Alnwick Haldimand Council Defers Decision on Updated Policy for Municipal Election

Pete Fisher
3 weeks ago
• Categories: City Hall, Local

Alnwick Haldimand Township council has deferred approval of an updated policy regarding use of municipal resources during the election.

A report from the township’s Clerk Emily Cartlidge noted the policy establishes clear rules for the use of municipal funds, property, staff time, Integrity Commissioner, facilities, communications platforms, electronic and social media, and other corporate assets during an election period.

The policy is required under the Municipal Elections Act, which mandates municipalities adopt clear rules governing resource use during election periods by May 1 in an election year.

Under the legislation, municipalities are strictly prohibited from contributing to any candidate or registered third party. Contributions can include not only money, but also goods, services, staff time, or the use of municipal property.

The updated policy outlines how township resources, including facilities, communications platforms, technology, and social media, may be used during campaigns. It also clarifies restrictions on campaign materials at municipal sites and expands definitions to reduce ambiguity.

According to the report, any use of municipal resources by a member of council for campaign purposes would be considered a contribution and therefore a violation of the Act.

The revisions also provide greater clarity around the responsibilities of the municipal clerk, who serves as the returning officer and is responsible for ensuring elections are conducted fairly and transparently.
If approved, the policy will be distributed to all candidates, included in nomination packages, and published on the township’s election website.

The approval will have to wait following a lengthy debate by council members at Tuesday’s committee-of-the-whole meeting at the Centreton Community Centre.

Councillor Mary Catherine O’Neill sought clarification that municipal facilities could still be used for election events such as meet the candidates if hosted by a third-party.

Cartlidge said one of the revisions to the policy to be consistent with some local municipalities and others in the province is to restrict any campaign-style events from municipal properties.

“That is to ensure the municipality remains 100 per cent neutral in issuing and conducting a municipal election,” Cartlidge said, noting there are other private facilities throughout the township that can be utilized including the legion, churches or corporate locations.

Cartlidge said the policy remains similar to what it was in 2022, though it previously did allow for debate and meet-the-candidate events in municipal facilities.

Councillor Greg Booth recalled a 2022 election event at the Centreton Community Centre being one of the most attended.

“In my belief, I don’t think it’s the township supporting anybody. Anybody that chooses to run for election was given a table to set up and people were free to come in and talk to them,” Booth said, noting he’s heard constituents liked the set-up. “I’d like to see that Fenella, at Roseneath, Centreton and Vernonville, that the township allowed the building here that people that are going to run for election or whatever be given the opportunity, nobody’s given any advantage over anybody else. You can speak for yourself, it was very well attended here and I’m hoping that continues. We want to get out there and we want to get people to come and be more informed who they’re looking at voting for and things like that and it sounds like now we have to go to the legion or somebody else and we’re going to pay them to use their facilities or something. I disagree.”

Deputy Mayor Joan Stover noted Booth mentioned a resident rented the facility for that 2022 event in Centreton and wondered if that would still be acceptable.

Cartlidge said no as any campaign events on municipal property, even if rented and organized by a third-party, are restricted as staff can’t ensure that all candidates are being treated equally. Any non-compliance if a complaint is made could be subject to an audit by the Joint Compliance Audit Committee and could be costly for the municipality.

O’Neill suggested there aren’t enough facilities large enough that aren’t municipally-run to host such election events. She also said she attended previous events and all candidates were treated fairly.
Councillor Mike Ainsworth said under the Municipal Act the township can rent the facilities as long as it’s fair for all. Cartlidge said normally that’s the case but the Municipal Elections Act trumps the Municipal Act when it comes to use of facilities during a campaign.

Booth said he wanted the decision to be deferred to allow time to conduct some research. He believes the township could make facilities available as he says has been done in the past.

“This has been a longstanding practice that we have provided the facilities to allow all candidates that are running – the township will know when nominations end who’s running and who’s not – to make sure that they are all invited fairly and it would be run by the township,” Booth said, suggesting residents in Roseneath wouldn’t travel to the legion in Grafton for an election event.

“We’re not going to get community support and have people come and see (candidates). We should be moving to the forefront to say we have these (facilities) open for you, all candidates are invited, you all get equal representation and a township person could be there to make sure that things are run smoothly. I think the public is going to be very teed off at us if we’re saying now that no facilities can be used for stuff like that.”

Booth agreed with O’Neill that facilities were used for the provincial and federal elections for debates.

He officially made his motion to defer, which was seconded by O’Neill.

Stover asked what further research Booth was looking for.

“I’d like to be able to research a little bit and contact some people and find out about whether or not other communities do this,” Booth said, adding there could be events where all candidates are treated fairly.

“If you choose to come, you come. If you choose not to have a table then that’s up to you.”

Stover wondered who would organize such events. Booth said “the township.”

“That’s a direct violation…” Stover said before being cut off by Booth who said “no it’s not. What (Cartlidge) said is ‘we have to make sure it’s fair and equitable.’”

He suggested candidates receive dates of four campaign events in different hamlets of the municipality.

Ainsworth said he was doing some quick research and the Act doesn’t restrict the municipality from hosting events. “So I think we do need to just dig into this a little bit more because past practice we’ve done this.”

O’Neill called for a vote, but Stover wondered if there were any further comments from the clerk.

“Quite frankly, I’m a little perplexed here by the conversation that we’re having today,” Cartlidge responded. “I hear council’s concerns about we’ve done it in the past. As you’re all very well aware, the most expensive words in business are ‘we’ve always done it this way.’

“With the ensuring that we have the township’s best interest, this corporation’s best interest, at play, making sure we’re in compliance with the Municipal Elections Act, that is why this policy is being presented as it is written,” she continued.

“To Councillor Booth’s and Councillor O’Neill’s comments about the township organizing and hosting campaign events, that would be a direct violation of the Act. Even if we were to invite everybody and a candidate is unable to attend an event, we are now providing an advantage to the other candidates who are able to attend. It would be a direct violation, it would be seen as a contribution – either direct or indirect – to a municipal campaign, which the Act is extremely clear that municipalities can not do.”

Cartlidge said she respects council’s conversation about what’s been done in the past and a want for more information, but her role as clerk is to run the local municipal election and to ensure the township maintains neutrality.

“It’s council’s prerogative if you like to defer it, however I will be very clear that the township will not be hosting or organizing any events in relation to allowing candidates to campaign,” she said. “That would be a direct violation of the Act and I am not willing to put my professional career or the corporation at risk for the sake of holding an event that we are not permitted to have and there are other organizations within this township who have a dedicated history and propensity and want to host (election events).

There are facilities in the township that are capable of holding events of this scale and size, both in the north and in the south.”

Mayor John Logel agreed it would be improper for the municipality to be involved in hosting an election event.

“I wish to clarify that at no point did I say that the township should host any event,” O’Neill said. “I still believe the space (at municipal facilities) can be used, but I agree that it needs to be a third-party (organizer).”

Booth reiterated that more time to research would be beneficial. “We’re a long time away from the election. I don’t think it has to be immediately like this,” he said.

As was also stated in the report, Cartlidge reminded that “while the election is in October, this policy must be approved per the Elections Act by May 1 so we are under a timeline for this.”

In a recorded vote requested by Booth, council voted 4-1 to defer the decision with only Stover in opposition.