Letter to the Editor Sent: October 10 2014 To: The Highlander and The Echo Democracy: The Main Election Issue In Ward 3 I am running for Ward 3 Councillor in Dysart et al. Our Ward faces a unique situation in that 55% of voters in Ward 3 are located in Harcourt Park Inc (HP) and 45% of voters cottage or live in the village of Harcourt or around 6 main lakes. The issue is that for countless years, as a result of HP carrying 55% of the Ward 3 vote, a representative of the HP Board has been consistently elected as the Ward 3 Councillor. Consequently, a line of separation has been created between HP and the rest of the Ward. I perceive this line needs to be eliminated for Ward 3 to attain equal and fair representation across the entire Ward, and to gain a presence and be heard in Council at the County level. According to their website, HP is a cottaging corporation made up of 18 lakes and 600 surveyed properties that are individually leased and not owned. The Board of Directors is elected by the Park members to govern member conduct and properties. They do so by enforcing bylaws that have been agreed upon at annual meetings. These lands are considered private property. I have been told by the HP President that their bylaws do not permit solicitation by businesses or charitable organizations. However, I perceive the electoral process is a very different scenario. Last weekend, in an effort to create a level playing field for all Ward 3 candidates, several Harcourt Park members gave me their permission to enter the Park and to canvass. While meeting Park members, I generally received a warm welcome, many members expressing their gratitude that I showed up to introduce myself and learn about their needs. This is the job of both a candidate and an elected Councillor. For many, it was the first time they ever met an election candidate in HP. Some of these members chose to display my lawn sign on their property. Since then, the HP Board President has advised me, and all other Ward 3 candidates, that we are not permitted to canvass in the Park. I understand that the cottagers and residents of HP have issues particular to their lands and structure, just as the people of Benoir, Farquhar, Grace, Elephant, Kingscote and Fishtail Lakes, and other areas of Ward 3, including the village of Harcourt, have their unique issues. All issues and needs require fair representation. For this reason, I am canvassing all areas of Ward 3, including HP, and not just the 45% outside of HP. HP has not provided me with any legislation supporting their position. If such legislation exists, I highly doubt the intention of such legislation is to deny election candidates access to 55% of the Ward, or to deny 55% of voters access to their candidates. Furthermore, the HP President has told me that their bylaws deny the access of election candidates into HP. The Board has not shown me any evidence of bylaws that specifically state that election candidates are prohibited, because apparently these bylaws are only for Park members. What kind of a representative would I be if I simply accepted their position, folded up my tent and went home? As an analogy, the Condominium Act states: No corporation or employee or agent of a corporation shall restrict reasonable access to the property by candidates, or their authorized representatives, for election to the House of Commons, the Legislative Assembly or an office in a municipal government or school board if access is necessary for the purpose of canvassing or distributing election material”. This seems like a fair approach. Why is HP above such an approach? By not permitting candidates to canvass inside the Park, HP members are denied the opportunity to communicate with candidates, to become informed and educated, and candidates are unable to receive valuable input from HP members. Do you perceive HP is unreasonably restricting access to the properties of 55% of the voters in Ward 3 during election campaigns, thereby securing electoral outcomes that manifest into the election of HP candidates to Council? There appears to be a long history of discrimination of non-member candidates and an inequality in Ward 3 representation, which means it’s highly unlikely that a candidate outside of HP will ever be elected to serve the entire Ward. You do the math – 45% will never exceed 55%, thus making it an unfair process for all other voters within Ward 3. On Thursday, I received another call from HP’s President reiterating their position. She claims to want a fair election. For her, a fair election means I stop canvassing inside the Park because she has told all other candidates they cannot campaign in HP – truly an intriguing interpretation of fairness. Why not simply open their doors to all candidates? Why not be transparent and avoid any appearance of unfairness? I have also now been told that I cannot enter as a member’s guest, my entry must be cleared through the Board. I understand the Board has overarching powers that can override the wishes of their members who have invited me as a guest and deny me access to HP. Lets be plain, a guest designation isnt the issue. Election candidates are much different from guests and from canvassers soliciting for carpet cleaning. I sought the advice of Dysart’s official contact who oversees the election. I was informed that Municipal Affairs (MA) has no jurisdiction over HP because HP does not fit within any of their categories. The official conveyed that the MA said, it was a “complicated situation”. Dysart’s representative then contacted the current Ward 3 Councillor to gain some insight into the “situation”. This person also happens to be a HP resident, a past president of HP, and neighbour of HP’s candidate in this election. I am not certain how this official thought objective input would be garnered. I was told that Council would have to seek legal advice and it was too late to add it to their agenda. Therefore, the official suggested my only option was to abide by HP bylaws. In particular, HP would enforce bylaw 49, The Right to Quiet Enjoyment, which is about members and guests not being nuisances or damaging property. That’s just laughable. So election candidates are deemed a nuisance? I have no issue with HP members. I am sympathetic to HP members, who, in leasing a property within the Park, have agreed to a structure whereby most people do not want to be bothered by door-to-door canvassers and salespeople. In fact, I perceive it’s unlikely that most Park members are even aware that the implication and implementation of these bylaws by the Board(s) during an election continues to provide an unfair advantage to the Park’s candidate and override the democratic process. So why would any candidate from outside HP run for election? Many people already have become complacent and buy into the belief system that a HP candidate is a foregone conclusion, so why bother? In fact, my opponent, another HP Board member, seems to be so comfortable regarding the outcome, he did not even show up for the all candidates meeting, and other than a few lawn signs, isn’t even really running a campaign, just like the last councillor did. I feel it’s so very important to challenge this dangerous precedent and rewrite history - so I am running. Until the Board of Harcourt Park Inc. proves to me, to all other candidates, and to the voters of Ward 3, that they have the power and authority to not allow election candidates freedom of speech within HP, I will continue my campaign throughout all of Ward 3. Other candidates have campaigned in HP during this election without reprisal. Would the HP Board really charge an election candidate with trespassing, or only the one that threatens the election of their HP member? I encourage all Ward 3 candidates to stand up for democracy and meet the voters of HP. Seriously, why have we all allowed the enforcement of HP bylaws by a few to supersede the democratic process? The matter before us is now far beyond an access issue, its also a human rights issue. Come on HP Board - have the guts to allow the voters within your membership to access, in person, the information of all candidates from within your secured grounds, and thereby informatively and freely choose their candidate for Ward 3 Councillor. It’s time for a change. Tammy Donaldson, Ward 3 Candidate, Dysart et al.
Posted on: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:45:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015