Tuesday, June 3, 2025
Home Blog

Our Values

2

A Better Burlington is Within our Grasp

The Burlington Residents’ Action Group (“BRAG”) is deeply committed to actively promoting certain policy initiatives that align with our overall goal of promoting a safe, secure and sustainable future for all residents.  To that end, we are committed to the following ideals:

Responsible Financial Management:

  • The actual tax increases in the last 3 years have been excessive, and we believe these were too high. Consequently, we are calling for the following:
    • A clear and transparent budget process that provides for line-by-line budgets that reflect where tax dollars are being spent;
    • Establishment and management of a website that accurately depicts actual spending year to date in relation to the approved budget;
    • Municipal tax increases should not exceed the rate of inflation;
    • Funding for emergencies and extraordinary expenses should be provided through the allocation of reserve monies or time-limited tax levies that expire once the problem has been corrected;
    • Elimination of vanity projects such as Love Your Neighbour, mundialization, the upcoming trip to Japan, drones and art for public buildings;
    • More stringent funding criteria for special events, social causes and not-for-profit organizations;
    • A three year hiring freeze;
    • Prioritization of the maintenance of existing physical assets over the tearing down and reconstruction of existing facilities.
  • We strongly maintain that Council should undertake more of an effort to reign in discretionary spending.

Flood Mitigation:

  • We support the development of a comprehensive flood mitigation strategy that focuses on better advance communication of impending severe climatic events, regular inspection and clearing of storm drains and creeks, upgrades to existing storm and wastewater systems, identification and opening of release catch basins in established neighbourhoods, and more direct interaction and consultation by city staff with homeowners impacted by the July 2024 flood.
  • We believe a proactive approach to flood mitigation will be more cost-effective for everyone. Existing infrastructure must be kept free of debris and improved where required.

Environmental Sustainability:

  • We maintain that there is a direct correlation between population intensification and environmental degradation.  To that end, we believe the city should reject further massive development projects such as Appleby/Fairview and 1200 King Road on the grounds that these projects present significant flooding risks and negatively impact the surrounding greenspaces.
  • We believe that positive measures to address climate change should focus on enhanced tree planting, broader use and application of permeable concrete, and widespread adoption of bioswales.
  • We believe the expenditure of public funds on environmental conferences, seminars and such is both wasteful and unnecessary. We know there is a climate emergency, and these public funds should be directed toward addressing the city’s carbon emissions and other issues under the city’s control.
  • We believe a paperless option for our tax bills and other communications from the city is long overdue.

Traffic Congestion:

  • We support better traffic light timing measures, and not just for buses. Traffic congestion has a direct impact on the quality of our lives and the climate.
  • We support the restoration of two-lane traffic in both directions on Appleby, Walkers and Guelph Lines south of New Street.
  • We believe the city should investigate bus cut-in or queue jump lanes on Fairview Street similar to what exists in Mississauga on Burnhamthorpe Road.
  • We support the restoration of two-lane traffic on Lakeshore Road west of Brant Street.  Do we want to add that the restaurant patios on Lakeshore Road should be eliminated – they already have large patios between their doors and the sidewalk, they don’t need to take a lane of roadway as well.
  • Other cities have strict rules against developers taking over lanes of roads and pedestrian sidewalks while building their condos for years. 
  • We believe that continued intensification without road widening will result in a grid-locked and unlivable city.

Development:

  • We believe that Burlington is essentially built out.  We believe that future growth in the housing inventory should be organic in nature.
  • We maintain that the city should actively promote the creation of affordable 2-and 3-bedroom properties by private developers. We believe that new developments throughout the city should be limited to eight storeys outside of the MTSA’s.  We support the move to build a variety of housing types including townhouses, bungalows, starter-sized homes, smaller duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes similar to what exists in communities such as Montreal. 
  • We believe that the creation of additional high-rise condominiums should be rejected on the grounds that this type of accommodation has significant negative impacts on nearby residents, and is also antithetical to the housing needs of new homebuyers.
  • We propose that the city should initiate a modular housing project such as the ones developed in Peterborough and the Region of Waterloo, to address the issue of homelessness.  The target should be 50 homes.
  • We believe that the city should admit that the target of 29,000 new housing starts for Burlington by 2030 is both unrealistic and unachievable. 

Stong Mayor Powers:

We believe the Strong Mayor Powers that were adopted by the Mayor in 2023 are antithetical to the principles of a fair and democratic government, as well as community engagement.  We believe this authority should be rescinded.

Community Engagement:

  • We believe that the city’s Charter of Engagement doesn’t need to be rewritten so much as it needs to be followed by council.  The current review of the engagement charter is taking an inordinate amount of time and money with three staff members working on this project for what is now two years and counting, multiple surveys, advertisements, public sessions, and continual delays.  We believe the Mayor and Councillors should proactively commit to following the principles of consultation, and to follow the Charter of Engagement going forward.
  • We believe the previous practice of semi-annual city-wide and monthly Ward Town Halls should be reinstated.
  • We do not consider having council members meet with members of the public – usually one-on-one – in food courts or other such places, to be proper engagement.  Council members should hold proper meetings in city facilities where the audience can hear all other attendees’ questions and the answers, and attendees do not feel like random customers in the mall are listening to what they have to say.  Meetings should have an agenda and an open question and answer period, and the council member should be accountable for the answers he or she provides to the group at large.
  • We believe that all engagement must include associated costs, including the cost of staff time.
  • We believe tax increases must be stated in terms of the Burlington portion of the tax bill and the overall impact on the total bill when combined with the Halton and Education. The council’s current practice of stating the “impact” is misleading and doesn’t match the actual increase that people are seeing on line 1, the municipal line, on their tax bills.

Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

It's free!

Petition on tax increases.

The city is asking for resident input for the 2025 budget without presenting an actual budget for our review.

If you go to the city engagment site and start the survey you’ll see this paragraph.

“As we plan this year’s budget, we’re facing inflation, much like our residents and local businesses. Our 2025 forecast predicts a total tax increase of 5.5%, with 1% for Halton Region services, 4.5% for Burlington services, and no change for education. The city’s tax increase is expected to slow down in the coming years as we reach a more sustainable financial position.”

The city is using this statement to pretend an 8.9%, Burlington-only, property tax increase is somehow 4.5%. When you put half the bill up by 8.9%, half of our tax bill goes to Burlington, the impact of this on the total bill is the 4.5% number the city wants us to think is their increase. The Halton increase will be in the 3% range but Halton is only 1/3 of our tax bill so using the same convoluted logic the city is saying that is a 1% increase.

The city has been talking about their tax increase in terms of the total bill since 2022 by using terms like “the impact of our increase” is 4.5%.

Here are the tax increases for the last three years.

The 8.04% proposed increase shown in the table above is the latest number from the city and is a reduction from the 8.9% staff requested in the financial “needs” and multi-year forecast document presented to our council in June of 2024.

Please consider signing this petition.

https://change.org/burlington2025

Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

It's free!

What will happen with a zero percent tax increase? “The sky will fall”.

0

Many Burlington residents are concerned with the high tax increases imposed by the current city council after the 2022 election. With the proposed 8.04% increase for 2025 taxes will have gone up 37.63% since the 2022 election. Several residents, including Lydia Thomas who delegated on this subject, say enough is enough. After a 15.59% increase in 2023 and a 10.21% increase in 2024, it is time for a 0% increase. Listen to the city manager, Hassaan Basit, explain that “we’ll get back into the sky is falling narrative”.

Based on Basit’s comments about the chicken and egg problem it sounds like our council has decided to build additional community center space to accommodate new residents moving into the city. Burlington’s housing pledge, to the province, is to build 29,000 new units by 2031. The question becomes, is it more fiscally responsible to use property taxes from the new residential units to build community centers or should our council continue to use property taxes from current residents?

Hassan Basit lives and pays property taxes in Milton.

Burlington Ward Map / Councillor Contacts

0

Use this map to find your councillor based on where you live. All councillors represent all residents. If your councillor is too busy to talk to you contact another one.

If you have a question or issue with a City service, please contact Service Burlington at city@burlington.ca or 905-335-7777 for assistance.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

Tel: 905-335-7777
mayor@burlington.ca


Ward 1Councillor Kelvin Galbraith
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7587
kelvin.galbraith@burlington.ca

Councillor’s Assistant
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7863
ward1@burlington.ca


Ward 2Councillor Lisa Kearns
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7588
lisa.kearns@burlington.ca

Councillor’s Assistant
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7368
ward2@burlington.ca


Ward 3Councillor Rory Nisan
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7459
rory.nisan@burlington.ca

Councillor’s Assistant
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7565
ward3@burlington.ca


Ward 4 – Councillor Shawna Stolte
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7531
shawna.stolte@burlington.ca

Councillor’s Assistant
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7512
ward4@burlington.ca


Ward 5 – Councillor Paul Sharman
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7591
paul.sharman@burlington.ca

Councillor’s Assistant
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7454
ward5@burlington.ca


Ward 6 – Councillor Angelo Bentivegna
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7592
angelo.bentivegna@burlington.ca

Councillor’s Assistant
Tel: 905-335-7777, ext. 7480
ward6@burlington.ca

Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

It's free!

BRAG Wind Down

0

May 29, 2025


We at BRAG are writing to announce to you, our valued supporters, that it has been decided that
BRAG will be winding down our operations. Our BRAG website will shut down on June 6, 2025.
We have accomplished a lot in just over one year, and our dedication to holding elected officials
to account; informing the public of what is happening at city hall; demanding true citizen
engagement; speaking out for transparency, fiscal prudence and democratic principles, has not
wavered. Some of us think that there may be other ways in which we can effect change, some
want to take a breather from city politics, particularly in light of what is happening in the larger
world around us in these unprecedented and worrying times.
The next municipal election is in late October 2026 – which means the campaigning begins in
less than one year. We believe that Burlington needs new faces around the council table and we
each will continue to work towards advocating for change, in whatever ways we are able.
We would like to thank each and every one of you for supporting BRAG. We had a large number
of residents working hard behind the scenes with us: providing advice, doing research, studying
those massive budget documents line by line, watching council meetings, and helping to spread
awareness to other residents. We wish you all the best, and I’m sure our paths will cross again
as we continue to work towards better things for Burlington as we approach the election, despite
feeling the same election fatigue as you probably do!


Contributed by Lynn Crosby and Caren Burcher

“Don’t run between parked cars”

0

On-street parking

Remember the visits from the safety officer in grade school? Lesson one: Don’t run between parked cars.

Burlington’s five-hour on-street parking limit has kept our streets largely clear of parked cars for a long time. Residents can request an exemption for up to 15 days a year quickly and easily at this city website: https://bylaw.burlington.ca/permits/?cmd=new_non_auth

What’s changed?

We all know housing is expensive; sometimes, two or three incomes are required to purchase a home. Today, homes are occupied by two or more couples, multigenerational families, or a homeowner and tenant(s). Another significant change is the city allowing condo towers to be built with only one parking spot per unit.

What are the implications of more on-street parking?

The European Transit Research Review published this article in May of 2024.

https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-023-00628-8#:~:text=Aside%20from%20the%20impact%20on,the%20United%20States%20%5B33%5D

While the study’s focus is on autonomous vehicles, its findings related to on-street parking are interesting. The study created a computer model of the city to test different traffic conditions.

The model showed:

“replacing on-street parking with driving lanes, cycle lanes, and public spaces can lead to better traffic performance. Specifically, there could be a 27–30% reduction in travel time, a 43–47% reduction in delays, more than 90% in emission reduction, and a 94% reduction in traffic crashes compared to the other tested measures.”

Burlington’s traffic is tough enough already; do we need to make it worse with more on-street parking?

Other studies referenced in the article show:

“Vehicles searching for an empty parking space may significantly lead to cruising and frequent stops, which increases CO2 emissions.”

Burlington is updating its climate action plan, funding Burlington Green, and funding the Bay Area Climate Council. Where does council stand on emissions?

What are the safety implications?

“Aside from the impact on mobility and environment, on-street parking affects safety. Firstly, it creates hazards and increases risks for vulnerable road users [646]. The presence of parked vehicles on the road can contribute to heightened uncertainty, mental strain, and potential hazards, as they may obstruct the view of the road and make it more challenging to spot pedestrians who are crossing [17]. Several studies have suggested a strong correlation between child injuries on urban roads and on-street parking, as parked cars can decrease their visibility and limit their ability to discern an approaching vehicle [616384849]. The Department of Transport in Great Britain [15] issued a report that highlights the relationship between on-street parking and car-pedestrian injury accidents, with on-street parking contributing to 13–17% of such incidents. Additionally, statistics have been released showing that between 1990 and 2021, back-over incidents resulting from vehicles reversing out of parking spots led to the deaths of 1,502 children aged 14 and under in the United States [33].”

Bike lanes, bike lanes, bike lanes.

We don’t hear much about dooring in Burlington. Dooring is where a person, usually someone who just parked their car on the street, opens their car door into the path of an oncoming cyclist.

Not surprisingly, Toronto, with lots of on-street parking, has a dooring problem.

“Motor vehicle crash reports exclude crashes between bicyclists and parked cars by definition. Thus the full extent of the dooring problem is not known. The studies that do include door-opening incidents reveal that they are one of the most common causes of urban bicycle-motor vehicle collisions, accounting for 12%–27% of the total.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457518303981

While council spends millions on bike lanes, will on-street parking encourage more of us to ride bikes?

Vision Zero?

Burlington’s 2025 budget states, “Burlington’s commitment to be a vision zero City that strives to create streets for all users and eliminate fatalities and serious injuries.”

Are there solutions to this problem?

Recognizing that Burlington does not have a subway system and that public transit is not a solution for everyone might be a good place to start. Allowing condos to be built without adequate parking has impacted businesses in the downtown core; soon, every resident will be asked to pay for another multi-level parking garage to create more parking downtown.

Encouraging residents with available parking spots to monetize those spots using the SpotHero app will help.

https://spothero.com

If on-street parking is the only solution, a “Reserved Dwelling Parking Program” is another alternative. One on-street parking spot per home, reserved for a car associated with the home. No driving around looking for a spot, no shovelling out your spot in the morning only to find someone parked there when you get home.

“In accordance with the City of Lowell Code of Ordinance Section 266-85, each house with frontage on a street or public way may have one parking space reserved on that street or public way for the residents of the house.”

https://www.lowellma.gov/460/Reserved-Dwelling-Parking-Program


Our council talks about Vision Zero, increased bicycle usage, and lowering emissions. Is allowing more on-street parking in direct conflict with these goals?

Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

It's free!

Please don’t turn our neighborhood streets into parking for congested and poorly planned developments.

0

Submission by Residents of Havendale Blvd., Belgrave Crt., and Winchester Blvd.
to
The Committee of the Whole
Regarding PWS-10-25 Citywide On-Street Residential Parking Permits
City of Burlington
Dated February 28, 2025

    Respectfully submitted to the Members of the Committee of the Whole.

    Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on such short notice on an issue of vital concern to our neighbourhood. We became aware of the imminent submission and review of the Staff Report regarding On-Street Parking on Tuesday of this week, via an email one of us received from “Get Involved Burlington”. We are grateful that we did!

    Introduction
    We are currently a group of 20 engaged neighbours sharing a concern for protecting our “established residential neighbourhood”, an important element as specified in Burlington’s Official Plan. Previously, many of us were active on Vision 2100 Brant Neighbourhood Association (formerly The Havendale Advisory Committee) that addressed the National Homes 2100 Brant Street development. We are now actively engaging on the parking permit issue with others in our local neighbourhood, and will continue our outreach efforts in the coming two and a half weeks leading up to the Council meeting.

    One of the major concerns previously voiced by Vision 2100 Brant was inadequate parking for residents in the new development, based on driveway length, single car garages, and compressed frontages that almost eliminated the possibility of any on-street parking in that neighbourhood. We expressed the view during our extensive discussions, presentations and other interventions, that the inevitable need for additional parking would result in on-street parking in the adjoining neighbourhood, particularly on Havendale, Belgrave, and Fairchild. We were opposed to additional on-street parking primarily for reasons of traffic and pedestrian safety, and received assurances from Council that overnight parking on these streets would not be permitted, and on-street parking would remain as a 5-hour limit.

    We are concerned that the City may be looking to correct an issue that could have been avoided in the first place. These concerns that we are presenting are not new, and deserve to be taken seriously.

    As communicated in an email by City staff, “If the concern is that adjacent streets would absorb overflow parking demands from nearby condo subdivisions, that is not the general intent of this program.” Our deep concern is that the reduction in parking standards in the 2100 Brant development may be leading to an unacceptable outcome that will have direct , negative impacts on our existing neighbourhood. “Intent” is not equal to impact. Fixing the parking problem in new, high-density developments by changing the character of established residential neighbourhoods is not the solution.


    Our Questions, Issues and Concerns with this Proposal


    Following are some of the key questions, issues and concerns identified by us relating to the impact on our neighbourhood.


    1. Will the permits that are issued apply only to the applicant’s own street, or will they also be applicable to streets within a specified distance from the applicant’s residence? If so, what distance? How might this impact Havendale, Belgrave, Fairchild, etc.?
    2. Our understanding from Staff is that Havendale and Belgrave will qualify for permit parking on one side of the street only. Therefore:
      • Which side of the street will be used for permit parking? Will it be alternating sides(i.e., 1st-15th of the month on one side, 16th-31st of the month on the other)?
      • Will all streets be fully signed to indicate which side is allowable, and indicate all relevant parking restrictions in force? For example, curves and inclines where no parking is permitted, safe distance from intersections, crosswalks, etc.
      • Will short-term parking still be allowed on both sides of the street, or will all parking be restricted to one side only? It should be noted that in our neighbourhood, we have all experienced dangerous situations where even a single passenger vehicle is seriously challenged to safely pass around blind spots on curving (and even straight)roads due to on-street parking occurring on both sides of the roadway.
    3. Will there be a restriction on the total number of permits allowed within a defined area? Our concern here, obviously, is that our local streets may be flooded with vehicles not belonging to residents on the streets hosting the on-street parking.
    4. The four-way stop at Havendale/ Belgrave/ Almonte is now a busy intersection for a residential area, especially at certain times of the day. There are many pedestrians, including school children, as well as school bus stops. Within the past several months, when excessive on-street parking (in particular, overflow from the new subdivision) has occurred on Havendale and Belgrave, the intersection has been hazardous for vehicles and pedestrians. Residential driveways close to the intersection on Belgrave and Havendale have suffered from greatly impeded visibility, endangering drivers and walkers alike. How can this situation be remediated by the City? Our position is that there should be an increase in the legally-acceptable distance from this intersection to park on-street.
    5. Recent snowbanks encroaching on our streets have reduced the road-widths by over two metres (approximately one metre on each side). We have profound concerns about the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians when you add day and night on-street parking to this reduction.
    6. Waste collection days, and planned and unplanned utility and road work, will compound the impact of on-street parking on the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians.
    7. The need for additional 24-hour parking enforcement does not appear to have been factored into the concept or cost of the expansion of on-street parking. We do not consider it acceptable for parking enforcement to rely solely on complaints from residents.
    8. What are the potential parking implications of Almonte being designated as an “Unassumed Road”, as currently posted?
    9. One suggestion we have heard, would be to address the parking deficit in the 2100 Brant development by using all or part of the designated park space within that development for overflow parking. Perhaps not ideal, but it could potentially be designed and constructed in a creative manner to fulfill the needs for both parking and “open” space in this intensively-developed subdivision.

    Summary

    Burlington has so much to offer as a community, which is why all of us chose this as our home. We understand the on-street parking issue for Burlington is complex. However, we strongly believe that we, as a neighborhood with deep roots, have a right to be heard and a right to a meaningful response to our questions and concerns.

    We hope that our submission today will contribute to a refined and more defined version of an on-street parking solution for our city. Please don’t turn our neighborhood streets into parking for congested and poorly planned developments.

    Thank you for your attention and consideration.

    Contact on behalf of residents:

    Catherine Hunt

    BRAG about Burlington Newsletter #4

    We at BRAG have been a little slow in getting our first 2025 newsletter to you – we’ve decided to blame the snow, but our excuse is now melting rapidly 😉. We hope you all managed to dig yourselves out, and we note that there are only 13 days until Spring – so let us find some comfort in that!

    BRAG and Our Website

    We at BRAG recently discussed our core values, an important reminder for us to stay focused on them and not get too sidetracked by the minutiae coming out from City Hall. 

    Our values:

    •   To promote greater awareness and understanding amongst residents on local and regional issues that impact residents.

    •   To actively lobby politicians and civic officials on behalf of residents and to ensure the interests of residents always remain of paramount concern.

    •   To advocate for measures to enhance and protect Burlington’s unique history, culture, and character.

    •   To support the election of local and regional representatives who support the aims and objectives of our association.

    We are always adding to and updating our website, so be sure to visit regularly (www.gobrag.ca).  We recently made a couple of minor tweaks — please suggest that friends and neighbours sign up for our newsletters — membership is always free, and you can unsubscribe at any time.  Click the “Newsletter” button at the top left corner.  We also added some more details to our “HELP BRAG” button in the top right corner in response to those who have asked, “How can I help?”

    BRAG is grateful for all the help we receive from the community.  We have been fortunate to receive valuable assistance from residents on particular areas in which they have an interest and/or expertise, such as the budget.  Help can mean as little as offering a suggestion or as much as joining or leading a subcommittee on a topic of interest, joining our board, or anything in between.  The help can be one-time or ongoing.  All feedback is important and valued.

    •   Write an article for our website.

    •   Make a financial contribution.

    •   Research.

    •   Investigate a policy issue.

    •   Serve on a committee.

    Or simply send us a comment or suggestion, or ask us a question.  Everyone can help.  Please use the “CONTACT US” option at the top of our website to let us know that you are interested.

    Tax Bills

    By now everyone should have received their February tax bill.  You may have noticed that the City has spent time and obviously resources on changing the look of our bills.  One would have hoped that this would have resulted in making the tax bills MORE transparent and clear.  One would, however, be disappointed.  In our view, the bills are in fact considerably less transparent, certainly unnecessarily confusing, and we would argue that this aligns with the entire budget process in this regard.  It is also our belief that COB is not complying with the requirements of the Municipal Act with respect to how information must be presented on tax bills.  Please read Eric Stern’s article on this here https://gobrag.ca/?p=1615.  We will be raising this issue with council and staff.

    File this under “Who knew?”  You can look up your tax bill, or anyone else’s, online on the city’s website.  BRAG has created a link and step-by-step instructions here:  https://gobrag.ca/?p=1688 Thanks to the person on NextDoor who discovered this.

    Staff Directory

    Anyone who has tried to find the name and contact information of a City of Burlington staff member using the City’s much-touted “new” website or through contacting Service Burlington has surely wondered why it is so difficult to simply locate the appropriate staff members on the website and contact them directly.  Names, positions and direct contact information should be readily available.  Other municipalities, including Ontario’s largest, Toronto, and the Province of Ontario itself, have easy-to-use, transparent staff directories on their websites and have had them for decades. 

    In an article on the topic of the need for such transparency to the public, Blair Smith notes, in part:   “BRAG believes that a readily accessible staff and organizational directory is fundamental to promoting the transparency and accountability of the current City administration and staff.   Accordingly, a request was sent to Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Commissioner of Community Services Division, to post on the city website for public use, the staff directory and contact reference material used by Service Burlington.  Additionally, BRAG has requested a copy with regular updates to put on its own website for reference by Burlington citizens.” 

    Since that initial request was sent on February 25, there has been what we can only call a dismissive response from the city full of non-answers and misleading claims in each of the back-and-forth emails.  In COB’s increasingly common practice, the questions asked of them were not answered, and when this was pointed out in a polite follow-up email, their reply came, not from a named individual, but by the ubiquitous “Communications Mailbox” (the irony seemingly lost), and ended with:  “we consider this matter closed.”

    Alas, it is not closed for us, and we have said so.  If you’d like to read the ongoing back-and-forth, we are posting the email chain on our site https://gobrag.ca/?p=1695

    BRAG is also writing to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier, praising their own publicly accessible staff directory and requesting that they “consider making readily accessible staff and organizational directories a mandatory component of municipal government.”  We believe that this should be a province-wide initiative, thus eliminating the current practice where some municipalities provide transparency to their residents and others do not.

    Deflect, Obfuscate, Rinse, Repeat

    Speaking of transparency, Blair Smith, tongue firmly in cheek, sent an official request to the mayor’s office asking for a debate.  Alas, the request was rejected, but the mayor’s staff did agree to forward his ten questions to the mayor for a response in writing, which he received.  Read the questions and see the replies here https://gobrag.ca/?p=1539 — in the words of one commenter, “this is kind of a primer on How Not To Answer Questions.”  We wholeheartedly agree.  We look forward to responding with our thoughts.

    Stephen White, writing on this, said, in part, “Truth be told, the city really isn’t interested in this form of engagement.  In fact, they aren’t really interested in listening to citizens, entertaining new ideas, or critically examining and implementing new business processes.  The city is interested in what many of us might cynically describe as a “tick the box” exercise.  The aim isn’t to critically consider Blair’s response, or any other citizen’s input for that matter.  The aim is to get a response back in 72 hours, and close the file.  Case closed.  Performance metric successfully achieved.  Tick the box.  Done.”  Read his full article here https://gobrag.ca/?p=1677.

    Upcoming Steps for BRAG

    We continue to watch our current council and try to keep up with the goings on at COB, attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff.  We even have BRAG members who regularly watch the council meetings – brave souls, indeed.

    On our radar as Spring approaches:  the increasing traffic gridlock; our first ever BRAG Open House; preparation of a BRAG policy platform; 2026 municipal election candidate search.  Stay tuned!  As always, thanks for reading.

    The BRAG Team

    Buying Canadian Should be more than Optics

    Staying in your Lane

    Over the course of the last few years we’ve seen politicians of all political stripes, and at all levels, meddling in things that aren’t within their legislative jurisdiction.

    Initially, we had Ontario Premier Doug Ford intervening in municipal government.  First, it was his endorsement and support for Strong Mayor Powers legislation.  Then there was Bill 23 which, ostensibly, was designed to support the creation of housing throughout the province, but ran roughshod over local municipalities right to control developments within their areas, and which seriously threatened the green belt and conservation areas. Most recently, there was Bill 212 that now mandates municipalities to obtain approval from the provincial government to install new bike lanes when it entails the removal of a lane of traffic.  At the local level, we had a pilot project where the City of Burlington Council was offering $10,000 interest free loans to homeowners to install air source heat pumps, a program which duplicates federal and provincial initiatives intended for essentially the same purpose.

    https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/interest-free-loans-now-available-for-air-source-heat-pumps-in-burlington.aspx

    Governments everywhere now seem incapable of attending to matters that are within their mandate and purview.  They keep meddling in things that aren’t part of their primary role.

    So it was hardly surprising this week when I learned of our mayor’s latest plan to join a delegation to Washington to lobby U.S. Senate and Congressional leaders against the tariffs on Canadian goods recently proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

    https://www.burlingtontoday.com/local-news/mayor-meed-ward-headed-to-dc-to-discuss-tariffs-with-us-counterparts-10320786

    Another Exercise in Futility

    Leading up to and following Trump’s January 20th inauguration, federal and provincial politicians from across Canada were making frequent treks to Washington aimed at dissuading the incoming Republican administration from imposing tariffs on Canadian goods.  First it was just the Prime Minister and Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc.  Then it was Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly.  They were later joined by the Minister of Resource Development, John Wilkinson, and then the ten provincial premiers.  All of this was to no avail as Trump imposed the tariffs as threatened anyway.

    So, given that the federal and provincial governments were spectacularly unsuccessful in their efforts to influence American public policy, what makes our mayor, or in fact, any mayor or civic official for that matter, believe they will have greater success?  Moreover, why would any senior Trump cabinet official even bother meeting with a delegation of mayors now that the tariffs have been enacted?  What’s the point?  Furthermore, isn’t it hypocritical for mayors to be travelling to the U.S., staying in American hotels, dining in American restaurants, and spending time outside the country at a time when the public is being encouraged to buy Canadian?

    My cynical nature might lead me to infer that perhaps this is an opportune time to get out of Canada and experience a change of scenery.  After all, Washington is a fascinating city, and they probably have less snow than here in Ontario.  Also, the U.S. National Park Service advises that the cherry blossoms, which are a feature attraction for many tourists, are now in bud, and are expected to peak between March 28th and 31st.  Nothing like a good floral show to rejuvenate the spirit!

    Still, I’m reminded of the sage words of Albert Einstein who once said “The definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”.

    A Serious Lack of Imagination

    At about the same time the Mayor announced she is off to Washington the city also announced, with great fanfare, a new webpage called “Buy Canadian”.

    https://www.burlington.ca/en/business-in-burlington/buy-canadian.aspx

    If you haven’t seen it this is a lovely little site replete with nice pictures and hyperlinks to various federal government agencies such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Office of Consumer Affairs.  There’s a laundry list of things consumers can look for in order to buy Canadian made products.  At the bottom of the page there are logos for all the different business organizations in Burlington such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Burlington Economic Development and Tourism Office, and Aldershot BIA.  And, of course, there are the usual press releases from the City of Burlington, including one intended to raise patriotic fervour entitled “Standing Up for Canadian Businesses and Burlington’s Future”.

    But here’s the critical point:  all of this, in its entirety, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.  Sadly, this is nothing more than virtue signalling at its finest.  Most of the references contained on these pages is information citizens already know or have surmised.  It is, sadly, all just fluff and optics, and a gigantic public relations exercise, and there are lots of those at city hall these days.

    Let’s at Least Try to be Helpful

    If the city wanted to be really impactful, why not include hyperlinks to websites that list Canadian made products for purchase?  One such site is Made in Canada.ca (www.madeinca.ca).  Or, why not provide a list of phone apps to download that help consumers identify products with substantive Canadian content (e.g. Maple Scan; Shop Canadian; Buy Beaver)?  Similarly, why not go one step further and list companies based in Burlington that manufacture or sell predominantly Canadian products made locally (e.g. Backed by Bees; Walkers’ Chocolates; etc.).

    On Saturday March 1st, the National Post ran a fascinating article profiling a number of Canadian companies manufacturing and competing in industry sectors traditionally dominated by larger American or international conglomerates.

    https://nationalpost.com/longreads/made-in-canada-american-tariffs

    One of the companies profiled in this article is the Barrington Griffiths Watch Company based in Calgary. I had never heard of this firm, so I went online to check them out. Then I did some more research on how many watch Canadian watch manufacturing exist. Turns out, quite a lot:

    https://www.glory.media/7-must-have-canadian-watch-brands

    https://whitbywatchco.com/?srsltid=AfmBOorKAoesyRMRb_jRKZSFNSk8Lw5zA45NiX1FmwMroIfkSAm2dn6M

    https://www.redwoodwatches.com/?srsltid=AfmBOoon77_IK72bgUWwx5sYNNhTkzNqsHqqIaVl-wZ8UShximzI4VaN

    While some of these products are niche luxury products that cater to an elite clientele, this doesn’t describe all of them.  However, like most smaller firms struggling to compete and survive in an established marketplace, it is hard to gain traction and recognition even if they are Canadian. For consumers wanting a watch their usual purchasing strategy may entail buying from a retail or jewellery store where their options are usually Seiko, Casio, Cardinal, Timex or, for those lucky enough to afford it, a Rolex.  However, consumers today are accustomed to purchasing online. Why not promote the availability of Canadian watches with product purchase options?  Moreover, why not make local retailers aware of the existence of Canadian products, and encourage them to perhaps stock them for consumers?  After all, isn’t that what “Buying Canadian” is all about?

    Something Other than Fluff

    If there is one good thing that has come out of the Trump tariffs, it is a renewed sense of Canadian nationalism, coupled with the sad realization that our largest and most influential trading partner no longer “has our back”.  Buying Canadian needs to evolve into a pragmatic, sensible and positive measure that can help maintain our local economy while lessening the punitive impact of these tariffs. 

    So, rather than a glorified public relations junket to Washington, maybe the city should redeploy some of their existing staff to do the necessary research to actually provide helpful and relevant information so local consumers can make meaningful purchasing decisions.  That way, “Buying Canadian” might actually translate into something more than just a website, a slogan, or heaven forbid, another really unnecessary trip.

    Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

    It's free!

    The City Knows Best

    Introduction

    I recently had an opportunity to review the letter that my BRAG colleague, Blair Smith, sent to the City of Burlington’s Commissioner of Community Services Division, Jacqueline Johnson, regarding a proposed City Directory.  Blair’s letter contained a unique and interesting idea on how the city could improve service delivery by posting a detailed listing of city employees and their contact information alongside a summary of what projects or undertakings for which they were responsible. This original idea, patterned on similar directories that exist within the province of Ontario and the City of Toronto, would dramatically improve access to civic officials while reducing the delay in securing information.  No sooner than Blair sent his communication, then back came a cursory reply in two days essentially telling him the city already had such a service in place.

    Well, actually, it didn’t.  Truth is, it has a directory which is hard to access, and which contains limited information.  What Blair envisaged, and what the city has, are light years apart.

    What is also light years apart is the city’s understanding of the term “citizen engagement”.  The way I understand it, ordinary citizens should be able to propose ideas to civic officials with the expectation that they would be carefully reviewed, researched and evaluated according to their feasibility and merits.  However, what typically drives the city’s response is how quickly it can get an answer back saying “thanks but no thanks”, minus the full and thorough consideration.

    “Father Knows Best”

    Every time a city official provides feedback to a citizen on an idea or proposal it reminds me of that old television show “Father Knows Best”.  For those too young to remember, this show ran in the 1950’s and profiled a typical middle class American family living in a town called Springfield.  The show starred Robert Young in the role of Jim Anderson, the husband and father, Jane Wyatt as his wife Margaret, and their three children (i.e. Betty, Bud and Kathy) played by Elinor Donahue, Billy Gray and Lauren Chapin respectively.  The show ran from 1954 to 1960.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Knows_Best

    This hugely popular television series was purportedly the embodiment of the quintessential American family, complete with all its ups and downs, trials and tribulations, and everything in between.  Each week, viewers tuned in and were treated to the challenges and adventures that the Andersons underwent.  However, the guiding premise throughout the show was that no matter the challenge, problem or uncertainty, Jim (i.e. Robert Young) had it all under control.  Under his tutelage and wisdom, the family steered confidently through each problem or near-disaster without missing a beat.  Anytime one of the kids veered off the straight and narrow, Jim was there to lead them in the right course.

    For instance, if Bud ever challenged his father about why his allowance wasn’t more, or balked at taking out the garbage, or expressed dismay at not being able to borrow the family car, Jim Anderson was there to offer a controlled and disciplined rebuke to gently put him in his place.  Jim Anderson was the archetype of the loving father.  Robert Young played his role well.  Not surprisingly perhaps he later got tapped to play Marcus Welby, M.D., in the television show with the same name, another wise guiding and controlling authority figure.

    The 1950’s was the height of the Cold War.  It was the era of mass conformity, unquestioned allegiance to country, and the McCarthy witch-hunts, and there was a pervasive fear that subversives, criminals, or Communists, were around every corner. One had to be vigilant and constantly on guard.

    Shows like “Father Knows Best” gave comfort to people who feared uncertainty, and provided a reassurance that everything would be just fine.  All one had to do was trust in Jim Anderson (aka Robert Young), and all would be well.

    The City as the Embodiment of all Knowledge, Wisdom and Virtue

    The City of Burlington is a lot like Jim Anderson.  Every time a recalcitrant citizen asks a probing question, or makes a suggestion, or challenges the status quo, the firm, guiding hand of the grey eminence emerges to quietly, but resolutely, put that person in their place.  Authority shouldn’t be questioned.  The role of the average citizen is to pay taxes and quietly obey.  Don’t make noise.  Don’t make waves.  Be polite and respectful, and defer to authority at all times. Don’t go to budget consultation meetings and ask challenging questions like why Service Burlington doesn’t work very well, or why the City needs a budget increase three times the inflation rate, or why citizens are paying for a litany of silly, wasteful projects from Love Your Neighbour through to unnecessary cultural programs. 

    Those of us who participated in last year’s budget consultation exercise routinely saw this on display.  No matter what the question, the comment or the proposal, the city always had an answer for everyone which usually ranged from “That won’t work” to “It’s too expensive” to “We’ll think about it”.   How many of Eric Stern’s 35 proposals that were submitted on behalf of BRAG resulted in an intensive analysis or investigation? Answer:  none.

    And Back Again

    This brings us full circle to Blair Smith’s City Directory proposal and his original ask.  If I really believed the city took his suggestion seriously, here’s what I would have naturally expected:

    1. A telephone call to Blair to gather more details, or an e-mail invitation to schedule a meeting or Zoom call.
    2. Contact with the Ontario government or the City of Toronto to see how, in fact, their directories work, what information is contained in it, how it is set up, and how it is managed.
    3. A feasibility study to evaluate the relative benefits and costs of doing this.
    4. An evaluation by a sub-committee of whether or how this could be done.
    5. A response back to Blair within a four-to-six-week timeframe.

    However, truth be told, the city really isn’t interested in this form of engagement.  In fact, they aren’t really interested in listening to citizens, or entertaining new ideas, or critically examining and implementing new business processes.  The city is interested in what many of us might cynically describe as a “tick the box” exercise.  The aim isn’t to critically consider Blair’s response, or any other citizen’s input for that matter.  The aim is to get a response back in 72 hours, and close the file.  Case closed.  Performance metric successfully achieved.  Tick the box.  Done.

    Just Eat the Food, and to Hell with the Feedback

    Every year the city hosts an event called “Food for Feedback” at Central Park.  Ostensibly, this event provides residents with an opportunity to partake in a meal in exchange for providing feedback to the mayor, city councillors, and various civic officials in attendance, on a range of community activities and topics.  According to the website “Feedback collected at the event will help the City continue to improve services and initiatives.”

    https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/festivals-and-events/food-for-feedback.aspx

    I doubt that most of the suggestions that are generated through this forum would equate in the level of thought or detail that Blair provided in his proposal.  If Blair’s proposal barely elicits a cursory response what would make any citizen believe the city takes seriously suggestions that are proffered with lesser substance?

    After all:  The City, like Father, knows best!

    Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

    It's free!

    Our Quest Will Continue – An Update

    On February 25th BRAG sent the following email request to Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Commissioner of the City of Burlington’s Community Services Division.

    Ms. Jacqueline Johnson

    Commissioner,

    Community Services Division

    Tuesday, February 25, 2025

    Ms. Johnson:

    I represent a Burlington citizens’ organization, the Burlington Residents’ Action Group (BRAG), and one of our particular areas of interest is the implementation of ‘open government’ measures and products to increase both the transparency and ease of citizen contact with municipal administrations. We witnessed, through at least two Burlington Strong Mayor budget exercises and multiple citizen delegations, including several by BRAG, that there is a need for a better view to municipal government operations and a popular desire for greater accountability. As such, we would appreciate your proactive posting on the City’s website of a COB staff directory, identifying program personnel and their contact information (email and telephone extensions at minimum). This ‘open government’ information utility has been in use at the provincial level for more than twenty five years (InfoGo) and a very serviceable municipal version is present on the City of Toronto’s website.

    We believe the City of Burlington must have a version of a Staff Directory to guide the connection efforts of the clerks in the ServiceBurlington organization. An online version of this tool would be very valuable as an initial offering on the COB website. Posting of this information does not violate any privacy or personal information provision under the MFIPPA and since the product already exists and must have regular updates, there should be minimal effort required in creating an online presence.

    BRAG would also appreciate receiving a copy of the staff listing to post as an information product on its own website. Ideally, as the City updates its directory, a copy could be provided to BRAG as well. Alternatively, a monthly update could be arranged. We would like to post the directory on our website by April 11th and look forward to advising our membership in our March newsletter.

    Thank you for your time and effort in consideration and hopefully fulfillment of our request.

    Yours respectfully,

       … K. Blair Smith

    Since that initial email, a flurry of exchanges has occurred. Yesterday (March 5th), BRAG received a response to its latest reply (March 4th) to Ms. Johnson’s answer (March 3rd ) to BRAG’s follow-up (Feb. 28th ) to Ms. Johnson’s opening response (Feb. 27th) to our initial request of February 25th. Apologies if you are getting dizzy. In future, and there shall be one, we may provide a flowchart.

    The March 5th email was from the well-known, ubiquitous functionary, City of Burlington Communications. Many Burlington residents have dealt with this “staff member”, usually with little productive result. Understandably. It is quite difficult to have an engaged discussion with “Mailbox, Communications”.

    The email read:

    March 5, 2025

    Hello K. Blair.

    Thank you for reaching out for further clarification. As noted in Commissioner Johnson’s earlier reply, the City has a centralized customer service model to ensure the most efficient and effective service possible for Burlington residents contacting the City. Centralized customer service response systems are common throughout Halton Region, Peel Region and many municipalities across the province.

    For Burlington residents, this means a single point of contact through Service Burlington. The department contact information is online, as we have noted previously.

    If the City’s approach to customer service changes, the public will be informed through our standard communication channels.

    We believe we have answered your questions and have no further information to provide at this time. Given this, we now consider this matter closed.

    Best regards,

    City of Burlington Communications

    A reply was immediately sent:

    March 5, 2025

    I am responding to the reply sent by “Mailbox, Communications” and received today, March 5th, at 9:00 am.

    I believe that you (Ms. Johnson and the City of Burlington) have rejected the offer to work with BRAG to create a more fulsome access utility for the citizens of Burlington.

    I believe that the rationale that you provide for not posting online an existing directory and program organization guide, or allowing BRAG to do so, does not address the open government access benefits that we identified. Moreover, the alternative that you have offered (i.e. the department directory) is qualitatively and functionally different from what we have proposed and, we believe, insufficient to enabling a better-informed public.

    I believe that an unsigned reply from a faceless organizational unit (i.e. the “City of Burlington Communications”) simply proves our original premise that true accountability can only be achieved through organizational transparency. The City’s organization remains largely opaque and hidden. I do not consider “Mailbox, Communications” to be an identifiable or accountable individual. In my view, the reply is dismissive and fundamentally disrespectful.

    Finally, since you have not provided the information requested nor answered the questions posed, we do not consider this matter to be closed.

       … K. Blair Smith

    It is unfortunate that the City of Burlington has chosen to be seen “as through a glass darkly” (paraphrase of 1 Corinthians) rather than accept a more open, transparent and accountable relationship with its citizens. It had an opportunity to become a leader in open government reform; a position that could only be of benefit to all involved. Not only would the residents of Burlington become more familiar with the services and service providers on whom they depend, the city would have deeper insight into those it serves. Indeed, as Corinthians continues, “but then shall I know even as also I am known”.

    The efficacy of centralized client and service contact, such as that referenced in the city’s response, has been challenged for some time. Current wisdom, born of field practice and operational experience, is that organizations have a more acute and detailed understanding of service needs and trends when there is direct contact between program/service areas and the client. A centralized customer communications structure is like the receptionist in a doctor’s office when you are trying to explain why you need attention.

    BRAG is committed to the adoption of serviceable, realistic and practical open government reforms at the municipal level. As such, the City of Burlington’s position on the staff and organizational program directory, a record that already exists, is unfortunate but, given the history of the current administration, not unexpected. And there are many options that we will now pursue. The matter is by no means closed.


    Addendum:

    In the interests of keeping the integrity of the record of communications between BRAG and the city, Ms. Johnson’s prior reply and our response follow:

    Johnson, Jacqueline

    Re: Municipal Staff Directories and Organization/Program Guides

    To: Blair Smith <kblair.smith@gmail.com> 

    Cc: “Mailbox, Communications” <Communications@burlington.ca>, “Basit, Hassaan” <Hassaan.Basit@burlington.ca>, “Galbraith, Kelvin” <Kelvin.Galbraith@burlington.ca>, “Meed Ward, Marianne” <Marianne.MeedWard@burlington.ca>, “Kearns, Lisa” <Lisa.Kearns@burlington.ca>, Rory Nisan <rnisan@gmail.com>, “Stolte, Shawna” <Shawna.Stolte@burlington.ca>, “Sharman, Paul” <Paul.Sharman@burlington.ca>, “Bentivegna, Angelo” Angelo.Bentivegna@burlington.ca

    March 4, 2025

    Good afternoon Mr. Smith, 

    Thank you for following up. The communications team will reach out to you this week.

    Best Regards, 

    Jacqueline Johnson

    Commissioner, Community Services

    Office : 905-335-7777 ext. 7340 

    Cell: 289-208-8854

    Our working hours may be different. You are not obligated to reply outside of your typical working hours.

    BRAG replied with the following:

    Jacqueline Johnson

    Commissioner, 

    Community Services Division

    City of Burlington

    Tuesday March 4, 2025

    Ms. Johnson:

    Thank you for your response with redirection to your communications staff.

    I note for the record, which is becoming somewhat lengthy, that you have still not answered any of the questions that I posed in my initial email of February 25th. In order for us to finally move forward, are your staff prepared and empowered to provide the answers that I requested and commit to the directions that I have proposed? I suppose those questions are largely rhetorical.

    I assume that they will email first to arrange a convenient time for our discussion.

    Respectfully,

       … K. Blair Smith

    Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

    It's free!

    How do I view my tax bill online

    0

    We’ve heard that some residents have not received their tax bills, so we thought this might be helpful…

    There are a few steps in this process. This article was written on March 3th, 2025, and the city’s website may have changed since then. If you have trouble following these instructions, comment below, and we’ll look into it.

    The first step is to create an account if you don’t have one already.

    Click on this link:

    Property Tax Assessment Online Tool: Disclaimer

    Use the sign in option (circled on the right) to sign in or create an account.

    If you have to create an account, after completing that process, click on this link again to get back to the online tool.

    Property Tax Assessment Online Tool: Disclaimer

    Make sure that you’re signed in and press the next button at the bottom right of the page.

    Search by address: enter your address, or the address of a property you want to look up. Press search, then press select. You’ll see summary property tax information for the property you searched for.

    Stay in touch, signup for our newsletter.

    It's free!

    The Perilous Quest

    0

    Earlier this week we posted an article concerning BRAG’s request for the City of Burlington to post an online version of its staff and program directory.

    The previous post is available here: Fighting the Dragons of the Opaque City | Burlington Residents’ Action Group

    Alternatively, and perhaps concurrently, we asked for a copy that we could put on our website as a general access aid to Burlington citizens. At the time, we noted that “BRAG anticipates that this will not be either a simple or a swift process.”

    We committed to revealing just how difficult the process would be; to describing “the journey in all its twists and turns”. And so we shall. We do this not out of some misdirected pique but as a practical demonstration of how a relatively straightforward and unproblematic request fares amongst our current levels and chambers of government administration.

    We will post in an ongoing event chronology, each measured step in the process. We begin with our initial request sent Tuesday February 25 th to Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Commissioner of Burlington’s Community Services Division. The following is a verbatim copy.

    From: K.Blair Smith <kblair.smith@gmail.com>
    Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 12:44 PM
    To: Johnson, Jacqueline <Jacqueline.Johnson@burlington.ca>
    Cc: Meed Ward, Marianne <Marianne.MeedWard@burlington.ca>, Galbraith, Kelvin
    <Kelvin.Galbraith@burlington.ca>, Kearns, Lisa <Lisa.Kearns@burlington.ca>, Nisan, Rory
    <Rory.Nisan@burlington.ca>, Stolte, Shawna <Shawna.Stolte@burlington.ca>, Sharman, Paul

    <Paul.Sharman@burlington.ca>, Bentivegna, Angelo <Angelo.Bentivegna@burlington.ca>, Basit,
    Hassaan <Hassaan.Basit@burlington.ca>


    Subject: Municipal Staff Directories and Organization/Program Guides
    Ms. Jacqueline Johnson
    Commissioner,
    Community Services Division
     
    Tuesday, February 25, 2025
     
    Ms. Johnson:
     
    I represent a Burlington citizens’ organization, the Burlington Residents’ Action Group (BRAG), and one of our particular areas of interest is the implementation of ‘open government’ measures and products to increase both the transparency and ease of citizen contact with municipal administrations. We witnessed, through at least two Burlington Strong Mayor budget exercises and multiple citizen delegations, including several by BRAG, that there is a need for a better view to municipal government operations and a popular desire for greater accountability. As such, we would appreciate your proactive posting on the City’s website of a COB staff directory, identifying program personnel and their contact information (email and
    telephone extensions at minimum). This ‘open government’ information utility has been in use at the provincial level for more than twenty-five years (InfoGo) and a very serviceable municipal version is present on the City of Toronto’s website.
     
    We believe the City of Burlington must have a version of a Staff Directory to guide the connection efforts of the clerks in the ServiceBurlington organization. An online version of this tool would be very valuable as an initial offering on the COB website. Posting of this information does not violate any privacy or personal information provision under the MFIPPA and since the product already exists and must have regular updates, there should be minimal effort required in creating an online presence.
     
    BRAG would also appreciate receiving a copy of the staff listing to post as an information product on its own website. Ideally, as the City updates its directory, a copy could be provided to BRAG as well. Alternatively, a monthly update could be arranged. We would like to post the directory on our website by April 11th and look forward to advising our membership in our March newsletter.
     
    Thank you for your time and effort in consideration and hopefully fulfillment of our request.
     
    Yours respectfully,
     
       … K. Blair Smith

    Of note is the fact that the current mayor and all of council were copied on the request as well as Ms. Johnson’s superior, Mr. Hasaan Basit. Indeed, an automatic reply was received from the mayor’s mailbox to register receipt. Although the “ask” was directed to Ms. Johnson any or all, had they the inclination, could have participated in the response which was received on Thursday the 27 th. Again, a verbatim copy follows:

    “Johnson, Jacqueline” <Jacqueline.Johnson@burlington.ca>

    Re: Municipal Staff Directories and Organization/Program Guides

    To: Blair Smith <kblair.smith@gmail.com> Cc: “Mailbox, Communications” <Communications@burlington.ca>, “Basit, Hassaan” Hassaan.Basit@burlington.ca

    Good afternoon Mr. Smith, 

    Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me directly. A City of Burlington department directory is available online through the link below:

    https://www.burlington.ca/Modules/contact/search.aspx?s=qu31Zi5lA5HPyBC2mbBnNbjz0AeQuAleQuAl.

    Service Burlington is the city’s centralized customer contact centre. Customer Experience Representatives are available Monday to Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., to assist with all City of Burlington programs and services.

    Having a single point of contact (Service Burlington) assists the City in tracking requests, routing requests appropriately, and providing timely responses. This approach helps to prevent delays and ensure every inquiry gets the attention it deserves. This approach also allows us to gather valuable insights through analytics and reporting, helping us identify service trends and areas for improvement across the city. 

    Service Burlington still has the ability to transfer callers to individual staff, if the need exists. In many cases, Service Burlington staff have the ability to provide answers and assistance. This type of system eliminates much of the need for transferring calls and makes for faster and more efficient call resolution; part of our customer service promise.

    I hope you find this information helpful, should you have further questions please direct them to: communications@burlington.ca.

    Best Regards, 

    Jacqueline Johnson

    Commissioner, Community Services

    Office: 905-335-7777 ext. 7340 

    jacqueline.johnson@burlington.ca

    Our working hours may be different. You are not obligated to reply outside of your typical working hours.


    Polite, very timely and somewhat dismissive. More to the point, the specifics of the BRAG request were only tangentially addressed with any further conversation horizontally arabesqued to the maw of the Communications Department mailbox – communications@burlington.ca.

    Unbowed and undeterred, a follow-up request was sent to Ms. Johnson and the original circulation list on Friday, February 28th. A copy follows:

    Ms. Jacqueline Johnson

    Commissioner,

    Community Services Division

    Friday, February 28, 2025

    Ms. Johnson:

    Thank you for your swift response to my email request of February 25th. I appreciate your willingness to quickly engage. I thank you also for the link that you provided to the City Departmental Guide. It is not the easiest of listings to locate on the city’s website but it does offer a degree of ‘self-help’ capability to the citizen. It puts someone in the correct set of bleachers in the ballpark. However, we were looking for the existing program seat assignments.

    I do not want to misinterpret your response. It seems that you do not intend to post the ServiceBurlington reference sheets on the city website as a common online reference tool. Is this the case? Are you also denying BRAG a copy of the ServiceBurlington reference sheets for posting on its own website?

    We believe that a readily accessible and complete staff/organizational directory is critical to an informed and empowered citizen. It is a cornerstone of open and accountable government. Do we need to initiate a Freedom of Information Request for something that exists in a disclosable format and is, in fact, public information? Please advise at your earliest convenience.

    Respectfully,

    K. Blair Smith

    Fighting the Dragons of the Opaque City

    0

    Imagine that you have hired someone to mow your lawn, tend your garden, do your taxes, shovel your snow, prune your trees, provide recreational facilities for your family, ensure that your neighbours don’t build things or do things on their property that badly affect you and, generally, plan out what your neighbourhood environment should be over the next few decades – but you don’t know who the contractors are or how they can be reached. You’re paying them and the costs just seem to grow but you can’t speak to them without knowing the secret words and numbers to call. You must first
    contact a nameless, faceless intermediary whom you also pay to provide the service but who might (or might not) connect you to the appropriate contractor with whom you need to speak.


    Or you can go to the magic wall that is provided to tell you about the contractors’ services and what you need to know about them, including how much they actually cost, but the information is never really there. And you find this tolerable – barely – when things are operating as they should but when things go wrong and you don’t like what is being done or you have suggestions to make things better, you begin a long and tortuous ‘quest for knowledge’ that is reminiscent of something out of the Wizard of Oz.


    Well, in many ways less fanciful, this is exactly what the citizens of Burlington face when trying to interface directly with those responsible for a variety of products and services that affect their quality of life. How much of this confusing state could be resolved through the existence of a ‘staff and organization directory’ simply accessible on the City’s website? Virtually all of it.


    So, let’s start with a bit of background and general philosophy. For at least twenty-five years, there has been a popular concept called “open government”. Simply expressed, “open government” is the governing doctrine which maintains that citizens have the right to access the documents and proceedings of the government to allow for effective public oversight. The concept is broad in scope but is most often connected to ideas of government transparency, participation and accountability. transparency is defined as the visibility and inferability of information, accountability as answerability and enforceability, and participation as true engagement and is often graded along the “ladder of citizen participation”. For any level of government to be accountable, its actions and proponents must be transparent to the public view. In fact, there is a direct correspondence between the degree of visibility that citizens have on the operations and ‘operators’ of government and the accountability that can be expected of them.

    Degrees of citizen participation


    In this context, the simple vehicle of a staff listing or directory with contact information and married to program responsibilities is a critical component of ‘open government’. It allows citizens to identify those individuals and organizational departments responsible for delivering the services and making the decisions that affect their lives. And it is revealing when such a utility does not exist. When absent, given that the technical and logistical difficulties are very minor, it suggests that the government does not value transparency or accountability or true engagement with its citizens; that it views its stewardship responsibilities in a more remote and autocratic way.


    Contrary to popular expectation, it seems that the larger the enterprise (and conceptually more removed from the citizen) the more transparent it is. So, the Ontario Provincial Government, which arguably is more distant from residents than the Region
    or Municipality, has had a hardcopy directory (phone book) for over fifty years and an online version for more than twenty-five. Called InfoGO, the online utility enables searches by organization, position or name. It provides location, email and phone
    information and it places the contact within an organizational context/reporting structure.


    The following is a link to InfoGO: https://www.infogo.gov.on.ca

    Similarly, the City of Toronto – Ontario’s largest municipality – has a very useful and accessible online presence. The following link brings you to a complete staff listing by city organization:

    https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/city-administration/staff-directory-divisions-and-customer-service/

    However, the closer that we get to home – to the Region of Halton and the City of Burlington – the mist becomes thicker, the organization murkier and the people within, our contractors, almost invisible. This information vacuum is both unnecessary and
    dysfunctional. The information already exists and in a form that can be easily displayed on the city’s website. This must be true unless you believe that the clerks in Service Burlington are connecting you from memory or some more mystical means.
    BRAG (Burlington Residents’ Action Group) believes that a readily accessible staff and organizational directory is fundamental to promoting the transparency and accountability of the current city administration and staff. Accordingly, a request was sent to Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Commissioner of Community Services Division, to post on the city website for public use, the staff directory and contact reference material used by Service Burlington. Additionally, BRAG has requested a copy with regular updates to put on its own website for reference by Burlington citizens. We await a response. However, BRAG believes that the issue is far broader and more systemic than the apparent reluctance of a single municipality (as promised by its current mayor) to virtually ‘drain its protective moat, lower the drawbridge and open its doors’. Essentially every region, city and town in Ontario that has a website should provide its citizens with a view to the organization and the people within it. It costs little and the benefits are huge to establishing a more open and accountable government.

    A request will be sent to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, Local Government Division with a copy to the Minister (when his/her identity is known) and the Premier’s Office, congratulating the Province on its long history of open and transparent government. We will request that it consider making “readily accessible staff and organizational directories” a mandatory component of municipal governance. Ironically perhaps, we will use InfoGO to establish the most appropriate contacts to receive our request.


    BRAG anticipates that this will not be either a simple or a swift process. However, it will be a useful demonstration of how easy or difficult a relatively straightforward and unproblematic request fares amongst our current levels and chambers of government administration. We will provide you with a firsthand seat to the journey in all its twists and turns.