Continuing on a theme that I have written about before I now would like to make a statement and then a suggestion. First the statement.

Campaign contributions and are usually given by people who want some things from candidates. Now some candidates may dispute this and say that citizens are participating in the democratic process. However no candidate should accept money from any source without questioning the motive for giving. In that light the risk for a candidate excepting money from dubious sources, as judged by the electorate, is usually the sanction of an election. Candidates are always subject to the accountability of the electorate by means of an election, in other words voters will follow through on the challenge that candidates may issue, "You can judge me at election time!".

In Cobourg we have a situation that covers all of the bases of this situation and will come to a head when amendment No. 54 is debated on October the 30th of October. Amendment No. 54 will establish, in the middle of a business Park, 10.44 acres of commercial/retail commercial shopping nodes, this is addition to the 28 acres they have already been given. The immediate beneficiary of this action will be Royal Cobourg. This company owns the 10.4 acres and has expressed a desire to see it in a retail zoning.

Now this is where the campaign contributions come in. In nineteen ninety-seven Royal Cobourg donated money to the campaigns of five sitting members of council. This has been documented and filed in the official manner and is now public knowledge. Some people seeing such a transparent situation [campaign donations declared and candidates voting on the application submitted by the donor] may question the motives of the councilors. If they disapprove of the actions of the councilors then they may choose to remove the councilors from the council at the next election by not voting for them. However in this case we have two councilors who accepted donations who are not going to submit themselves to public scrutiny in the election.

 
Now the suggestion. I believe that the only cause of action that these councilors [McCurdy and Lindsay] can take is to abstain from the vote. Not only would that display that the donor is not being favored by a favorable vote but that they (the councilors) possess a high level of ethics and an appreciation for the sensitivity of the voters.

Ben Burd