A public record concerning candidate access, municipal resources, and the September 1, 2026 Council meeting.
A timely, neutral proposal concerning equal public access to candidates was denied before it was heard. When the matter returned on September 1, no councillor moved or seconded public consideration. There was no motion, debate, or recorded vote.
This was not a request for special treatment or preferential access. It was a request for one clear, public, and uniformly applicable standard.
On September 1, I asked for a councillor to move the matter and another councillor to second it so Council could debate and decide publicly.
No councillor came forward to move or second the matter. There was no motion, debate, or recorded vote. This was not a unanimous vote; the matter simply never reached a formal decision.
The proposal concerned public opportunities for residents to meet, question, and compare candidates before voting. Preventing public consideration may reduce candidate forums, voter information, and candidate exposure.
That effect may disproportionately disadvantage an independent candidate who must personally finance substantial campaign costs and does not have the established organizational network, membership base, volunteers, promotion or other non-financial support that an aligned organization or group may provide.
That distinction is important: an organization being prohibited from making a campaign contribution does not necessarily mean a candidate cannot benefit politically from endorsements, volunteers, networks, publicity, membership contacts or other lawful activity independent of a contribution.
The record establishes an obstruction of public consideration with a foreseeable electoral effect. Whether that effect was accidental, administratively convenient, or intentional is a matter for the public and any appropriate independent authority to examine.
By-law 22-07 establishes rules and procedures concerning the use of municipal resources during the 42-day restricted election period. Its definition of “Municipal Resources” includes municipal property, facilities, infrastructure, equipment, communications, employees, events and functions, identifying marks, and certain information controlled by the Municipality.
Section 5 of the by-law is headed “EXCEPTIONS” and includes an event where all candidates are invited and provided equivalent opportunities with respect to an election-related purpose. The by-law also contains internal cross-references that raise questions about precisely how those provisions apply — one of the very matters the delegation asked Council to clarify.
By-law 22-07 is an RM of Springfield by-law. Under Manitoba's Municipal Act, responsibility for establishing the rules and procedures governing the use of municipal resources during an election rests with Council.
There is an important date in this record. For a new or amended municipal-resource election by-law to take effect for the October 28, 2026 election, the statutory 180-day deadline was May 1, 2026. Council had the opportunity before that date to publicly review By-law 22-07 and consider whether its provisions should be clarified, broadened or improved to provide a fair, transparent and consistently applied framework for candidates and, ultimately, Springfield electors.
But May 1 did not make Council powerless. By-law 22-07 remained in force. Its existing exceptions contemplate an election-related event where all candidates are invited and provided equivalent opportunities. Council could still have publicly considered what lawful and equal arrangements were available within the existing By-law for the benefit of Springfield residents.
Of particular significance, By-law 22-07 was passed and signed on April 5, 2022 by then-Mayor Tiffany Fell and CAO Colleen Draper. More than 53 months later, it was CAO Draper who stated that she was “not comfortable” allowing my delegation concerning fair and equal access to municipal resources during the 2026 election to proceed.
The historical connection deserves public consideration. The municipal-resource by-law was not some newly discovered instrument foreign to the administration. It had existed for more than four years, and the current CAO's own signature appeared upon it when it was enacted.
A conflict of interest was raised as a reason why Council should not deal with the delegation. Yet no specific statutory provision was identified to me establishing why Council could not hear and publicly consider a neutral proposal intended to apply equally to all registered candidates.
If a legal conflict existed, Springfield residents are entitled to know the specific legal authority relied upon, to whom the conflict applied, and why it prevented the proposal from even being heard and publicly considered. The mere assertion of a conflict should not substitute for identifying its legal basis.
Mayor Patrick Therrien and CAO Colleen Draper directed these matters toward the Senior Election Official and the Province. Those authorities have their own important responsibilities under provincial election law. But that did not answer the municipal governance question placed before Springfield.
The delegation was not asking the Senior Election Official to rewrite Springfield's By-law. It was not asking the Province to operate Springfield's municipal facilities. It was asking a straightforward question: What could Springfield itself lawfully do with Springfield's municipal resources, under Springfield's own By-law 22-07, to provide fair and equal democratic opportunities for Springfield residents?
The statutory deadline for changing the election-resource by-law did not eliminate Council's continuing responsibility for the By-law already in force, nor did it necessarily prevent Council from considering lawful resolutions or arrangements within that existing By-law.
Springfield had the By-law. Springfield had the municipal resources. Springfield had the opportunity to consider what could lawfully be done for its electors. Yet Springfield Council never publicly debated the proposal.
The distinction between Council and administration matters.
Council governs. Administration administers.
CAO Colleen Draper occupies an important administrative position, but Springfield residents elect Council to make municipal policy decisions on their behalf. They do not elect the administration.
When an administrative decision prevents a matter from reaching Council, and the elected Council subsequently declines to bring that matter forward itself, an important question of democratic accountability arises:
Who, ultimately, is governing whom?
This is my opinion and a legitimate question of public governance: are the respective roles of elected Council and municipal administration functioning as they should, and where does responsibility and democratic accountability ultimately rest?
Ultimately, municipal government exists to serve the people of Springfield. More than 16,000 residents — taxpayers, families, farmers, businesses and voters — collectively fund their municipal government and entrust elected Council and municipal administration with the stewardship of their public resources and the conduct of their municipal affairs.
Council and administration serve the public. The public does not serve Council and administration.
That is why the question matters: when administration prevents an issue from reaching the elected Council, and Council itself subsequently chooses not to bring that issue forward for public consideration, who is ultimately exercising the responsibility entrusted to municipal government by the people of Springfield?
CAO Draper denied the delegation before it was heard. Mayor Therrien supported that denial. When the matter returned on September 1, no member of Council moved or seconded its consideration. There was no public debate and no recorded Council decision on the underlying proposal.
The consequence extended far beyond one candidate or one delegation. More than 16,000 Springfield residents lost the opportunity to hear their municipal government publicly examine whether greater, fair and equal access to candidates could be provided using municipal resources they themselves own and fund.
If lawful options remained available within Springfield's existing By-law to improve democratic access for the public, why was the question redirected elsewhere instead of being heard, debated and decided publicly by Springfield Council?
Your voice matters.
Your vote matters.
This was never simply about candidate access. It was about the residents of Springfield and improving their access to the democratic process.
Springfield residents should have meaningful opportunities to meet candidates, ask questions, hear competing positions and make an informed decision before casting their ballots. Municipal government should be looking for reasonable ways to open that democratic door wider — not close it.
Consider a taxpayer-owned community facility that is provided to a community organization for nominal consideration, such as $1 per year. Why could Council not publicly consider making that same municipal resource available for $1, without charge, or under another reasonable arrangement for a bona fide resident town hall or democratic meet-and-greet where every registered candidate is invited and afforded an equivalent opportunity to participate?
There appears to be no shortage of taxpayer dollars or municipal resources when Council and administration determine those expenditures serve municipal purposes. Taxpayer funds support conferences and events, professional development, consultants and legal advice, together with associated travel, hotels, meals and other expenses.
That includes the annual Dorothy Lake conference attended by Council and administration. Whether every member needs to attend for several days, whether outside professional or legal advice could sometimes accomplish the same purpose more economically, and whether the resulting expenditure represents the best value for taxpayers are legitimate questions of municipal priority and accountability.
The contrast is difficult to ignore. Substantial taxpayer resources can be committed to the business of Council and administration, yet when the issue is greater democratic participation by the taxpayers themselves, Council would not even publicly consider whether a taxpayer-owned community facility could be made available for a nominal $1, without charge, or under another reasonable and equal arrangement for a bona fide public all-candidate event.
If taxpayer dollars can pay for conferences, consultants, lawyers, travel, hotels and multi-day municipal events, why could Council not even debate $1 for the business of democracy?
The beneficiary would not be one candidate. The beneficiary would be the public.
Council could have debated the options openly. It could have established reasonable conditions. It could have adopted a uniform standard protecting taxpayers while expanding opportunities for residents to participate in their municipal election.
That was the opportunity placed before Council. It was an opportunity to improve democracy in Springfield — to make municipal government more open, accessible and welcoming to public participation.
Instead, the delegation was denied before it was heard, and when the matter returned September 1, the underlying proposal remained obstructed — never reaching public debate or a recorded Council decision. As a result, residents were denied the very public Council discussion that could have informed them of the proposal, the available options, and what greater democratic access during the election might look like.
That leaves Springfield residents with serious questions. Why was a proposal intended to expand public participation in the municipal election obstructed rather than openly heard, debated and decided?
Was it simply an administrative decision? Was it intended to reduce or eliminate opportunities for electoral competition? Did the fact that four of the five members of Council have themselves filed as candidates in this election have any bearing on what occurred? Did the obstruction disadvantage open democratic participation, or could its foreseeable effect be to influence the conditions under which this election is contested?
Those are questions. They are not findings of wrongdoing. The absence of public debate and a recorded Council decision leaves residents to examine the record, consider the circumstances and draw their own conclusions.
You be the judge.
The public cannot participate meaningfully in an opportunity it is never given the chance to hear, examine and debate.Why close the door on a proposal intended to open democracy to the people who own, fund and ultimately govern this municipality through their vote?
Public meetings and candidate forums help residents meet, question, and compare candidates before voting. Obstructing or delaying consideration of equal access to those opportunities can have a foreseeable effect on candidate exposure and voter information.
This page does not claim that an offence has been proven. It asks residents to examine whether the obstruction of public consideration was fair, reasonable, and consistent with open democratic administration.
Residents may contact the Mayor, councillors, and CAO respectfully, request written answers, and keep copies of their correspondence.
📄 Read the Delegation
Good government begins by listening.
You have my ear.
Together, let us roll up our sleeves.
It begins with your vote at the ballot box.