A Question of Fairness

In negotiating amalgamation, representatives from Haileybury, Dymond and New Liskeard agreed that to move forward there needed to be compromise. 

The Agreement that was reached had three main parts:

• Haileybury would be the site of the City Hall and administrative offices
• Dymond would see any residential tax rate increases phased in over time using the township’s reserve fund
• New Liskeard would continue to maintain its local, municipal police force within former town limits

Since amalgamation:

• Haileybury has been confirmed as the site of the City Hall and administration, with work ongoing to develop a new building
• Dymond residential ratepayers have had tax increases gradually phased in using the township’s reserve fund
• Council, led by Danny Whalen and Brian Hughes, is violating the Agreement and trying to abolish municipal policing in New Liskeard

Recently, those involved in the amalgamation discussions stated that the arrangements were a personal agreement or commitment at the time in order to move amalgamation forward. 

Councillor Whalen argues the Agreement was never legally binding.  He is missing the point - we judge elected officials on the basis of whether they tell us the truth and keep their promises, not whether we can take them to court. 

The leaders of the three former municipalities (Danny Whalen, Tom Wells and Jamie Hawken) sit on the current council and have a moral obligation to honour their amalgamation and election commitments. 

New Liskeard residents based their support of amalgamation on the understanding that the terms of the Agreement – particularly maintaining municipal policing in New Liskeard – would be honoured by the new council. 

Further, local residents based their support for candidates in the 2003 municipal election on their stated position on a variety of issues, including policing.  Not one of the current councillors publicly said they would seek disbandment of the Temiskaming Shores Police Service during the 2004-2006 term.

When Council decided it wanted to pursue disbandment, contrary to both the Agreement and their individual election platforms, they should have advised the community and initiated a full and fair public consultation with affected residents. 

Instead, they have tried to rush through disbandment, denying the public a meaningful voice in the discussion and refusing to hold a municipal referendum to let affected residents and ratepayers decide. 

» Next