Re- Elect - Return - Elect - Definition - Donations

I was not going to write another post until after the election but I was emailed about something that occurred while I was on assignment. 

There was an ad in the Ajax News Advertiser promoting to Re-Elect Shaun Collier , I did not see the ad so I don’t know the full wording but it is confusing for voters, especially those in ward 2.
Shaun Collier was the Local Councillor for Ward 1,  he decided not to run for the local seat but to run for the Regional Seat of wards 1 and 2.     Technically he is asking to be re-elected to Ajax Council as a whole but it is a different seat that Scott Crawford is also running in and he is the incumbent so only Scott Crawford can promote to “Re-Elect”  for Regional Ward 1 and 2 in Ajax.  

I have seen the words Return used on signs that is what Kevin Ashe in Pickering is entitled because he was not on council last term but has been in the past ,  Marcel Brunel in Whitby is also asking to be returned to Council but I think he was misusing the term Re-elect also. 

Rob Ford in Toronto and Joe Pantalone are current Toronto Councillors but are running for a new position so they have to use the word Elect, not re-elect. 

So Shaun Collier did make an error in judgement using the term Re-elect.    tsk tsk.

Re-Elect:  Means to seek the same position on Local Council or Regional and Local combined.
Return-  Used by someone who has been on council in the past but not the current term that just concluded.
Elect:  Anyone seeking a seat on council or a new seat within the same council,  changing wards or changing level of council.

I am hearing about sign vandalism and it is not just here it is everywhere.  Signs are important , don’t kid yourself , they are one of the most expensive items on the financial balance sheet of an election campaign.  If they were not important they would not spend money on them.   I asked my carpool passenger if he thinks the signs are important , and he said yes otherwise he would not remember who was who.  


I saw in my twitter feed that Colleen Jordan released her contributors,  a day before voting day , Pat Brown challenged everyone a week ahead of time.  

However you feel about developer contributions voters have to remember that we hold the ultimate check to the balance.  If the public is not being served by a councillor who they believe is compromised by developer dollars,  do not vote for them.   It is very simple.   The statements are released after the election and they are available a few months after, the press should publish them and if a voter did not like what they saw they can make a note and do something about it in four years.

Colleen has the dollars from the Mayor and Mr. Parish Senior so do they own her vote?   

Here is a FAQ on Corporate Donations.

8 Responses to “Re- Elect - Return - Elect - Definition - Donations”

  1. Rob MacArthur Says:

    Update for you… News Advertiser is saying it is not their responsibility to verify the truth of information of ads.

    Shaun Collier is saying that the News Advertiser printed the proof copy not the approved copy. Why he would have re-elect on a proof copy is beyond me.

    Some one, or both, may have broken the municipal act.. time will tell.

    Either way it is wrong.

    Just like the sign vandelism and candidates placing signs in front of properties that did not as for them….

    But I guess that is election in Ajax…

    See you at the polls….


    Admin: What is the difference between a proof copy and the approved copy ? the Ad department are just people that are putting ads out, they are not news people and may very well not even know who the heck he is. Ads run with errors all the time , that’s what a “Correction” is for just like those ads after “errors” in sale events. I use to have a role in my job where I had to approve inserts in statements, the creative comes back and the client has to say yes or no to what will be run- inserted etc. I think the buck stops with the Shaun Collier campaign if it is the same process that I had to do.

  2. Kurtis McAleer Says:

    Love this post! I always love that 19 year incumbent Pat Brown challenged people to release there donors list yet Pat doesn’t even have a website… Colleen is the only one to release her list so far, and it was a day before election day, so really, does it make a difference? If she truly wanted transparency she would have released this info weeks ago, but she wouldn’t do that because it proves that she is a Parish clone.

    Out with the old and in with the new tomorrow! If not tomorrow then 2014! Fresh Ideas, For a Better Ajax ;)

    You declaring yourself for office now ?

  3. Rob MacArthur Says:

    I feel exactly the same way…


  4. Rob MacArthur Says:

    Personally I am not sure that this has any great big effect on the results.

    However, if the advertisement is against the Municpal Act, Collier could face up to $25,000 in fines and be stripped of any position he may get elected for.


  5. Kurtis McAleer Says:

    If and when, you’ll be the first to know ;)

  6. Scott Says:

    One of the Catholic Trustee candidates is also using re-elect on their signs - they currently represent pickering, but decided to run in Ajax this time. All the signs say re-elect. This one is a little greyer, but still an inappropriate use. I say greyer as they are running for the same post, but in a different riding.

    You are right it is grey, he probably should use Elect because it is a whole new set of voters, he is running to be Ajax’s trustee , not Pickering’s. It is a new race therefore a new position for him.

  7. SM Says:

    Interesting that you mention this. I saw the newspaper ad and thought it was misleading.

    As for councillors releasing their list of donations before election day, I’m not sure what purpose this serves exactly. If memory serves me correct, Pat Brown doesn’t accept donations from anyone. So, who benefits from publishing the list?.

  8. Rob MacArthur Says:

    Shaun now states through Reka’s blog that he meant to do it, that he checked it all out.

    So again he changes his story. The man cannot be trusted. If anyone wants a copy of the e-mail where he states it was a mistake by the newsadvertiser, let me know and I will forward it to you.

    Whatever happens, not an individual I want representing me anywhere!

Leave a Reply

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image