Details

To the Newmarket Public Library to find out if libraries are surviving or thriving.

This is the latest in the series of excellent IdeaMarket meetings (28 October). A hand-out I pick up at the door tells me:

Libraries are undergoing immense change due to such factors as technology, economics and demographics. What can we expect to see from libraries in the future?

In front of me sits a panel of luminaries from the library world describing the changes that are unfolding before our eyes. Stuffy old libraries are morphing into nimble “learning centres”.  Old-fashioned books still have a place of course but they are increasingly under threat from the new “co-creation spaces” with their sofas, giant screens and 3D printers.

The Director of Libraries at Seneca College, Tanis Fink, tells us they have 75,000 books on their groaning shelves but 215,000 e books, floating weightlessly.

Wrong Location

Todd Kyle, Chief Executive of Newmarket Public Library, in a rare moment of public candour tells us bluntly we need a new library. I learn that ours in Newmarket has one of the smallest footprints in Ontario per capita in terms of square feet usable by the public. He tells us the present site is simply not big enough. And it is in the wrong location anyway.

This is fightin’ talk. Foot-dragging politicians have not been pushing energetically enough for a new building. Newmarket is, apparently, more of a hockey town.

I demand to know who is responsible for this state of affairs. I see the Board Chair, Joan Stonehocker, sitting a few feet away from me and, diplomatically, suggest it cannot be inaction on the part of the current Board. Todd launches into a long complicated explanation on how we got to where we are now, involving development charges and much else besides. He loses me half way through. But the bottom line is this: we need a bigger library.

Asset Replacement Strategy

Last year, the Town commissioned the consultancy firm, Hemson, to draw up and recommend an Asset Replacement Strategy. A new library is indeed needed – but in the distant future when many of us will no longer require reading material.

“…the largest expenditures on replacements are anticipated in the 20-40 year period. The Ray Twinney Complex and the Library are the two key buildings that will be at the end of their calculated useful lives at this time.”

But why do we need to wait until the library is falling down before we replace it? The library has reserves to go towards a new building (unless they have already been plundered). So why hasn’t the Library Board been agitating for a new Library?

NPL costs the average household about $2 a week and if they use it they probably get back at least ten times that value.  (Kimberley Silk from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management tells us that every $1 spent on libraries in Toronto gives $5 of value). But libraries have got to be accessible and in the right location. Toronto, of course, has an extensive network of branch libraries. In Newmarket, poised for rapid growth, we have none.

Information overload

With the Mayor’s promise of a high-speed connected Newmarket, surely now is the time to get moving. And we will need help to navigate our way through the mass of information that threatens to engulf us.

In an arresting article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, the sci-fi writer Neil Gaiman quotes Eric Schmidt of Google who tells us that every two days we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilisation until 2003.

Librarians say they know what needs doing but, first, they must sell their vision to an otherwise distracted public. And that means opening up the conversation.

A few years ago, I wandered into a board meeting at Newmarket Public Library. These are theoretically open to the public but are held in a tiny claustrophobic board room. When I entered everyone was polite. But I sensed they were taken aback and bemused to see a member of the public drop in. They stood up in turn and shook my hand. On three or four occasions in the course of the meeting I was asked to leave because something private was being discussed. After each closed session I returned, probably to make a point to myself as well as to them. It felt a bit awkward as if I was intruding on a private conversation.

Screwed into the side of the library building is a sign that looks as if it was rescued from a now-demolished 1950s movie theatre and bought on e bay. It tells us when the Library is open.

The contrast with Cookstown Library is stark. It has a big, bright informative LED screen outside its spanking new building, flashing information on what is on offer and letting people know when the Board is meeting, inviting everyone along.

So, on the back of the Mayor’s call for a wired up town, why not meet in a big room and throw the doors wide open and invite everyone?

It could get us talking.

 

Details

As the dust settles over yesterday’s election (27 October) in Newmarket, I find myself wondering if the result would have been much different if we had used the ranked ballot rather than first-past-the-post.

This is not an academic exercise. Ranked ballots could be a reality at the next election.

In Kathleen Wynne’s so called “mandate letter” of 25 September 2014 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ted McMeekin, she told him to start work on a review of the Municipal Elections Act as soon as the 27 October election was out of the way.

“You will ensure that the act meets the needs of communities, and that it provides municipalities with the option of using ranked ballots in future elections, starting in 2018, as an alternative to first-past-the-post.”

I support ranked ballots (or preferential voting) and I hope Newmarket goes for it but the details of the process to get us there are still unclear. Would councillors simply need to carry a motion at full council? Would there be a threshold, say two thirds? Would the council have to consult? What about the possibility of a local referendum? Could the decision be subsequently reversed?

On the evidence of yesterday’s voting, ranked ballots wouldn’t have made much of a difference in Newmarket. With ranked ballots, candidates are elected as soon as they get 50% plus 1 of the votes cast. If no-one gets 50% the candidate with the fewest votes drops out and his or her second preferences are redistributed to those still in the running.

The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, Regional Councillor John Taylor and five out of the seven Ward councillors were elected with more than 50% of the vote – in some cases well over.

By any measure the results for the successful incumbents were impressive.

North Korean

The most popular boy in the school is Ward 4 councillor, Tom Hempen, who scooped a jaw dropping, North Korean style, 87.9% of the vote. Mind you, he only had one challenger, the hugely unappealing Ray Luff. In 2010, there were five candidates in the Ward and Hempen took (a still impressive) 53.9%.

John Taylor took an astonishing 73.8% of the vote. His opponent on the right, Darryl Wolk, trailed well behind with 26.1%.

Wolk invested two years in his campaign and deserves credit for his stamina if nothing else. He stood on a comprehensive platform (and that’s a good thing) but major planks of his policy were deeply unattractive to me and, clearly, to many others.

Van Bynen’s share of the vote dropped from 81% last time to 54% yesterday but in 2010 he was up against a single challenger. Chris Campbell put in a very creditable performance coming from absolutely nowhere and ending up with 38.9% of the vote.

Personally, I think he found himself on the wrong side of the line on a few issues.

He told supporters at his campaign launch that the controversial Newmarket Soccer Club deal was “stinking” and, in an instant, alienated thousands of Newmarket soccer fans. This was a humungous mistake. Van Bynen is a retired banker – a Canadian banker – and there was never any question in my mind of the Mayor being party to a dodgy deal. He is secretive, true, but that’s in his banker’s DNA. We shall have to work on that.

Rewarded in Heaven

Dorian Baxter, who adds to the gaiety of the nation, limps home with 7% of the vote. His rewards are destined to be celestial rather than earthly.

Under the ranked ballot system there would have been a run-off in Wards 3 and 5 and, of course, we have no way of knowing how the second preferences would have fallen.

Jane Twinney was re-elected on 45.9% and Joe Sponga on 46.7%.

There are only two newcomers to the council. In Ward 7, Christina Bisanz, taking over from retiring councillor Chris Emanuel, breezed in with 68.6% of the vote. This is a huge endorsement for the person who spoke so impressively for Glenway at the OMB Hearing earlier this year. She is now in a pivotal position to shape the Town’s response to the Glenway “lessons learned” meeting.

One term limit

In Ward 6, Kelly Broome-Plumley crushed the one-term incumbent, Maddie Di Muccio.

In Ward 2 a re-elected Dave Kerwin, a councillor since Confederation, enters the Guinness book of records for staying power. He has now being doing the job for a staggering 35 years (plus 4 years early on in Germany).

Turnout in 2010 was 32.6% and yesterday 36.7%.

Still pitiful but definitely a move in the right direction.

Update on 30 October 2014.  Of the 37 Councillors seeking re-election in Toronto only one lost. The Toronto Star backs the ranked ballot as a way of getting new blood into City Hall.

 

Details

Ward 7 hopeful, John Alexander Blommesteyn, is the sole Director of the company, 7656092 Canada Inc which was incorporated on 22 September 2010.

Interestingly, I see from the Corporations Canada website that the company was dissolved for non-compliance on 22 July 2013. The Annual filings for 2011 and 2012 were overdue.

Corporations Canada tells me:

“This corporation was dissolved by Corporations Canada for failure to send a required fee, notice or document. It cannot apply for any transactions until it is revived. For more information, consult our Revival Policy.”

Go to Corporations Canada website www.corporationscanada.ic.gc.ca In the search box type 7656092 and this will take you to the relevant documentation.

Curiously, bizapedia now lists Blommesteyn’s company as “active”.

Either way, I think the voters in Ward 7 need some kind of explanation. After all, Blommesteyn is a self-styled champion of taxpayers and touts transparency as one of his big selling points.

It is all very strange.

 

Details

At the last election in Newmarket’s Ward 6 in 2010 there were five candidates in the field. Maddie Di Muccio sneaked home with 27.5% of the vote. The runner up, Joe Persechini, was breathing down her neck, 37 votes behind.

A few days ago, she acknowledged for the first time that if she loses Ward 6, she will be sticking around – minus, of course, her $47,000 councillor salary. She will still be keeping an eagle eye on the “Old Boys Club” watching out for any transgressions.

@horses and beer I’ve always found it fascinating that they believe unseating me will make me “go away.” Quite the contrary.

11.03pm – 21 Oct 14

Since her election Di Muccio has carved out a reputation of sorts, mostly for trashing others. Indeed, her most acidic vitriol is reserved for fellow conservatives.

@sashalou2012 @dlkyorkeditor of course not. Dirty politics attracts bottom-feeding scum like @darrylwolk. I stay far away from that poison.

8:32am - 11 Mar 14

No-one should trust a word Wolk says:

+1 "@horsesandbeer @sashalou2012 @csimonwrite Any news outlet relying on @darrylwolk for an article has their integrity lowered immediately"

7:55am - 12 Apr 14

 Furthermore, Wolk is a disgrace

@jimb582 thks for being a good friend. Wolk is a complete disgrace to the political forum; brings a stunning lack of respect towards others.

4:44pm - 3 Jul 14

To the outside observer this seems a bit harsh on Darryl Wolk but, to be fair, he gives as good as he gets.

@MaddieDiMuccio has same 5-6 trolls supporting her. Career is over. I can’t wait until Newmarket fires this toxic human being on October 27

10.46pm – 14 April 14

And, for good measure he sticks the knife in and twists:

@Maddie Di Muccio Playing victim card a bit much and getting old. You are a master of lies, threats, dirty politics and personal attacks!

10.36pm – 14 Apr 14

Ooooh! However, it is slightly more complex than that.

Di Muccio believes conflict in politics is, on occasions, inevitable.

Sometimes a political party needs to have a civil war to mature.

12.42am – 8 Mar 14

But if Ontario conservatives still refuse to acknowledge her sterling qualities, perhaps a new political party is needed. She muses

We need Wildrose Ontario.

10:06pm - 19 Mar 14

She woos her Twitter followers with toe-curling homespun philosophy which produces gems like this:

We find ourselves through our love of others.

12:41am - 17 Jan 14

She directs her venom at her fellow councillors, calling on her followers to help her get rid of ALL of them at Monday’s election. At the same time she tells the rest of us that divisive politics is bad politics.

@anthonymarco agreed. There is more to be gained by working together. Divisive politics is never a winner.

11.34am – 19 Feb 14

Her phoney tweets to her 3,043 Twitter followers gush intimacy ;-) yet comment that is remotely critical is blocked.

She sees herself as a winner with star qualities:

@Bee_Fowlow @Dennis2ride Maturity. Wisdom. Consistent focus. These are qualities of winners.

8:00am - 14 Mar 14

And without a trace of irony she tells her followers

@mistervermin @TraceyKent twitter attracts nasty, angry people sometimes.

3:31pm - 14 Mar 14

But Twitter still has a value in letting us sift the wheat from the chaff. She tells us:

Communication on Twitter is important. One's character can either be truly revealed or truly concealed.

4:58pm - 15 Sep 14

Di Muccio’s Tweets allow us to understand part of her persona. But a few of her longer, more considered, posts are delicious and need to be savoured.

Over two years ago, on 1 September 2012, when her husband was secretly buying up Tom Vegh domain names and gaming the search engines to direct traffic to her website, Di Muccio told us what makes a good politician:

“I believe the ingredients that make up a good politician are very simple: a strong work ethic, common sense, vision and a high moral fibre. On the other hand, the recipe for scandal has just one ingredient: a weak sense of knowing what is right from wrong. When a politician lacks moral fibre, the public has the right to know about it.”

Her husband’s ears must be burning.

But Blommesteyn has a thick skin. He tells us that yesterday (23 October) was “a dark day” for him. He discovers that an employee at the Ministry of Transportation office in Newmarket has been allegedly handing out material critical of him and his campaign for election in Ward 7. He also rails against an anonymous new spoof of Newmarket Town Hall Watch which metronomically fires critical tweets of Maddie into cyberspace every few hours.

Blommesteyn, a born complainer, forgets the old maxim:

“He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.”

For her part, Di Muccio is beside herself with fury. The shenanigans at the Newmarket office of the Ministry of Transportation is seen as proof positive that the Old Boys are out to sabotage Di Muccio's and Blommesteyn's political careers.

Seems to me they don’t need any outside help.

Three days to go.

 

Details

John Blommesteyn, the wannabe councillor for Ward 7, has been parading his virtues in front of a sceptical public.

Blommesteyn, who is married to the mercurial Maddie Di Muccio, tells us it takes integrity to campaign on the issues.

Try as I might, integrity is not something I associate with him.

Over two years ago, a duplicitous Blommesteyn bought a large number of Tom Vegh domain names to squat them and game the search engines to direct traffic to his wife’s website.

He says he kept Maddie in the dark about it all:

“I purchased the domain name tomvegh.ca unbeknownst to my wife… She had no idea I had done that because she would never have approved.”

Then, as now, I thought Blommesteyn’s actions thoroughly reprehensible and unethical.

Fast forward to Newmarket Theatre on 7 October 2014. I find Blommesteyn alone at his candidate’s stall surrounded by piles of election literature. When I challenge him to explain why he had bought up a huge number of Tom Vegh domain names he laughs it off, telling me it was simply to encourage Vegh to have a more active on-line presence.

Bizarre? I think so.

Then, on 9 October, in the Newmarket Era on-line debate, he tells us:

I personally don't like the mudslinging and procedural roadblocks (such as "points of privilege" and integrity commissioners) that were showcased this last term on council. These tactics only serve to lower public engagement and encourage apathy.

On the contrary, he dishes out the dirt with relish.

His appearance before Newmarket’s Committee of the Whole last December was an absolute disgrace. Councillor Di Muccio had just been given a rap on the knuckles by the Integrity Commissioner for branding the Mayor a ‘mysogynist”. But Blommesteyn absurdly claimed his wife hadn’t been given a fair hearing. This was manifestly untrue. The Commissioner had approached Maddie Di Muccio on three separate occasions to get her side of the story and was at first rebuffed and then ignored.

As I wrote at the time, he was angry, argumentative and belligerent, demanding special treatment.

Ten months on, a re-invented Blommesteyn, listening and considerate, says that if he is elected councillor for Ward 7 he will drop everything to provide a round-the-clock service.

I own my business and I have the luxury to step away without having to get “the boss’s” permission.  So I can assure you that I will have the time (to) address residents’ concerns no matter what time of day they may occur.  

Too bad that didn’t apply during the Glenway OMB Hearing where he was conspicuously absent.

Clearly, he was busy on more important things.

7 days to go.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home