Nipissing Township has a documented pattern: projects approved without scrutiny, deadlines missed without explanation, and public money spent without public answers. These are three cases — with a paper trail.
The RFP process was public and competitive — that's good governance. But from the moment E4M was engaged, the entire process moved behind closed doors. Every significant discussion happened in camera. The decision to restructure the Township's most senior staff role — changing the title, scope, and presumably the salary expectations of the position — was never explained publicly.
Residents paid $9,315 for a recruitment process. They deserved to understand the outcome. When the September 7 resolution was passed, there was no plain-language explanation of why the advertised role had changed, why a specific individual had been selected without an open competition, or what the E4M process had actually looked like.
I couldn't get answers through any normal channel — because every meeting where this had been discussed was closed to the public. So I used the accountability mechanism that exists precisely for this situation.
The entire CAO hiring process had taken place in camera. As a resident who wanted to understand why the advertised CAO-Clerk role had been quietly restructured into a Municipal Administrator position — and when, exactly, council had authorized that change — I had no way to find answers. Every meeting where the discussion might have happened was closed. There was no public record of the reasoning, no explanation of the process, and no way to know whether proper procedures had been followed.
In 2022, I filed a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman — the independent provincial officer responsible for investigating whether Ontario municipalities comply with the Municipal Act's open meeting requirements. Because I didn't know which specific meeting to challenge, I filed a broad complaint covering the full series of closed meetings from 2021. That breadth wasn't a fishing expedition — it was the only rational response to a process that had been conducted entirely out of public view.
The Ombudsman investigated seven meetings held between February and August 2021. The findings:
Council accepted both of the Ombudsman's recommendations and affirmed its commitment to compliance with the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman's report was published publicly in January 2023.
This complaint is also documented in the Communication & Technology page as part of a five-year record of formal advocacy before this campaign.
A competitive RFP was the right starting point. But the numbers that came back should have triggered a reset, not an approval. TownSuite's bid was nearly twice the budgeted amount and approximately six times the only other bidder — a bidder that was deemed unqualified and therefore left no real competitive pressure on price or scope. When one bidder is disqualified and the remaining bid comes in at double the budget, the correct response is a new RFP with a scope more accurately matched to what you actually need — not approval of a modified version of the same contract.
After three years and nearly $190,000 in approved spend, taxpayers deserved a plain-language explanation: What went wrong? What was the final cost including staff time and transition? Who was accountable? What will be done differently? None of these questions were answered publicly. A council with the right skills and the willingness to ask hard questions would have caught problems earlier — and demanded answers when it failed.
Watch the April 7 meeting.
Staff present the report. The mayor is absent. Count the questions from the councillors who are there.
Video starts at 4:17 — the moment the landfill card staff report is presented. The mayor was not present at this meeting.
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
I am writing to you regarding Resolution R2026-09, which mandated the implementation of an electronic card use system for our Township Landfill Sites with an effective date of April 1, 2026. After speaking with landfill staff recently, I was informed that this project has been delayed until September. I would appreciate clarity on the following:
Sincerely, Chris Johnston
This is the same pattern repeating. A resolution names a specific date. The date passes. No update comes back to council publicly. Residents find out by chance. A staff member made a financial and operational decision that overrode a council resolution — without bringing it back to council for a vote. And when a formal staff report was finally presented on April 7, council passed the new resolution without a single public question.
The lesson from TownSuite — that projects require active governance, milestone tracking, and public accountability — has clearly not been applied. If elected, I won't need to write letters asking for answers. I'll be in the room ensuring these questions are asked before projects go sideways, not after.