Congratulations on winning an exciting election to be North Bay’s mayor heading into the city’s centennial celebration in 2025.
As Mayor Al McDonald posted on his social media feed, it was the closest mayoral battle in 30 years with only 724 votes between you and second-place Johanne Brousseau – a mere 5% difference. McDonald’s closest race in three successful mayoral campaigns was 2018 when Gary Gardiner came within 1,364 – an 8.2% spread.
Interestingly, there was chatter after that election Gardiner could have won if former deputy mayor Sheldon Forgette didn’t throw his hat in the ring. Forgette’s 1,532 votes alone could have turned the tide while there were another 297 votes given to two other candidates.
Once again there is some navel-gazing that Brousseau might have succeeded if Leslie McVeety hadn’t run this time, as she garnered 1,121 votes. But that isn’t a certainty either because I think her votes represented some residents seeking a fulsome change to the mayoral narrative. I know for a fact some people parked their vote with her because neither Brousseau nor you met their expectations. And the truth is, McVeety, as a novice politician was a genuine breath of fresh air – even if it appeared to many that her experience didn’t match the gravity of the position.
Any arguments that McVeety commanded gender-specific votes Brousseau would have gotten is countered by the reality Chirico had a great many females supporting him.
In my mind, it was the perfect result because it takes some of the gust out of your sails heading into what will be a very challenging term. You have some skills, experience and perspective that the city can use at this time. A landslide victory would have led to unproductive chaos at a time all hands need to be on deck.
And I, for one, believe the council configuration is exactly what North Bay needed – a historic balancing of genders as well as diversified experience and perspectives.
It might be rough at first, though, as the post-election comments by Mark King, re-elected to the fifth spot, proved there is little room for errors in judgment. King was commenting on how the top three candidates – Maggie Horsfield, Lana Mitchell and Justine Mallah – might be in for a rude awakening as chairs of the council committees.
King said he was "surprised at the new faces ending up in the top three positions. Those are heavy portfolios. I'm not sure those individuals have any idea what they're in for.”
It didn’t take long for that comment to be twisted into a misogynistic insult as “new faces” was taken as a slap down of women. I contend he was guilty of being “paternalistic” and two-thirds “ageist” instead, not that either view these days is much better. King would have said that if any first-time municipal candidates took the top spot, including if they were male and especially if they were young (thinking of campaign clashes with newbie Scott Robertson last election and Sheldon Forgette in 2014-18).
This is a sexist comment 👇
— Erika Lougheed (@ErikaLougheed) October 25, 2022
King observed he was "surprised at the new faces ending up in the top three positions. Those are heavy portfolios. I'm not sure those individuals have any idea what they're in for https://t.co/8t6pm8P0gg
Mitchell took him to task on the matter yesterday while I had a post-election podcast interview featuring George Maroosis at his art shop downtown. She referenced King’s comments as being against the top three women and made it clear that they are certainly capable of chairing a committee. His contention was that the city would be better served if the chairs had working knowledge about the city’s budget (for the budget chief’s role) or had a building background (for engineering and works) or political savvy to push forward the twin-pad arena project (out of the community services committee).
This narrative is akin to your campaign assertion that you’d like to choose the chairmanships to have more qualified individuals lead the portfolios.
Hogwash, was Mitchell’s summarized response to both of you or anybody with that line of thinking.
Either way, Maroosis, the longest serving councillor in city history with 30 years under his belt – including 24 consecutive – and I agree, every ounce of your best conflict management and team leadership skills are needed.
Personally, I think the first thing you should do – to demonstrate that you’re up for the job at hand – is to deal with the conflict you have with your neighbours. Most important is the situation over the Stuffles Street Road Allowance between you and the property owned by Sylvia Ross.
I think the path to success on this file involves an apology and truce agreement with Ross, as well as a pledge to have staff review the best use of the 66-foot strip of public property. She has raised some very valid points and the issue needs to be put to bed once and for all. It would prove you can rise to the occasion and deliver the open and transparent governance you have promised.
There’s been considerable backlash from your supporters about my column bringing your neighbourly relations to light, especially in the week running up to the final days to vote. Some liken it to a hit piece in retaliation for avoiding an interview or instigated by your opponents for a political edge. It was neither, although it is true, I may have approached it differently had we had a better relationship. I was indeed insulted that you had time for me when I was considering a run for council but not since – and even less after criticizing your campaign tone and highlighting important issues that needed clearing up.
As for a political hit piece, I am approached every election to do stories that reveal the downside of candidates or the people associated with them. Sometimes they have merit journalistically, but most often they do not. And while I’m sure the Brousseau camp and others may have benefitted from the column, I can assure you it grew organically after William Chalmers emailed me. And there wasn’t going to be any coverage until I knocked on Ross’s door on Oct. 16 and saw her Stuffles Street files.
In what world does a dispute over the use of a public road allowance involving a mayoral candidate and his 84-year-old neighbour not make the news during an election? I just don’t understand those who think that was “over the line” unfair to you, or irrelevant to a community leadership role.
If it was my grandmother facing off against the powers to be on a matter of principle, I’d want someone to go to the wall with her. And I find it highly hypocritical of some to pat me on the back for similar stances against their foes but think differently when the tables are turned.
To be perfectly clear, I stand firmly behind the column and beside Ross until this matter is resolved.
A mutual friend said we share a common trait that serves us as both a virtue and a curse – a thick streak of stubbornness and passion. There’s doubt much can change between us at this point, although it would be best if we found a way.
PS. I didn’t use my election PIN to vote in the North Bay election, after all, deciding the rule that allowed me non-resident voter status is a bit too loose. My lease for office space in my name counts, for all I know. I didn’t see any fine print restricting against subleases, which is what I basically have. If there isn’t, perhaps there should be?
Dave Dale is a veteran journalist and columnist who has covered the North Bay area for more than 30 years. Reader responses meant as Letters to the Editor can be sent to [email protected]. To contact the writer directly, email: [email protected] or check out his website www.smalltowntimes.ca
