Resident says Richmond Hill councillor’s survey is nothing but an ‘oversized ego flyer’

It is not a scientific survey, political science professor says

Yorkregion.com
November 22, 2019
Sheila Wang

A glossy flyer currently circulating throughout Richmond Hill has sparked debates from residents on the validity of the community survey and raised concerns about their tax dollars.

Since early November, many residents have received a bright-coloured poster at their doors -- simply too large to fit in their mailboxes -- with conspicuous images of Regional Coun. Carmine Perrelli on both sides.

“What great news needs 2-square-feet of high-gloss paper to convey its momentous message? ” resident Mike Gurski asked as he picked up from his front porch what he expected to be an “earth-shattering” message on seeing the size of the poster.

It appeared to be a community survey that invited residents to provide feedback to their city councillors and comment on key municipal affairs, but Gurski soon realized that was not the half of it.

“Have your say!” the poster reads in large bold font, followed by a survey asking people to rate each councillor on an A-to-F scale and then respond to six questions on topics from off-leash dog parks to city donations.

But there was “no way” that they could make an informed decision on the survey, Gurski said, taking issues with the wording of the questions, the leading context provided, as well as the limited options for the respondents to select from.

Having worked with the provincial government, the resident said he had professional experience with polling and found the survey -- or in his own words "oversized ego flyer" -- to be “biased” with a “manipulative” intention.

“Carmine has managed to turn a pointless survey into a weapon. Wait and see how he cherry-picks through the responses he gets,” Gurski said.

Other residents have also raised red flags about the survey over the past two weeks, as the Liberal has received emails, messages and letters to the editor.

“It is not a scientific survey,” said Seneca College professor Howard Doughty. “Because it has Perrelli’s name, to me, it’s obviously more a campaign device than a usual information-gathering mechanism.”

Doughty, who has taught political science for more than 50 years, said while there was nothing wrong with grading councillors, he found the last two questions “extremely leading.”

For example, question No. 6 asked residents if they support the city making donations to “unrelated” city businesses, providing as background “there is no staff recommendation or vetting process. Anyone can just show-up and ask for our hard-earned tax dollars.”

It then asked an open-ended question “what do you think?” But only two possible responses were offered: “yes I think it’s OK but only after a full report after staff,” and “no I don’t think we should be donating any tax dollars.”

Meanwhile, some residents told the Liberal they were also not sure who was collecting these public opinions -- the city or the regional councillor?

Perrelli responded in an email on Nov. 13 that the survey was “clearly marked” as his “sole initiative.”

“The real thing he’s after is that he’s trying to develop a mailing list of people that he can then use for whatever purpose that he might have,” Gurski said after trying out the survey online.

Respondents are required to provide their personal information such as their names, home addresses and email addresses before hitting the submit button.

Doughty, who is also a resident in Richmond Hill, said he found it a bit “disturbing” that the public weren’t allowed to express their opinions without revealing who they are.

“It’s almost unheard of. That’s the whole point of a public opinion survey. It’s to get public opinions and it should be anonymous,” the professor said.

Without providing the cost of the newsletters, the regional councillor emphasized that his “distribution area is larger than that of the Liberal newspaper.”

“Judging by the number of responses so far, it has a higher rate of people actually reading it,” he added, noting all council members’ expenses are online and fully transparent.

The city posts the councillors’ expenses on its website quarterly. In Q2, Perrelli spent over $7,500 on communication on the public dime, including about $6,000 on postage on May 31.

However, it didn’t not show if the most recent expense report included the newsletter in November.

“We the citizens, who paid for this crap left at our doors and the hours that will be spent spinning his half-truths need to call out this huckster,” Gurski wrote in a letter to the editors.