What voters deserve to know


As we approach the final lap of this election campaign, attempts to seduce voters into voting for a particular candidate are intensifying. So far as the incumbent candidates are concerned, this includes the inevitable self-patting on the back for alleged achievements. Some, or maybe even all, of these may have a degree of justification. However, the fact is that there are some skeletons in some closets that voters may not get to hear about.

The Current believes that should be remedied, especially where those skeletons imply possible abuse of power; breaches of the Municipal Act requirements of Transparency, Accountability and Integrity; and general bad behaviour. These usually result in an unnecessary burden on ratepayers caused by legal claims and Code of Conduct investigations, among other things.

Ratepayers were subjected to legal costs in 2017 amounting to more than four times what was budgeted for. In addition as Councillor Archer noted in her recent Eganville Leader interview, there have been five “unfortunate” investigations by the Township’s Integrity Commissioner. Based on the recent report of Guy Giorno, the Commissioner, only one of these has been completed so far.

Over the next week or so The Current will publish several articles disclosing the results of our investigations into some of these “skeletons.” The first of these will update readers about the conclusion of the legal proceedings brought by Jack Rosien, the first Integrity Commissioner, against the Township. This will be followed by stories focussing on ostensible conflicts of interest on the part of some members of Council in relation to changes to the 5 Year Capital Roads Plan. Mark Woermke will also set the record straight about inaccurate and misleading information published in the Leader interviews about the rise and fall of the most successful visitor centre in the county and why this conduct has created the risk of a downturn in tourism-related revenue in the community.

As was the case with some previous Current articles, these articles will no doubt provoke accusations fed into the community grapevine that it is all “fake news.” This is how Mayor Love and Councillors Peplinski and Maika justify, we understand, their lack of common courtesy in responding to any communication or request for information that The Current has directed to them. It is as if they don’t want us to exist. So far, there have been over 7,000 visits to The Current’s online Town Hall forum and Love, Peplinski and Maika have been given the same opportunity as other candidates to answer readers’ questions. Yet, not a single question has been answered by any of them. These three are being paid by ratepayers to act in a responsible manner as befits their offices. Such conduct suggests they are receiving our money under false pretences.

The irony of this behaviour is that the only item of fake news, properly so called, that has any connection with The Current was not published by us but by the Valley Gazette in its April 11 2018 edition, courtesy of Maika.

Everything The Current publishes has been subject to scrupulous investigation and can be corroborated by council minutes, correspondence and other verifiable sources. Before we published anything that constituted criticism of anyone, express or implied, we always provided an opportunity for them to give their own side of the story. Note as well that everyone has the opportunity of responding to every article we publish using the Comments section following it.


  1. Nat Hall

    Hmmm to be fair let us also review what we had before please and what the old boys did , no matter the council there will be issues from the mayor down ! As a example I had many issues with twining with Polland and the same person now wants to be on council sorry Dave no vote for Me ! We could go on. Mistakes will be made as i said but also good work has been done , example Private roads , no not the ones some lived on while on council ! People that lived on private roads got ZERO for there tax dollars as the township did not do maintenance yet the public used the roads and that cost was up to the people living on those roads , Thank you council for setting up a program to use those tax dollars we give to maintain the roads special thanks to Councillor Peplinski one other thing about this councilor he will not put up with BS baffles brains no matter what side you are on I like that even when I am on the wrong end ! Welcome to the modern era even as a small community I am fed up with the good old boys that own things we do not own feeding themselves or relatives .

    • Monica Bratley

      I was referring to the aforementioned article and not the previous Council. I can say that I had significant issues with the previous Council and voted in 2014 accordingly.

      Please allow me to respond as I think you may misunderstand the substance of my comments.

      First, in regard to private roads, they are just that, private!, and not public so, therefore not publicly maintained. If you want them to be, lobby Council to attempt to get them to be adopted as such.

      Secondly, my reference to the Mayor and Councillors Peplinski and Maika, as mentioned was concerning their active dodging and non-responsiveness to questions and concerns put forward to them by voters on this particular forum. Why is that? I think that is a very fair question. I also believe that the Current will expose, in future articles, additional areas of concern regarding this Council and some of its members.

      And finally and most importantly, I don’t know about anyone else but any additional information will greatly assist me in casting my vote in 2018.

  2. Monica Bratley

    I am looking forward, with anxious anticipation, the information that you have referenced in the aforementioned. It is long overdue that the voters get information regarding these subjects.

    I cannot express sufficiently in words my profound disappointment in Mayor Love, Councillor Peplinski and Councillor Maika in the lack of what appears to be interest and desire in addressing the concerns and questions of the voters by responding on the Current’s forum. Perhaps each of them has issues with transparency, accountability and integrity which makes them fearful of engaging and responding directly with the electorate.

    Thanks to the Current, its correspondents and its editorial board, as well as the participants on this forum, for all their hardwork.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top
Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • In order to avoid confusion in the community, commenters must provide their full name (first and last) and a valid email address.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.

Verified by MonsterInsights