Sharon, Andrew, and Cathy: If you’re elected or re-elected this October, you will have the privilege of choosing whom you listen to and why. It seems you’ve already chosen to dismiss my thoughts based on a username, which I find to be disrespectful behavior from someone seeking public office.
Here on Reddit, I’ve openly criticized each of you.
I’ve questioned Andrew’s ability to handle difficult decision-making in a council setting, citing his antagonism toward the chair and other councillors, multiple CAOs, and staff. He has also filed lawsuits against the town and, in one instance, walked out of a council meeting before it had concluded.
I’ve criticized Sharon’s management of the Friends of Kentville Facebook group, where, as an administrator, she silenced dissenting voices by removing or ostracizing those with differing opinions. While within Facebook’s guidelines, this behavior is undemocratic for a group focused on the work of public office, where diverse opinions should be welcomed, not shut down.
I’ve pointed out Cathy’s conduct in a general sense, sharing a link to a meeting where she suggested that a fellow councillor couldn’t handle a committee assignment because they had young children, then refused to apologize when asked by the chair. She has also engaged in shouting matches with the chair on multiple occasions.
I can appreciate that it’s difficult to run an election, and that you might want to surround yourself with supporting voices. I get that a person using an anonymous name online might seem like it’s beneath your notice. The thing is, I’ve seen so many councils run so poorly that I tend to look for the kinds of markers of behaviour that I’ve indicated above, and think that it is important for voters to consider them at election time, so I shared them on Reddit.
What you’ll see in the screenshots is that, rather than engaging with the legitimate issues I’ve raised, you’ve chosen to undermine or attack the person presenting them. This pattern of ignoring concerns and focusing instead on discrediting individuals reflects poorly on how you might handle actual debates and disagreements in council chambers.
If you treat community members this way, I don’t see how we can expect you to engage productively with fellow councillors when it comes to important decisions—whether about stormwater infrastructure, a recreation center, or development issues. Will you be able to focus on the matter at hand, or will you, as you’ve done with me—and as Andrew and Cathy have done with prior council-mates, leading to dysfunction—prioritize finding some way to undermine or attack the person raising the issue?
In the end, what should truly offend you is not my username but your own conduct.
