WATERSHED BREACH OF TRUST

Our private property watershed concerns are being adopted as part of the control leverage within the guise of climate and carbon directives. The damage has already been done by our representatives.

REGISTER: JOIN OUR CLASS ACTION SUIT.

Thank you to Kiclei and Gather 2030 for the following information.

Where is our municipal government’s responsibility to us the taxpayers?

Are We Witnessing the Bureaucratic Takeover of Municipal Governments?

In an era where liberal democracies founded on self-governance continue to expand, an ironic and concerning trend is emerging: municipal democracy is being weakened by increasing control from upper levels of government and technocratic administrations. This shift raises questions about the balance of power between elected officials, unelected bureaucrats, and the public's role in local governance. Below is an updated analysis of this trend, reflecting current developments.

Authored by Dale and Robert DeMatteo of Port Hope and edited by Maggie Braun of KICLEI.   Thank you from our watershed plaintiffs.

1. Integrity Commissioner’s Role in Governance

A training session for Port Hope’s council on November 5, 2024, led by the municipality’s Integrity Commissioner, revealed the significant influence of this role in municipal governance. The Integrity Commissioner serves as legal counsel and enforcer of municipal codes of conduct, often acting as both advisor and adjudicator.

While the Commissioner’s role is to ensure ethical governance, the session emphasized compliance with corporate obligations over councilors’ legislative and oversight responsibilities. Councilors were reminded of their duty to act in “good faith,” with penalties for “bad faith” actions, such as questioning staff or seeking clarifications on policies. This creates a potential chilling effect, limiting councilors’ ability to represent their constituents effectively.

2. Constraints on Councilors’ Authority

The training highlighted councilors’ limited ability to engage in the administration of municipal policies, restricting their roles to legislative duties conducted during council meetings. While councilors have a responsibility to represent residents and oversee municipal programs under the Ontario Municipal Act (2001), the session’s focus on loyalty to the “corporation” diminished their capacity to challenge or critically evaluate staff decisions.

These limitations raise concerns about councilors’ ability to fulfill their democratic mandate without fear of sanctions.

3. Procedural Bylaws Restrict Communication Between Councilors.

Changes to Ontario’s Municipal Act (2001) and procedural bylaws have imposed strict rules on councilors’ communication. Informal discussions involving more than three

councilors are considered official meetings, triggering transparency requirements. Similarly, email chains involving more than three councilors are prohibited, as are any meetings outside of council where the business of council is likely to be discussed.

While these rules aim to promote transparency, they also hinder collaboration and decision-making. Unlike provincial or federal legislators, municipal councilors face unique restrictions that limit their ability to effectively advocate for their constituents.

4. The shift toward technocracy

Municipalities are increasingly managed like corporations, prioritizing administrative and staff interests over public representation. The Commissioner emphasized councilors’ fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, which takes precedence over their duty to constituents.

This trend is further fueled by provincial and federal mandates, such as commitments to achieve “net-zero” carbon emissions, which increase administrative responsibilities and financial burdens on municipalities. As a result, unelected staff often take on expanded roles in defining and implementing policies, reducing councilors’ influence.

5. Weaponization of Bylaws

Procedural and other municipal bylaws are perceived as tools for controlling public engagement rather than supporting community involvement and well-being. Poorly written or contradictory bylaws can lead to arbitrary enforcement, disproportionately impacting residents and eroding trust in local governance. Councilors and residents have called for a comprehensive review of bylaws, emphasizing the need for public input to ensure these regulations serve their intended purpose.

6. Lack of Transparency

Confidentiality laws and the increasing number of closed council meetings limit public oversight of municipal decision-making. The Commissioner stressed councilors’ lifelong obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding in-camera sessions, even with legal counsel.

Ontario Ombudsmen have criticized these practices, recommending that closed meetings be recorded to enhance accountability. Current reliance on meeting minutes often fails to provide adequate legal transparency.

7. Pandemic as a Catalyst for Technocracy

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the growing influence of technocratic governance. During the pandemic, unelected health officials and administrators implemented sweeping measures, such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, with minimal input from elected representatives.

While these measures aimed to protect public health, they also sidelined democratic processes, exacerbating concerns about the role of technocracy in municipal governance.

8. Financial and Legislative Pressures

Structural changes, such as the downloading of responsibilities from higher levels of government and international commitments, have increased financial pressures on municipalities. With limited ability to raise funds, municipalities face growing deficits and rising taxes, further empowering technocrats to handle complex administrative tasks. These pressures prioritize the financial stability of municipal corporations over the well-being of residents, creating a disconnect between governance and community needs.

9. The Need for Democratic Reform

Reforms are necessary to restore the balance between democratic accountability and administrative efficiency. Key recommendations include:

·        Increasing public involvement in drafting and reviewing municipal bylaws.

·        Enhancing transparency in council operations, such as recording closed meetings.

·        Protecting councilors’ ability to question policies, meet with other councilors and constituents without restrictions as other levels of government do, and advocate on behalf of their constituents without fear of sanctions.

These measures would help counteract the bureaucratic takeover and ensure that municipal governance remains representative of and accountable to its residents.

Conclusion: A Call for Action

The current trends in municipal governance reflect a troubling shift toward technocracy, where unelected experts wield disproportionate influence. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to empower residents, restore councilors’ roles, and promote transparency and accountability.

Authored by Dale and Robert DeMatteo of Port Hope and edited by Maggie Braun of KICLEI.

WATERSHED DEBACLE OVERVIEW:  This infringement was implemented without transparency and on behalf of the globalist agenda.