Robocalls across Richmond Hill spark residents’ outrage

Councillor Perrelli defends communication methods

Richmond Hill Liberal
May 8, 2014
By Kim Zarzour

The robocalls are back - and many residents are angry.

Homeowners throughout Richmond Hill have been receiving multiple automated phone calls this week from Ward 2 Councillor Carmine Perrelli.

Some have also received mailings from the councillor, who is running for mayor in this fall’s municipal election.

The calls and content in the mailings have many crying foul, questioning whether Mr. Perrelli is electioneering outside his own ward and using taxpayer funds to assist his campaign.

“Hello, this is Councillor Carmine Perrelli,” residents who picked up the phone heard this week. “Please check your mail for my newsletter which contains the results of the Richmond Hill community survey. It will inform you of what residents such as yourself had to say regarding important issues.”

Mr. Perrelli directs the robocall recipient to his website and provides his town council phone number.

The survey to which he refers is a document that prompted controversy last fall when it was delivered townwide, using tax dollars from Mr. Perrelli’s councillor’s constituency account.

Residents raised alarm bells then, saying the November 2013 survey’s wording was biased, similar to that of another group critical of council - Richmond Hill Watchdog - and appeared to be part of a taxpayer-funded campaign for his mayoral bid in advance of the 2014 election.

Under the Municipal Elections Act, an election campaign cannot take place until the first week of January in the year of the election. The upcoming municipal election is set for Oct. 27.

Also at issue is how last fall’s townwide mail-out was paid for.

Staff advised Mr. Perrelli several times last year it would be ineligible. He went ahead with the posted mailing anyway, distributing 50,000 newsletter/surveys using town accounts.

An attempt to have the councillor pay the town back was unsuccessful and the expense was recorded in Mr. Perrelli’s constituency account under “unallocated”.

The newsletter being distributed this week reports results to questions such as “Should residents get a 7.6 per cent tax hike?” with respondents choosing between aswers such as: “Are they nuts? We deserve a tax freeze next year; I could accept a 7.6 per cent tax hike, I like paying taxes; and Don’t raise taxes more than 2 per cent, I’m taxed enough”.

It also reports the results of various votes and how each councillor voted.

Comments on his website range from expressing appreciation to Mr. Perrelli for surveying the town and voicing concern about town salaries and a 7.6 per cent tax hike.

Richmond Hill’s municipal tax rate increased by 2.04 per cent this year.

Bruce Rhodes is a resident in Ward 4, who said he was prepared to ignore the first robocall Monday night, but a second call from Mr. Perrelli Tuesday night had him seeing red.

“Robocalls are impersonal by definition, and in my opinion worse than spam emails because you have to race to the phone to deal with it.”

Mr. Rhodes calls for code of conduct rules governing robocalls and a requirement that politicians who insist on using automated calls ensure their full name and phone number appear on call display, so that homeowners can choose whether or not they want to answer.

“We are sitting ducks for these things. We have to choose to answer or hang up ... and it represents a lack of respect for the recipient. It’s a lazy way to reach people. All they have to do is pay their money... Dumping on people is not nice and it’s not fair.”

Similar robocalls raised eyebrows and ire last December when townwide calls - inviting people to choose which of three politicians, Dave Barrow, Vito Spatafora or Carmine Perrelli, they would support for mayor - came two weeks before campaigning was legally allowed.

It prompted several residents and two of the named politicians, Mayor Barrow and Deputy Mayor Spatafora, to contact The Liberal to share their concerns.

Marian Nalley and Alan Langill emailed Mr. Perrelli in anger after their two robocalls this week.

“One robocall, I was going to let it go, but two?” Ms Nalley said, “Enough is enough!”

The Ward 5 resident said she was not interested in the survey the first time it came to her door, and she remains uninterested.

“I think it was biased. I didn’t like how it was skewing the results to his own agenda. He is not councillor of my ward. He’s using this to better his own campaign and I don’t like him using taxpayers money.”

Mr. Perrelli said yesterday the funds for the calls and mailing came from “council-approved budgets that are afforded to all members of council and in keeping with the council expense policy”.

Dean Miller, commissioner of corporate and financial services, said he is still gathering information related to the issue after hearing multiple complaints from residents.

“Mailing in a councillor’s ward is allowable,” he said. “The grey area is mailing outside the ward.”

Council has asked that staff update the mailing and newsletter policy. Last March, the staff report was referred to this Monday’s council meeting.

It includes a recommendation that ward councillors only be permitted to use their accounts for mailings within their wards, and a reduction to one mailing per year, rather than two.

Mr. Perrelli defends his actions this week, saying residents welcome the opportunity to make their views known, “in stark contrast to others that perpetuate the Old Boys’ Club mentality by keeping them in the dark”.

As for the robocalls, he said, “all mediums of communications have their detractors. Some residents have told me that they are upset that they get The Liberal delivered to them when they have never requested it. Most just say thank you that you are taking the time to provide this important community information.”

One upset Ward 6 resident who emailed Mr. Perrelli to stop robocalling her home, was told in response by Mr. Perrelli: “If you would like your number removed, please indicate so. Ordering me to stop calling all residents is not a suggestion that I welcome and I therefore respectfully decline. I will politely ask you not to bother me any further with your emails.”