, “Hampton Road Boulevards “. But again no detail on what was spent on this “Streetscaping”.

If Alexander, who serves on the Public Works Committee, actually had planned to create a grand boulevard, the end product might not live up to  popular understanding of “Boulevard” best practise.

Drivers are unhappy with the obstacle course created and taxpayers are annoyed at the waste of more than a million dollars for flower beds and flagpoles while potholes are left unrepaired elsewhere. Pedestrians have complained that the design and placement of signs makes crossing the street downright dangerous.

While the Hampton Road “Boulevards” might have been exiled to the political wilderness, bike lanes are the new wonder child of some on Council. Councillor Miriam Wells takes credit for bringing bike lanes to Rothesay and in fairness, they are a welcome addition that add to recreation without a great deal of additional cost.

Bike lanes were proposed in the town’s recreation plan, adopted in 2009 by the last Council. The problem, however, is that the bylaw providing enforcement powers to police to keep bike lanes safe and clear of parked cars has been left unfinished as this Council haven’t bothered to move the new traffic bylaw forward despite being on the Agenda for more than two years. Bike lanes without a law on the town books to manage them are only lines on the street that motorists may or may not pay attention to.  If there is no enforcement, Rothesay’s bike lanes might actually give cyclists a false sense of security.

Since 2012 Rothesay councillors, including Wells and Alexander have ok’d nearly $60 million in town operating expenses.

Taxpayers now want to know where and how it was spent and  if they received good value for money.

With less than three weeks before election day voters are growing impatient for answers.

 

 

 

 

 

(More detailed look at individual candidates in later posts)