Dear editor:

In my letter to the editor, published Oct. 1, (“Letter: Looking for change after this election? Beware of Goettler and Kaiser split vote”) I focused on the numbers and the danger of splitting the vote on Oct. 26.

Since then, some social media groups have used my piece in ways I never intended; twisting a simple data-based warning into something else entirely. For this reason, I wish to clarify my position and further comment on what I see unfolding in our community.

This follow-up isn’t a case of “flip-flopping.” Rather, I am a resident who looked at the mathematical reality first, the actual campaigns second, and I believe arrived at a logical conclusion.

Splitting the vote between the status quo or significant change will not deliver change; that requires support for the candidate who stands for that change.

While Andrea Kaiser has my full respect for her years on regional council, she does not represent the significant change I observe many of the citizens are seeking.

Vaughn Gothler is explicitly saying no to Ontario strong mayor powers as completely undemocratic. In a political landscape where others view these concentrated executive powers as a “tool in the toolbox,” his refusal to ever use it signals a commitment to collaborative leadership.

Under the new rules and our shrunken council, a mayor needs to have just two councillors on side to make the decision and override the majority. It completely weakens the voices we elect to represent us.

At the candidates for lord mayor forum, he publicly rejected that system entirely and said he will treat council as a team, where every single voice matters and decisions are made together.

This approach is akin to many northern European government models and certainly not the “first pass the post” model and our general experience.

The fact that he has explicitly committed to work full-time, and to donate the salary to charity, are additional clear differentiators as well. This couldn’t be clearer and has not been cloaked in any doublespeak or political rhetoric.

Citizens are telling me that these points alone is a welcomed change signalling an approach to a different future in municipal politics and town management.

Ultimately, what we do on the ballot will be the outcome in this election. Over the next four years, we will reflect on this election and the choice of the majority, but the outcome will not be because we did not have a clear choice: more of the same, or the chance to turn the corner.

Judith Barnes
NOTL