Lately, there has been a great deal of discussion around the position of Deputy Mayor. Many people are trying to figure out if Stephen Chase will be the Deputy Mayor. There have been rumors that Ivan Court does not want this; but, could he actually pick someone else?

On February 12th, 2008, the following motion was passed by Council:

11.6 - Position of Deputy Mayor
On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton
Seconded by Councillor Chase
RESOLVED that the current system of electing the Deputy Mayor which is the election of the Councillor who receives the most votes in the municipal election be maintained.
Question being taken the motion was carried

The important thing to note is that everyone on Common Council voted in favor of this motion, including Ivan Court.

This motion clearly shows that Stephen Chase will be the deputy mayor when he is sworn in for this new Council term.

Any changes to this position would require a motion to be made in the next session; but, would this be a motion that the people support? Since Stephen was elected with the most votes (even more votes then than Ivan himself), he has demonstrated his support with the people in this city.

I can’t see any motion to remove him being successful.

Today, CBC and the Telegraph-Journal wrote stories around the Ward 2 recount.

It looks like these rejected ballots were actually special ballots, ones that were filled out ahead of time, and not read into the machine until election night.

This was too late to detect the error in the ballots. However, even though there were problems with the ballot (in once case, someone marked two people for Mayor), the section for the Ward was marked fine.

These two ballots were set aside on election night by workers. It took until yesterday for these two ballots were finally looked at by officials in Fredericton.

CBC describes it below:

The problem developed when poll officers attempted to insert the two special ballots into the machine but the machine rejected them, Jones said.

The mayor section of the ballot had been spoiled though the councillor section was valid, Jones said. The machine recognized that part of the ballot had been spoiled and asked if that was correct and if the voter wanted to proceed with scanning the results.

But seeing that the councillor section was valid and unsure how to proceed, the poll officers apparently set the ballots aside, Jones said.

“Sometimes the machine doesn’t pick them up for various reasons and it tells them to take a look at something,” said Mary Aculiffe, a returning officer in Saint John. “They had set them aside in the spoiled ballots and when we took a look at them, we decided they were really not spoiled.”

The Telegraph-Journal describes it as a glitch; however, I don’t think that is the case.

A comment on the CBC article said it best:

Before people start jumping up and down whining about the machines.. If you read carefully you will see that the machine did its job and said there is something wrong here!! How do you want to proceed? And it was the election people that did not do their job and find out how to deal with it right then. The machine worked. The put the ballots aside and forgot about them.

The breaking news just in is that two previously rejected ballots have been counted, and both ballots were for Higgins.

On election night, White was declared the winner by a single vote. With these two votes now counted, Higgins is now ahead of White by a single vote. It looks like White will have the chance to see these ballots tomorrow, and he will have to decided if he should launch a formal judicial review.

I hope that White does appeal and there is a formal judicial review. White is the better candidate, and I believe that he would be the most capable on this new Council.

Country 94’s news item is below:

It’s like the weather around here - wait five minutes and it will change — well it’s a little longer than five minutes but the unofficial winner of the battle between incumbent Carl White and challenger Patty Higgins for a council seat in ward two here in the city has changed.
Returning officer Mary McAuliffe tells us while preparing for tomorrow’s preliminary review of the results with the candidates — two ballots previously rejected on election night were deemed sufficient be counted.

And as a result — White’s one vote win over Higgins Monday night has been overturned — Higgins is now the winner by one vote with a total of 2364-votes.

The candidates will view digital images of the ballots cast and can then decide whether to launch a formal challenge of the results.

The results are in for the Saint John 2008 Municipal Election!

Overall, the turnout was lower then I was expecting at 50.58%; however, 24,078 people did vote, and they did make major changes to Council.

I believe the big winners were Ivan Court and Stephen Chase. Court was elected as the new Mayor of Saint John with 8850 votes, and Stephen Chase was re-elected at large with 9926 votes.

Below is our new Council:

• Ivan Court - Mayor (8850 votes)
• Stephen Chase - Deputy Mayor (9926 votes)
• Chris Titus - Councillor ‘At-Large’ (8486 votes)
• Peter McGuire - Ward 1 Councillor (3577 votes)
• Bill Farren - Ward 1 Councillor (2763 votes)
• Gary Sullivan - Ward 2 Councillor (2764 votes)
• Carl White - Ward 2 Councillor (2363 votes)
• Patty Higgins - Ward 2 Councillor (2364 votes)
• Donnie Snook - Ward 3 Councillor (1874 votes)
• Carl Killen - Ward 3 Councillor (1550 votes)
• Bruce Court - Ward 4 Councillor (2309 votes)
• Joe Mott - Ward 4 Councillor (1987 votes)

Note that there will likely be a recount in Ward 2 because Carl White only beat Patty Higgins by 1 vote. I guess we will find out how accurate the voting machines are after all!

Update: Patty Higgins had two previously rejected ballots counted in her name.  This puts her one vote ahead of Carl White.

Find out the full results here!

Today, my latest letter to the editor was published. I find it really disappointing how much they try to attack the one candidate who stands up for the taxpayers in Saint John.

Recent attack ads are uncalled for
Telegraph-Journal

This week, I’ve had the displeasure of listening to a special interest group’s attack ad on the radio. This group does not believe that the citizens of Saint John are able to decide who to vote for on their own.

To sway voters, they have launched attack ads on the radio. The person that they attack is Councillor Stephen Chase. Unknown to many, he is the councillor who made the historic motion to reaffirm the city’s commitment to public ownership and control of its water supply.

Stephen continues to support looking at all options in service delivery and selecting the one with the best value for the taxpayers - after all, it is our money that council is spending.

Shawn Peterson
Saint John

Last night, Campaign by the Clock took place in Market Square.

The event was organized by Fusion Saint John and the Saint John Board of Trade.

We were able to attract most of the candidates, including everyone running for Mayor, who took the time to speak with the people on-on-one.

Although we didn’t get a huge crowd, a few first time voters were out meeting with the candidates, which is something that I am very happy to see. I believe that every person that we can get out and engaged early on, is likely to keep voting as they get older.

For more information, check out the Telegraph-Journal’s writeup here.

Today, Stephen Chase set the record straight on the radio attack ads targeting him personally.

“I feel like I’m a prime minister in a federal election,” Chase said Thursday, referring to the very personal nature of Federal politics.

Who is responsible?

The radio ads are being played by the “Coalition for Concerned Citizens”, the same group that tried to boycott the Santa Clause parade in the past.

Bruce Court involvement?

Bruce Court’s brochures say that he is the chairman of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, Unions & Small Business; however, he says that he stepped back from the group when the campaign started.

“It’s nothing to do with me,” Court said. “I don’t even know what the ads say.”

He said the correct person to talk to would be Linda Stoddard, who couldn’t be reached for comment.

Special Interest Groups Interference

“It’s all very interesting,” Chase said. “It’s unfortunate that special interest groups want to misrepresent my position for self-interest.”

Chase has come under attack before over his stance on the city’s water infrastructure. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has been distributing signs and pamphlets urging “no to water for profit,” while Chase says he has no intention of selling Saint John’s water.

He says he only wants council to look closely at whether the private sector can do a better, more cost-effective job running the filtration plants than the city’s union workers have.

Stephen’s Public Ownership Motion

Keep in mind, Stephen was the Councillor who made the motion to Council that reaffirms the city’s commitment to public ownership and control of the water supply. This is something that CUPE fails to mention in their disinformation campaign.

Chase wants for safe, clean drinking water

Chase says citizens want public ownership of the water itself and safe, clean drinking water - in both cases, he wants the same, he said. But if a private company can do a better job running the plants then council should consider it, he said. If the research shows that the union workers are still the best choice, Chase says he can live with that. But he says he won’t let the union management control the agenda.

As I had posted a few days ago, citizens are demanding an apology from Bruce Court for comments he made at the debate. Court compared the controversial LNG tax deal with the death of 21 people on June 21, 1977 at a Saint John jail.

Today, a daughter who lost her father in that same fire mentioned by Bruce, wrote a letter to the editor:

Candidate thanked for his apology

I am writing in reference to the letter sent in by candidate Kevin Goggan (May 5). I would say that as the daughter of someone who died in the jail fire that tragic night, I was shocked and saddened by the comments made by one particular candidate.

As I sat in the second row the night of the Ward 4 meeting I could not believe that someone could make such a comparison of the loss of life to the controversial loss of money.

I would like to say thank you for your apology and compassion for other’s feelings. I truly appreciate your understanding of the full magnitude of what Mr. Court had said.

Debra Mitchell
Saint John

Again the question is - where is Bruce Court’s apology? Why does he continue to remain silent on the issue?

There was a really great editorial in the newspaper today.

What is it so great? Simply because it reminds people as to what Bruce and Ivan Court do once they rally up their mobs.

Santa’s not voting Court
Telegraph Journal

In November, 2005, this newspaper published a commentary by Coun. Ivan Court. In it, the councillor steadfastly defended his brother, Bruce Court, and the political movement his brother headed.

Coun. Court wrote, “thank God that there are citizens like my brother who, when asked by some citizens living in the Red Head area to chair their lobby group, was willing to put his neck on the line. That original group of 10 concerned citizens today has grown to a membership of 400. This group has evolved to become the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, Unions and Small Businesses. This coalition is made up of citizens representative of all three political parties and from all walks of life. Make no doubt about it: this group has the support of thousands of citizens.”

The allegations he was defending the anti-LNG movement against? Trying to bully organizers of the city’s Santa Claus parade into changing their minds about who would wear St. Nick’s jolly red suit that year.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the movement’s support among “thousands of citizens” began to fade shortly after.

Since both Court brothers are running for public office, Ivan for mayor and Bruce for ward councillor, we thought it only fair to remind voters what some anti-LNG protestors were engaged in back in 2005. Council meetings were disrupted; councillors were subjected to harassment and vandalism; intimidation tactics were employed. Even Santa Claus was lucky to escape the wrath of the mob.

Here’s what we wrote of the movement then: “Protesting Santa epitomizes this group’s approach to the political process. Rather than working to build a stronger, more positive community, its members have tried to control local politics through disruption and intimidation. They’re bullies - and, to the extent that they duck responsibility for the actions of their members, they’re cowards, too.”

We stand by that assessment.

Coun. Court felt our words were unfair, and argued it was unreasonable to draw a link between the Courts’ public advocacy and the actions of unknown protestors.

We disagree.

As the foremost public spokesmen of the anti-LNG movement, the Court brothers had the credibility and the opportunity to urge greater restraint among residents who shared their cause. As a city councillor elected to serve the public at large, Ivan Court had an obligation to do so. Yet they did not, in any substantial or effective way.

That speaks volumes about the quality of their leadership, their respect for council as a political institution, and their commitment to serve all Saint Johners, not just those who happen to share their point of view.

I would encourage everyone to not vote for Bruce or Ivan Court.

Their campaigns are being fronted by special interest groups, they have a history of not working with people, and their policies are not in the best interests of the people - they look out for themselves and their unions only.

Today, I had the displeasure of listening to a special interest group’s attack ad on the radio.

Why attack ads?

This group not believing that the citizens of Saint John are able to decide who to vote for on their own, have stepped in to sway voters towards candidates who think the same as them - candidates who will not question the current state of city services and will not look at all options in service delivery.

They want you to vote for candidates that will keep everything as-is:

• Because you currently have access to reliable, safe, clean drinking water, right?
• Because your roads are cleared quickly during the winter, right?
• Because the further away from the city you get, the services are still the same, right?

Well, some people - gasp - disagreed with the above statements. This is where special interest group’s comes in.

After launching an extensive (and expen$ive) sign campaign and mailing requests to their members to not vote for certain candidates, they decided to launch attack ads on the radio to scare you into agreeing with those above statements.

Who do they attack?

They attack a person who has a spine, who is willing to stand up and ask if we are getting the best value for our tax dollars, who makes decisions in the open, and who believes in looking at all options before making a decision.

They attack Councillor Stephen Chase.

What can you do?

Educate yourself, find out about the issues, talk to the candidates, and make up your own mind.

No union or special interest group should be bullying (or scaring) you into voting their way, keep in mind that they are not doing this with your interests in mind, they are only concerned about losing jobs in the future.

The only person who really understands what is important to you, is you.

The choice is in your hands, and you have chance to make a difference on May 12, 2008.

Further Reading

Recent newspaper articles are doing a good job of explaining the current political situation: