Gordon Prentice at Large - Politics in Newmarket
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
When Newmarket Library’s Chief Executive, Tracy Munusami, presented her 2023 Report to the Community to councillors on 8 April 2024, she was warmly congratulated by the Library Board Vice Chair and Town councillor, Kelly Broome: 
“We’re extremely proud of the level and where we are with the library in terms of our brand and our reach. It’s significant. If we had the annual reports lined up you would see the significant increase since you joined us (3 August 2021)…
“We’re definitely at a point now when measuring data is critical and (it’s) great we have some really great data to share.”
Personally, I find the “great data” coming out of the Library to be contradictory and confusing, bordering on useless.
On Friday (4 July) Ms Munusami sent me “a chart to outline the data”:
It shows a 76% increase in new membership cards between 2023 and 2024. It also shows that 6,234 people didn't renew their Library membership in 2024. (18,992 + 9,476 = 28,468 – 22,234 = 6,234).
The Library’s most recent Reports to the Community do not give total membership at year end. Instead, the entire focus is on new memberships and percentage increases which distort the true picture.
Reporting to the Province
Every year, the Library Chief Executive must send a statistical report to the Province giving data on membership, Library usage, activities and programs offered and so on. The Province claims:
“Ontario’s public library statistics are one of the most comprehensive and current data sets in North America.”
So when people turn to the Province’s data-sets – as I did - they expect statistics that are accurate.
Ms Munusami told the Province there were 24,136 members (or “active Library cardholders”) in December 2023. (See table right)
This figure was subsequently revised sharply downwards to 17,893 – a decrease of 26%. The Chief Executive has revised it yet again to 18,992.
Shrunk 
I relied on the figure filed with the Province when I claimed membership had in fact shrunk and not grown – from 24,136 in 2023 to 22,234 in 2024.
But it was the supposed increase in the number of “new members” that allowed the Library Chair, Darryl Gray, to trumpet in his foreword to the 2024 Report:
“This past year has been extraordinary for the Newmarket Library, marked by significant growth in membership and an expanded presence throughout our community.”
After I highlighted these contradictions Ms Munusami told me on 16 April 2025:
“The number you received from the provincial annual survey (for 2023 - 24,136) is incorrect. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Gaming does have an updated figure from us. We have been informed that the reports on the province’s site from 2023 will not be updated for the public, but the province does retain the record of the revised number from us.”
Revision
In the light of this, a couple of months ago, I filed a Freedom of Information request with the Province asking for sight of the correspondence between Ms Munusami and the civil servants responsible for maintaining the annual data-set from libraries across Ontario. I wanted to know the revised number for 2023. And I wanted sight of the library's communication making the request for revision, the date it was received and the official response.
The Province is willing to let me have this information but they must first consult Ms Munusami. If she objects, she has a right to appeal the decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
If there is no objection I shall get this information by 23 July 2025.
New Members 
The Library Chief Executive says she now uses a new definition for “Active Library Cardholders” (or, in my shorthand, Library members). She says the change:
“still aligns with the Provincial definition.”
Ms Munusami told councillors in April:
“The definition of an “active library user” is someone who's used the library in the last 24 months… We do a survey every year to the Ministry. It's called the annual Public Library survey and that's the definition that they use.”
In her email to me of 4 July 2025 Ms Munusami stated:
“We now define an active cardholder as someone who still has access to the library collection. If your card expires, you no longer have access to the library collection and are no longer an active cardholder until you return to renew it.
o The old way of defining an active cardholder was to take the existing active cardholder and add the new cards issued in a year, not considering that expired cards no longer have access.
o The Newmarket Library’s ‘new users’ data does not include users who simply renewed their card. However, it may include people who were users a few years ago, were inactive for a period (e.g. didn’t renew right away) and came back for a card.”
Clear as mud.
That said, I take this to mean the old system merely added new cards to the number of expiring cards and that any database clean-up did not remove all the expired cards.
Where did the 9,476 new members come from?
So, how did the Library get to 9,476 new members in 2024? We are told a “new user” may include people who didn’t renew their membership right away. Which leaves me wondering what period of grace people are given before being registered as a new member.
Complicating the picture further, the Library Board at its meeting on 21 May 2025 was presented with a statistical dashboard giving "new membership" numbers for 2023 and 2024 which are completely different from earlier ones. (see slide right)
If the figures are cumulative, these total 5,249 new members in 2023 (not 5,357).
But, manifestly, the 2024 figures are not cumulative.
If they are not cumulative we are talking about 6,692 new members in 2024 but how does that square with the 9,476 new members that Ms Munusami repeatedly insists is the correct number?
The Library Board and the Public Interest
This disastrous reporting of basic information over the four years of Ms Munusami’s tenure cannot just be laid at her door. She signs off on all the reports presented to the Board, the Town and the wider public.
But what about the Library Board’s oversight role? Clearly, it has been lamentable.
The Board is responsible for hiring the Chief Executive and for monitoring her work. Her salary in 2024 went up 17.5% compared to her salary in 2022 at a time when sand was being thrown in our eyes with claims of spectacular membership growth. Her annual performance review will be conducted by the Board's Executive Committee next month.
Ms Munusami has tried to answer questions I have put to her – but only after I got nowhere with the Board Chair, Darryl Gray.
Darryl Gray
Almost three months ago, I tried to get hold of him as I was concerned about the accuracy of the Library’s Report to the Community 2024.
On 14 April 2025 I was told:
“...that Tracy Munusami, CEO, is best suited to provide comments on information in the report as it relates to numerical data as she has direct access to this information and can respond in a more timely and effective manner.”
So that’s what triggered my email correspondence with Ms Munusami. (Click “read more” below for Ms Munusami’s email to me on 4 July 2025)
But after our exchanges I am really none the wiser.
The answers I get only beg further questions.
Update on 17 July 2025: From Newmarket Today: Darryl Gray wins Newmarket Today's first ever unsung hero award.
and from Newmarket Today on 27 June 2025: Library Chief Executive is a rising star.
See also: Time for Newmarket Public Library to be Open and Honest with the Town
Read more: Data from Newmarket Public Library is useless and can't be trusted
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
Over the years I have written extensively about the tax certificate given by the Town of Newmarket in December 2021 to the developer Marianneville in exchange for 16 acres of gifted land at Glenway West. 
To me, the whole thing from start to finish was a three-card trick allowing the developer to offset millions of dollars in tax owing to the Canada Revenue Agency for land which, in my view, was largely undevelopable.
Question: When do developers give land away?
Answer: When they can't make a profit from developing it.
I’ve probably squeezed the orange dry on Glenway West so let this be my parting shot.
Rules not followed
I wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency three years ago with my detailed concerns but got no response other than an acknowledgement. My letter sits in the back of some filing cabinet in Ottawa, unlikely ever to see the light of day again. The CRA rules on charitable donations of land were not followed in every respect.
As soon as I got hold of the valuation report itself, I knew the valuation of the Glenway West land by Bottero & Associates was completely bogus.
Extraordinary Assumptions
Bottero relied on a raft of “extraordinary assumptions” to conclude that two thirds of the 16 acres of land was developable and worth over $14M. To anyone reading the valuation report (and who is not a valuer), this requires the willing suspension of disbelief.
Why didn’t the valuer formally consult the Town’s Director of Planning and Director of Engineering before making his “extraordinary assumptions”?
Why don’t valuation protocols from the Appraisal Institute of Canada specifically mandate this?
Potentially supportable
The Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Ian McDougall, told me last month that if Bottero had consulted the Town’s Director of Planning he would have been told that
“development of some of these lands could potentially be supportable subject to the necessary justification studies and technical reports”.
The valuer posited that if the Town did not require the land to be used for park purposes at some indeterminate point in the future (itself a bizarre proposition) it could be used for a Town house development just like the one about to be built at Bathurst and Sykes. (See graphic right)
Medium Density 
I scoffed at the valuer’s view that a medium density Town House development could be seamlessly inserted into a rectangular piece of land which is (a) currently home to two storm water ponds and is (b) surrounded on three sides by an established neighbourhood of single dwelling houses. Could such a townhouse development sit easily alongside single family homes? (Graphic below right: Glenway Block 13. The Town house development)
On 21 December 2023, a submission to the Town by planners Zelinka Priamo Ltd on behalf of Marianneville, set out principles to be applied when considering the treatment of infill development in established neighbourhoods. These principles called for
- Separation appropriate to the building type, mass, and height.
- Plan “like-to-like” housing forms where adjacent to existing single detached dwellings, or use intervening parkland where a more intensive housing form isintroduced.
- Use of special zoning provisions, where necessary, to address special conditions.
- Recognition of grading conditions in creating and mitigating potential issues of compatibility.
- Selection of fencing and landscaping options to minimize disruption of existing landscaping, and to provide appropriate privacy and enjoyment of private amenity areas.
Compatibility: now more nuanced concept
The helpful Mr McDougall tells me “compatibility” is now a more nuanced concept and no longer requires like-to-like housing forms.
“On the matter of compatibility, you are correct there were Official Plan policies focused on residential uses as being of the same built form, however, coming out of the Established Neighbourhood Study in 2020, that specific policy was removed. This change was made before the appraisal report dated April 14, 2021. The current Official Plan policies require a compatibility study to be submitted and accepted to obtain permission for townhouses in the Residential designation. It is now common accepted planning practice that the built form of residential uses does not necessarily dictate compatibility. Compatibility is evaluated as a much more nuanced concept that considers buffers, setbacks, shadow impacts, and streetscape, among other matters.”
Underground Tanks 
I am also told the Town’s Director of Engineering says the existing stormwater ponds should not, necessarily, be an impediment to development. We are told the two Storm Water ponds could be replaced:
“with underground tanks or a combination of underground tanks and Low Impact Development features”.
What developer would want the burden of maintaining and servicing these structures indefinitely? At the moment, developers bust a gut to transfer stormwater ponds to the Town just as soon as they can. The last thing they want is the responsibility of maintaining these ponds in perpetuity. All over the country, developers are offloading stormwater ponds into the arms of municipalities where they stay forever.
Stonehaven
In coming to his valuation of $14.2M for the 15.92 acres at Glenway West the valuer looked at four other comparable properties. One of these, the 43.27 acre site at 600 Stonehaven, was bought by Marianneville on 21 March 2019 for $30M cash. In this case the purchase price would have taken into account the valuer’s assessment that only 17.28 acres were deemed to be developable.
In the meantime, the Town continues its work to transform the 16 acres at Glenway West into a place for the rest and recreation of local people.
Once barrow loads of public money have been spent to transform this little enclave into an enchanting haven, we will be reminded of the generosity of the developer, Marianneville, who, we must acknowledge, made it all possible.
Update on 31 August 2025: From Newmarket Today: Final Projects underway on former Golf Course lands.
Click "read more" below for the exchange of emails.
Read more: Postscript: "Extraordinary assumptions" and the valuation of land at Glenway West
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
I have spent quite a lot of time over the years – on and off - trying to uncover what really happened on 1 November 2022 when the developer Michael Rice offered land in the protected Greenbelt at Bathurst to Southlake for the site of a new acute hospital. I was repeatedly told there were no records of that consequential meeting at King's Municipal HQ. 
At every turn, I hit a road-block. For key meetings - which one would ordinarily expect to be documented - no records existed, even though hospitals (and municipalities) are legally obliged to keep records.
Meticulously tracked
When patients go through the doors at Southlake their progress is meticulously tracked. But when Southlake’s hospital administrators were offered free land for a new hospital, worth many millions of dollars, everything was committed to memory and nothing was jotted down by the then Chief Executive, Arden Krystal.
John Marshman, Southlake's Vice President of Capital and Facilities, who was also present on 1 November 2022, chaired the first meeting of Southlake’s Land Acquisition Sub Committee one month later, on 5 December 2022. Like Krystal, Marshman insists he remembered everything that was said on 1 November 2022. No notes were taken.
No record of Dunlap offer
For other key meetings there were no agendas, no minutes, no notes. We have no idea what happened to the long term care facility that was proposed to be incorporated within the new hospital complex. Southlake says it has no record of the former Southlake Board member, John Dunlap, offering his own land at Bathurst as the site of the proposed hospital. Yet we have documentary evidence that on more than one occasion Dunlap told King Mayor, Steve Pellegrini, he was minded to gift land. And so it goes on. Yawning gaps in the record.
Broke obligations
A year ago the Information and Privacy Commissioner said she planned to issue a special report on "access to information and record keeping issues relating to changes in the Greenbelt".
We now have her conclusions in the IPC's latest Annual Report which found:
“officials broke legal record keeping obligations in planning Greenbelt Removals”.
Accountability
She makes a series of recommendations for strengthening transparency and public trust. And although she takes aim at the Premier's Office her recommendations hold good for other institutions such as Southlake and the Municipality of King. She says:
"The absence of records raises serious accountability concerns and undermines public trust. Whether digital, handwritten, or verbal, decisions of public importance must be documented. Without a full and accurate record of decision-making, when, by whom and on what basis, the public is left in the dark about government actions that affect their communities and the environment. When records are lost, destroyed, obfuscated, or never created in the first place, it raises more questions than answers."
The absence or destruction of records may be one reason why the RCMP investigation into the Greenbelt scandal is taking forever. I don't know. Even without records, people do have recollections but these, inevitably, fade over time. That's another reason why this long drawn out police investigation cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely.