Dear editor,
“Bureaucracies are inherently anti-democratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients.” – Alan Keyes, former United States Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
Twice now, once in 2018 and now again in 2022, I have been rejected as a candidate for municipal council in South Bruce. My name is David Wood and on May 5, 2022, I submitted my nomination papers to the clerk’s office with the required 25 signatures.
At about 11 a.m. on Aug. 21, the next business day after the nomination period had closed on Aug. 19, I got a phone call from South Bruce CAO/Clerk Leanne Martin. She told me that there were clerical errors in my submission and that I had until 3 p.m. that day to correct them.
I note that Ms. Martin had 15 weeks to contact me about the errors, but chose to do so only at the last possible moment.
Nonetheless, I did correct the errors, and hand delivered the corrected submission to Ms. Martin at 2:30 p.m., as she had requested. I had to drive three hours from Toronto to make sure I got to the South Bruce municipal office in time.
Once I handed in my corrected papers, Ms. Martin then informed me that the municipality would now seek a legal opinion as to whether the corrected forms were acceptable and that she would let me know of her decision as soon as possible. At 4 p.m. she called me and said she had rejected my candidacy and that under Section 35 of the Elections Act, the clerk has the final decision. I wish to note, however, that according to the Elections Act, Ms. Martin had until 4 p.m. to decline or accept my nomination papers. She chose not to, even though she had my corrected papers in her hands.
I am gobsmacked. Not only did the Municipality of South Bruce have my nomination papers for 15 weeks prior to informing me of the need for a correction, for most of this time it had posted my name on its website as a candidate for the council seat in Mildmay-Carrick. Then, after receiving a notice just hours before the closure requirements in the Elections Act, I met the clerk’s self-imposed deadline and was still rejected.
According to the Elections Act there is no appeal process. The clerk’s decision is final.
Final or not, the decision was wrong! It undermines local folks’ trust in local democracy and demeans their right to have a voice in the direction of their community when candidates are picked by unelected bureaucrats. A voice, I might add, will later only come by way of a referendum sanctioned by the next council. Of course, that all depends on the commitments today’s surviving candidates make to the electorate before the votes are counted. A commitment I have made now for over 10 years should I again sit on council.
In my opinion, Ms. Martin did not follow the letter of law. The Elections Act gives her the discretion to act differently than she did. I was clearly treated unfairly. High-handedly, even.
The October 2022 municipal election will elect a council that will make the most significant decisions in our municipality’s history. This election will affect the lives of every citizen – current and future – for decades to come.
I believe the clerk’s actions seem to be based on stifling democracy in South Bruce rather than fostering it. What is most unfortunate is that decisions like this one make the CAO and clerk’s office – the two roles Ms. Martin is paid to fill – another critical issue in the forthcoming campaign. She reports to council and her role is wholly managed by the mayor. I will be asking all the people who are remaining candidates in this election to go on the record about her job performance.
David Wood
Mildmay
