MV Council draws next Councillor’s name out of hat

OPINION

At the April 1st MV Council meeting, to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Councillor Joseph Olsheski, a name was drawn from a hat – former Councillor Ernie Peplinski. Is this really the best way to obtain the most suitable candidate for the job? 

Council had a number of options to address its vacancy. See The Current’s article published on March 30th. LINK: MV Council to vote on vacancy appointment April 1st |Madawaska Valley Current.  

Instead of running a By-election, which is understandable for cost reasons, Council decided to fill the vacancy by appointment and had the option to call for applications from the community. A previous Council used this approach to elicit interested parties with the prospect of securing new talent with experience and fresh ideas to serve the people. Some readers may remember that Carl Bromwich was appointed this way. Despite receiving interest from at least one member of the community (myself) instead, Councillor Blank suggested they arbitrarily appoint a candidate. 

At the meeting each member of Council, in alphabetical order, was asked to offer a name of someone ‘suitable’ for appointment. Councillors Blank and Maika did not offer names, Councillor Shulist proposed former Councillor Ernie Peplinski, and Mayor Willmer proposed former Councillor Linda Neuman. The two remaining Council members then cast their votes: Blank voted for the Mayor’s choice, Linda Neuman, and Maika, to nobody’s surprise, voted for Peplinski, resulting in a 2-2 tie. Because of the tie, both names were placed in a hat and CAO Klatt drew Peplinski’s name from it.

One would think that before putting a name forward for appointment to a position of public trust with the need for integrity, it would be important to consider whether the candidate has blemishes on their record that renders them unsuitable. 

Indeed, Mayor Willmer gave the following reasons for proposing Linda Neuman: “She meets all my criteria. I’m looking for somebody who has experience, which she does; somebody who will be respectful – respectful to staff and respectful to the Council process itself; and someone who can work as part of a team as a team player. Someone articulate, rational, and calm in manner.” In summary, someone with strong moral values, integrity, prior experience, and someone well regarded in the community.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Peplinski. During his previous terms on Council, Peplinski consistently demonstrated that he lacked those qualities, thereby proving his unfitness to serve again. It is a matter of public record that he resorted to bullying staff and members of the public, including resorting to breaching staff members’ human rights violations. When the Township, as it was required to do, appointed a specialist human rights investigator, Peplinski attempted to intimidate one of the staff members by orchestrating accusations that she had submitted false expense accounts. The Valley Gazette immediately reported it prominently but subsequently had to retract it after the Township confirmed that the accusations were indeed false. More recently he was a central figure in the malicious conduct that resulted in The Current’s successful lawsuit against the Township and members of Council. 

With Peplinski’s history, it leads one to question the reasoning behind two members of Council choosing to expose municipal staff and the public to the risk of bullying and the expense of lawsuits and general conduct unbecoming of an elected official instead of, as Mayor Willmer put it, someone who “will be respectful to staff and respectful to the Council process itself.” 

Some of you may recall that I ran for Mayor in the previous election, and I therefore viewed the current open Council seat as another opportunity to serve the community. I sent my expression of interest and qualifications (20+ years in fortune 500 companies in executive leadership roles, including assisting all 444 municipalities across Ontario with infrastructure projects) via email to CAO Sue Klatt (forwarded to all council members). Despite receiving 40 percent of the vote in the last election – which numbered more votes than Peplinski and even some of the current sitting Council members got, not only did Council not put my name forward as a potential candidate for the position but they did not even have the courtesy to provide a response to my written expression of interest. 

In case you think this is just ‘sour grapes,’ I was advised by a reliable source that Council would not consider my application due to my public opposition to past Council decisions: my opposition to the Council’s handling of the lawsuit against The Current and the resultant cost to the taxpayer for avoidable exorbitant legal fees and hiked insurance premiums that you and I will be paying for years; my opposition to development charges that discourage builders from investing in our community; my opposition to unnecessary waste through duplication of studies on the waterfront instead of funneling that time and money into actual redevelopment, to name a few. Please note that at no time have I been employed by, or received remuneration from, The Current. Rather I voluntarily contribute occasional articles, as others have done since The Current began publishing, on matters of public interest and concern.

Once CAO Klatt confirms Peplinski’s ‘eligibility’ and willingness to serve, Council will need to officially appoint him and change the relevant By-Laws at a Special Council Meeting, to be held before May 15th. With this decision, Council has missed an opportunity to embrace fresh new ideas and positive contributions and instead has taken a step backwards to embrace a known Bully. In doing so, Council has signaled their intent to maintain a narrow view on serving the needs of our community which does little to support our seniors, youth, retailers, cottagers and the hard-working people of this municipality.

Editor’s Note: This article was amended for clarity on April 9 2025 at the author’s request.