Member Of Gallery Speaks Out On Lack Of Transparency At CP Council Meeting

(Release Date: March 29, 2017)

March 29, 2017 by Lake 88 News Staff

A member of the gallery spoke out at last night’s Carleton Place council meeting.

Carleton Place resident Jim Collins told council he is appalled by the total lack of transparency and accountability shown by council.

He said this when council voted to exclude the mayor’s statement from two weeks ago where he addressed his refusal to speak to the media in the Action Report.

Collins said the decision is disrespectful to the community. He told council he will pursue the matter with Ontario Ombudsman.

Antonakos, the only member of council who voted to include the statement, told Collins he is welcome to pursue the issue.

Contact Information:

Phone: 613-257-6206
Email: lantonakos@carletonplace.ca

Council Formally Passes Motion To Make Deputy Mayor Its Spokesperson

(Release Date: March 22, 2017)

Mayor calls it a ‘poorly thought out’ motion

Carleton Place Almonte Canadian Gazette

               

By Ashley Kulp

                          

Following on the heels of the planning and protection committee recommendation March 7, Carleton Place council has officially endorsed deputy mayor Jerry Flynn as its spokesperson.

                          

The matter was discussed further during the March 14 council session, which saw the vote pass 6-1, with Flynn, councillors Doug Black, Brian Doucett, Theresa Fritz, Sean Redmond and Ross Trimble in favour and mayor Louis Antonakos abstaining. It was introduced by Doucett March 7 due to the mayor’s refusal to respond to the media “about important issues facing the community.”

                          

“Council needs to resolve this issue in the interests of the community we serve so that important information reaches them,” reads the motion.

                          

Prior to its passing, Antonakos made another statement of his distaste for the motion, noting it set a dangerous precedent for municipalities.

                          

“The real downside of this motion, besides the potential mixed messaging coming from council and the potential confusion in our community on important issues, is the precedent it sets across the province in the other 444 municipalities,” he stated.

                          

While the motion, introduced by Doucett, doesn’t prevent any council member from speaking to the media, Antonakos believes “this motion is too vague and it leaves the door open for far too many interpretations.”

                          

He said those interpretations could “cause tremendous turmoil” on councils across Ontario.

                          

“The political ramifications are potentially endless; from misunderstandings on councils, to misunderstandings in communities, to the misuse of this kind of motion for political gain or political disruptions,” Antonakos commented. “I sincerely hope that the province and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (and Housing) and the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) can work together to figure this one out before this kind of motion gains legs and replicates across Ontario.”

                          

At the request of Antonakos, clerk Duncan Rogers, read out Section 226 of the Ontario Municipal Act, of which he provided each member of council a copy. It references “a municipality may, with the consent of the head of council, appoint a member of council to act in the place of the head of council on any body, other than on the council of another municipality, of which the head of council is a member by virtue of being head of council.”

                          

The section also makes note that as the head of council, the mayor should “uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality; promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities; act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality, and promote the municipality locally, nationally and internationally; and participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.”

                          

When asked by Antonakos if any council members wished to provide comment, Doucett responded to his statement.

                          

“Your opinion is exactly that,” he said. “According to the information we (council) have that we’ve seen in this act, this (motion) in no way violates any conception of the act. As far as the wording of the motion, we can word it 17 different ways. Again, that’s a point of view that each person may have.”

                          

Antonakos asked if Doucett was making a legal opinion on the motion on behalf of the town.

                          

“That’s my opinion,” Doucett stated. “That’s nobody else’s opinion and I have not sought legal opinion.”

                          

Pressing the matter further, Antonakos wondered if this motion should be passed without seeking input from the town’s solicitor.

                          

“It’s not that long ago that a member of the gallery, through a comment, had used strong language and the deputy mayor, and he quite rightly did so, thought we should get a legal opinion on the matter...” he pointed out. “Staff were kind enough to get that legal opinion and present it to us so we could make a decision that represents our municipality and our residents.”

                          

The matter Antonakos referred to involved whether or not the town followed its procurement of goods and services policy when the work in Roy Brown Park was awarded without using a formal tendering process. The town’s solicitor determined there was no contravention of the policy.

                          

Antonakos continued, noting that documents such as the Municipal Act may be steeped in tradition, but also “strict, legal law and the interpretation of it.” He stressed this decision was not in the best interest of the community.

                          

“To make that kind of decision without getting a legal opinion from our staff, particularly the way in which this motion was introduced, without it being brought forward on an agenda where members of the public could comment, to me, is not acting in the interest of our municipality,” Antonakos said. “But that’s my opinion and it’s my job to guide this council and to address any issues that I think will be a problem for us, going forward. If it’s the decision and will of this council to go ahead with this motion, then so be it.”

Contact Information:

Phone: 613-257-6206
Email: lantonakos@carletonplace.ca

Mayor Answers Media Questions - March 15, 2017

(Release Date: March 20, 2017)

Media Question: Unfortunately, I was unable to attend last night's council meeting due to the storm, but I understand you read a prepared statement, and I am hoping you might be able to share that with me for the Hometown News?

Mayor’s Response: As mayor of Carleton Place, it is my opinion that Council’s decision to approve Councillor Doucett’s motion authorizing the Deputy Mayor to act as the spokesperson for council on matters dealing with the media, is a poorly thought out motion. Although it states that this motion in no way prevents any member of council from speaking to the media at any time, I believe this motion is too vague and leaves the door open for far too many interpretations.

The real down side of this motion, besides the potential mix messaging coming from council and the potential confusion in our community on important issues, is the precedent it sets across the province within the other 444 municipalities.

The number of interpretations of this motion among the different councils across the province will cause tremendous turmoil, which in turn will cause a direct and indirect burden on the taxpayers of Ontario. The political ramifications are endless, from misunderstandings on councils, to misunderstandings in communities, to the misuse of this kind of motion for political gain or intentional political disruption.

I sincerely hope that the Province, The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and the AMO can work together and figure this one out before this kind of motion gains legs, and replicates across Ontario.

Media Question: On a related note, it is no mystery that there is tremendous tension on Council. Has there been an attempt to bring in a mediator to address the root of the conflict? If not, do you see this a possible move going forward?

Mayor’s Response: Over the last number of years, mediation has been accepted at the municipal government level, but in this case, I believe there are a number of council members with their own personal and political agendas that they will pursue at any cost, even if it means damaging our community. Look at the facts.

Our community has never been so successful in such a short period of time, from provincial grant money to hospital funding, to new housing developments, new affordable senior housing, and a record number of new businesses coming to Carleton Place.

Right now, we have six members of council who have chosen to shut the public out of meetings by not supporting video streaming council proceedings to the community, censoring public statements from public meeting minutes, making questionable motions to control the media, and outright attacking my office with misinformation.

No, the answer is not mediation, the answer is accountability, responsibility and transparency in serving the constituents of our community.  

Media Question: When the clerk checked the Municipal Act, he stated that the motion would not violate the Act because nothing specific is spelled out within it regarding such a transfer of the role of speaking on behalf of council. While I appreciate your statement that this could be interpreted as violating the Municipal Act, I am wondering how, exactly, it would do that if there is no specific guidance in the Act regarding this type of issue?

Mayor’s Response: I'm afraid you misunderstood the Town Clerk. After he read out only part of the Act, he stated he was not providing a legal interpretation. And neither am I. The rules we follow are not that simple and even the experts don't always agree. My point is that when a Council goes against tradition, then the Municipal Act can become complicated, especially when you have to also take into consideration our Code of Conduct before ruling on any issue or concern.

Media Question: My understanding of the motion is that while any councillor can speak as an individual to the media, the only person authorized by this motion to speak on behalf of council is the deputy mayor. You seem to imply that all seven councillors could take on the role even though only one of them, the Deputy Mayor, has been thusly authorized by the motion. Why do you think councillors who to this point have not spoken on behalf of Council (other than the Deputy Mayor in the example you cited) will start stepping up to that role when they only authorized the Deputy Mayor?

Mayor’s Response: The Deputy Mayor was authorized by Council (I abstained from voting on this motion) to speak on their behalf when dealing with the media. There was no details of any kind provided in explaining the depth of this motion. And without clarity, there will inevitably be confusion.

Media Question: Can you provide a couple of variations of which you are aware where this has been an issue?

Mayor’s Response: This is a fairly wide open question so I will let you do your own research and decide which ones you like. There was a municipal lawyer on the Bill Carroll radio show recently who mentioned several examples while he was discussing Councillor Fritz's conflict of interest concerns and the motion in question.

Media Question: What do you mean by "far too many interpretations?" Does that imply the motion could extend to decision-making powers beyond the scope of the motion about speaking to the media on behalf of Council? If so, what would those be?

Mayor’s Response: It means that the motion could also be interpreted as non-compliant or not valid in regards to the Municipal Act.

Media Question: In terms of turmoil, how would you see this playing out in a hypothetical situation, and how would that impact taxpayers?

Mayor’s Response: When there is more than one spokesperson for any organization (or Municipality), then the messaging can get confusing. And in the case of this motion, no one on Council is restricted from speaking to the media with any kind of discussion or central messaging beforehand. Therefore, there could easily be as many as seven different voices with conflicting messaging regarding the same issue. Depending on the medium or how an issue is now going to be reported, the community may not be able to clarify or understand the message or meaning of what is being said by the Corporation/Municipality new media spokesperson.

Media Question: In terms of examples from Carleton Place, how would you explain how misunderstandings would arise when it comes to who is speaking on behalf of the Council to the media? For example, if you were away and unable to respond to questions, say, about today's snowstorm, would not the Deputy Mayor be assumed to fill in that role in your absence?

Mayor’s Response: Simple obvious situations, like your example, would probably not be misunderstood by the community in general. But, many people in the community choose who they want to listen to for a reason. The same way some choose to vote for one person over another to become Mayor. Some people require clarity, while others require detail, and even others require both. Depending on where the information is coming from, or from whom the information is coming from, or the level of understanding an individual spokesperson has regarding an issue, may require a number of clarifications on public statements, which may in turn cause timely information to become only legacy information. Traditionally, each council member, including myself, has certain skills that apply to the positions each respective council member holds. We each sit on different committees and have different understandings and detail regarding those committees. My job as Mayor, has been to understand each and every committee, and all the details. If the motion stands as is, this now will be an added responsibility of the Deputy Mayor when dealing with the media."   

Media Question: You reference three provincial bodies below. Have you approached them about your concerns and do they normally intervene in a situation like this at the municipal level?

Mayor’s Response: At this time, I don't believe it's required to contact these provincial bodies. Although, I am sure they will become aware of what has transpired here in Carleton Place through the media, very soon.

Media Question: Are you aware of similar motions being passed in other municipalities? If not, why do you think this might become an issue that gains legs?

Mayor’s Response: There are many variations that have been spelled out in more detailed motions for specific events or specific situations but to the best of my knowledge, this motion is unique and in my opinion, questionable."

Media Question: Did any councillors respond to your statement last night?

Mayor’s Response: No council member responded to my statement.

Contact Information:

Phone: 613-257-6206
Email: lantonakos@carletonplace.ca

Antonakos Predicts Confusion, Turmoil From Council’s Motion

(Release Date: March 18, 2017)

Hometown News

Matthew Behrens

editorial@pdgmedia.ca

Carleton Place Mayor Louis Antonakos read a brief statement at town council’s March 14 session forecasting local confusion and provincial “turmoil” in response to last week’s motion authorizing Deputy Mayor Jerry Flynn to “act as the spokesperson for council on matters dealing with the media.”

Antonakos, who previously said that council’s decision flew in the face of protocol, called the motion “poorly thought out” and “too vague,” adding it “leaves the door open for far too many interpretations.”

The embattled mayor – whose relationship with council has generated national media coverage – mentioned his concern about mixed messages emanating from council and “potential confusion in our community on important issues,” but he expressed greater fears about “the precedent it sets across the province within the other 444 municipalities.”

Indeed, Antonakos believes that different interpretations of the Carleton Place motion by other town councils could “cause tremendous turmoil, which in turn will cause a direct and indirect burden on the taxpayers of Ontario. The political ramifications are endless, from misunderstandings on councils, to misunderstandings in communities, to the misuse of this kind of motion for political gain or intentional political disruption.”

Deputy Mayor Flynn disagreed, arguing in a post-meeting comment that “the Municipal Act does not state that the mayor must be council’s official spokesperson.  I do not see where the many interpretations would come in to play. This kind of motion is not something that is commonplace, but in this case, there was a lack of communication with our local newspaper from the Mayor, so I was chosen as his replacement.”

Antonakos subsequently told Hometown News that “the rules we follow are not that simple, and even the experts don’t always agree. My point is that when a council goes against tradition, then the Municipal Act can become complicated, especially when you have to also take into consideration our code of conduct before ruling on any issue or concern.”

While relevant sections of the Municipal Act dealing with the respective roles of council members and mayors have been consulted at recent meetings, Flynn does not believe that “a legal opinion would be required, as it is just a shift of responsibility that council – in a 6 to 1 vote –  considered appropriate for the situation.”

In his defence, Antonakos points to Section 226 of the Municipal Act, which declares that “a municipality may, with the consent of the head of council, appoint a member of council to act in the place of the head of council.” But in this particular instance, the mayor says “I was never asked” for consent.

Nonetheless, councillors again voted 6-1 on March 14 to reaffirm the media spokesperson motion, leaving Antonakos anxious about potential communications snafus.

“Many people in the community choose who they want to listen to for a reason, the same way some choose to vote for one person over another to become mayor,” he explained. “Some people require clarity, while others require detail, and even others require both. Depending on where the information is coming from, or from whom the information is coming from, or the level of understanding an individual spokesperson has regarding an issue, [this] may require a number of clarifications on public statements, which may in turn cause timely information to become only legacy information.”

Antonakos points out that councillors “each sit on different committees and have different understandings and detail regarding those committees. My job as mayor has been to understand each and every committee, and all the details. If the motion stands as is, this now will be an added responsibility of the deputy mayor when dealing with the media.”
 
Flynn, however, appears nonplussed with his new responsibilities. “I have been contacted many times throughout my political career for comment on items that involved myself, as well as personal comments on council proceedings,” he remarked. “I do not see that this is something that will change.  I would encourage individual members of council to respond to requests for comment, or if they are not comfortable, refer the request to me as official spokesperson to give an opinion of council as a whole. Added responsibility is something I was aware of and prepared to deal with.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Antonakos publicly expressed his hope that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Association of Municipalities of Ontario “can work together and figure this one out before this kind of motion gains legs and replicates across Ontario.” While the mayor told Hometown News that “at this time, I don’t believe it’s required to contact these provincial bodies,” he was confident that “they will become aware of what has transpired here in Carleton Place –  through the media – very soon.”

Asked about what role the province could play in this dispute, a Municipal Affairs representative replied, “municipalities have the authority to choose to hire a media spokesperson or to appoint a member of council and/or staff to act as a media spokesperson,” adding “the Ministry does not have a role in assessing compliance with the Act.”

Meanwhile, Flynn appears confident in council’s decision. “In my opinion, and the opinion of the rest of council, we have done nothing that, given the circumstances, would be considered untoward,” he said. “In municipal politics there are plenty of checks and balances to ensure that proper procedure is followed.”

Contact Information:

Phone: 613-257-6206
Email: lantonakos@carletonplace.ca

Carleton Place Deputy Mayor Now Formal Media Representative

(Release Date: March 8, 2017)

Hometown News

Matthew Behrens

editorial@pdgmedia.ca

Before a packed gallery of residents and local and national media, Carleton Place Town Council passed a motion March 7 authorizing Deputy Mayor Jerry Flynn to officially “act as the spokesperson for Council on matters dealing with the media.”

The motion capped a heated and dramatic meeting that followed on a front-page Ottawa Citizen story last week in which Flynn accused Mayor Louis Antonakos of subjecting Council members to “threats, bullying, intimidation and total lack of respect” as well as running “personal vendettas.” The Citizen story quoted a recently released integrity commissioner’s report that, while clearing Antonakos of any wrongdoing, nonetheless raised concerns about damage to Carleton Place’s reputation as a result of what it called a “toxic relationship” between the Mayor and Councillor Doug Black.

In addition, Antonakos was the subject of a March 1 Canadian Gazette article in which reporter Tara Gesner wrote “for more than a year [Antonakos] has made himself less available to this newspaper, even ignoring requests for comment on a number of important stories.”

In response to the media stories, as well as an item introduced by Councillor Brian Doucett (who said that the Mayor “continues to refuse to respond to the media about important issues facing the community”), Antonakos delivered an impassioned, lengthy statement claiming what was being said about him in various fora was “malicious, abusive and insulting,” in addition to being “defamatory, denigrating, and unauthorized.”

While claiming he is in constant contact with local and national media, Antonakos asked Doucett for the names of other Council members who were alleged to have accused him of not speaking with the media. “You are asking me to respond to unidentified individuals and hearsay,” the Mayor declared, asking why Council members had not dealt directly with him regarding their concerns. Antonakos, at times appearing emotional as he dabbed his brow, demanded to know how and when such statements were apparently shared with Doucett, whether a secret meeting had been held without including the Mayor, and why he had not been included in discussions prior to this item appearing on the March 7 agenda.

“Is it not our duty as Council members to communicate with each other and resolve any issues rather than running to a national newspaper and making vague platitudes and erroneous statements like the Deputy Mayor has done?” Antonakos asked, Traditionally, mayors are invested with the role of speaking on behalf of Council as a whole, and Antonakos implied that Flynn’s comments were a violation of that protocol.

Antonakos also stated that “our municipality under the previous Mayor was under attack by a developer, the same disgruntled developer who to this very day continues to attack myself, this Council and our municipality.” Antonakos said the unnamed developer had “violated the Town’s planning department application process, the building department application process, the Planning Act, Building Code Act and various other violations that I am not legally permitted to discuss, as these are in-camera items.”

Antonakos challenged Doucett to introduce a motion to publicly release the in-camera information about that individual “so that we can then discuss these issues with the media without violating the oath of office that we took 27 months ago.” (Notably, the Ottawa Citizen reports that local developer Volundur Thorbjornsson has filed a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman alleging Antonakos has been “violating the Town’s code of conduct.”)

Antonakos said he felt “violated and disrespected for my ten years of service to the community that I love and respect.” Councillor Black tried to cut off the Mayor’s lengthy speech on a number of occasions, and was met with cries of “let him speak” from the packed public gallery.

The Mayor concluded his speech with a recitation of local achievements and a motion to video-stream Council meetings so that all residents could watch from their homes, an initiative that had been rejected months earlier and which was voted down once again.

Doucett responded to Antonakos by saying  the comments “were close to being a little insulting, but you obviously think I insulted you somehow with this request. It is within my right to put anything on the agenda…I do not have to justify to you or any other member of this council my desire to discuss a particular topic.”

Doucett and Antonakos continued to spar, with Doucett saying “I think there’s a problem that needs resolution… I think it is undermining this Council’s efforts to keep the taxpayers informed. I don’t believe there has been sufficient communication.”

“Do you have any evidence of that?” Antonakos asked.

“I don’t have to provide anybody any evidence,” Doucett replied.

All councillors, including Deputy Mayor Flynn, voted in favour of the motion on speaking with the media, with Antonakos abstaining. Councillor Black informed angry members of the public that they would not be allowed to speak to the issue because it was council business only.

*Note: This story was updated on March 8. Councillor Black did not chair the meeting as previously indicated in the story. The meeting in question was chaired by Councillor Sean Redmond.

Contact Information:

Phone: 613-257-6206
Email: lantonakos@carletonplace.ca

Carleton Place Sees An Increase in 2016 Census

(Release Date: March 3, 2017)

Mar 03, 2017

Carleton Place Almonte Canadian Gazette

               

By Tara Gesner

According to the 2016 census data released Feb. 8, Carleton Place now has 10,644 residents thriving within the community.

A national census in Canada is conducted every five years by Statistics Canada.

Between 2011 and 2016, Carleton Place’s population showed an increase of 8.5 per cent, or 835 people.

Mayor Louis Antonakos, during the policy review committee meeting on Feb. 14, was “just elated the town is tucked in at 8.5 per cent growth.”

“It is a very healthy growth rate,” he said, and “it shows what good management, a great council, residents, entrepreneurs, being on a four-lane highway and close proximity to Ottawa can do.”

Referencing the residential developments taking shape in Carleton Place, Coun. Theresa Fritz commented: “I think this is evidence there is a need for them.”

“Obviously, people are moving here and our population is growing,” she added.

Communities use census data when planning services such as schools, daycare, police services and fire protection.

Chief administrative officer Paul Knowles noted: “This updated population will be used for grant calculations and other purposes.”

Treasurer Phil Hogan stated Carleton Place’s population signs would be updated this spring.

“We are at 11,000 now,” he noted. “That census was done a year ago ... we know there are another 150 homes since then.”

Beckwith had the biggest population gain in Lanark County, 9.4 per cent or 658 residents, with 7,644 people living there as of last year.

“With the number of homes built over the last five years in Beckwith, it makes sense our population has grown,” reeve Richard Kidd told the Canadian Gazette on March 2.

“It is certainly a positive,” he added.

However, council is cognizant the township must walk the line between growth and maintaining its rural character.

“We do not want a big influx of growth,” Kidd said. “We want steady growth.”

The reeve also credits the township’s strong population growth to location (proximity to Ottawa and four-lane highway), quality of life (healthy and active lifestyle promotion), and great leadership (council and municipal staff).

Other Lanark County municipalities seeing increases include Montague — 3,761 people, eight per cent or 278 individuals; Mississippi Mills — 13,163 residents, 6.3 per cent or 778 people; Lanark Highlands — 5,338 people, 4.1 per cent or 210 residents; Drummond/North Elmsley — 7,773 citizens, 3.8 per cent or 286 people; Tay Valley — 5,665 residents, 1.7 per cent or 94 people; and Perth — 5,930 inhabitants, 1.5 per cent or 90 residents.

With 8,780 residents, Smiths Falls was the only area municipality to see a decrease in population — 2.2 per cent or 198 people.

Statistics Canada will release 2016 census data on six occasions in 2017, between February and November. The recent release on population and dwelling counts will be followed by age and sex and type of dwelling on May 3. The others will be families, households and marital status as well as language, Aug. 2; income, Sept. 13; immigration and ethnocultural diversity, as well as
and Aboriginal Peoples, Oct. 25; and education, labour, journey to work, language of work and mobility and migration, Nov. 29.

Ontario’s 2016 population increased 4.6 per cent to 13.5 million people. Canada’s population as of last year was 35.2 million inhabitants, an increase of five per cent.

Contact Information:

Phone: 613-257-6206
Email: lantonakos@carletonplace.ca