top of page

Good judgment starts before you get elected: Goswell challenges McIntyre

Oct 25
6 min read

A lawful campaign contribution can still raise a legitimate question of sound judgment


Success almost always revolves around “sound judgment”.

A lawful campaign contribution can still raise a legitimate question of “ mature judgment”.


Why it matters: My campaign is presenting this election as a choice between “experience” and “less-tested alternatives”. Who do you want representing you when next years City of Greater Sudbury operating budget will be over $860 million ?

I believe that executive management experience matters when municipal problems involve several governments and agencies.


WARD 12 VOTERS SHOULD SEE THE DONOR LIST BEFORE THEY VOTE


Jeff MacIntyre’s official financial statement from the 2022 municipal election records a $500 contribution from John Arnold using 130 Elm Street as the contributor’s address.

Does it pass the political “smell test”?

The listed address 130 Elm is Dalron’s business office.

John Arnold is publicly associated with Dalron.

Dalron is the developer behind the new subdivision that proposes to connect Forestdale and Montrose to Maley Drive Extention; a highway to residential neighborhoods.

The subdivision has generated documented concerns about traffic on Montrose and Forestdale. This in turn has generated City motions and serious community outcry.

MacIntyre is again seeking the Ward 12 seat after losing in the 2022 election.

Voters cannot inspect his 2026 contributors until after voting unless McIntyre voluntarily discloses them.

There is no allegation that this 2022 contribution was unlawful.

There is no allegation that an agreement was made or that a particular decision was purchased.

The question is much simpler: Was it good judgment for a Ward 12 candidate to accept that contribution when Dalron’s development interests are so closely connected to one of Ward 12’s most consequential Quality-of-Life issues?

Dalron’s Royal Oaks/Nickeldale subdivision has generated serious neighbourhood concerns about additional housing density, traffic on Montrose Avenue and Forestdale Drive, future road connections and the effect of further development on established residential streets.

These are not abstract planning questions.

They affect where people live, how much traffic passes their homes and whether Montrose remains a residential roadway rather than becoming an access route carrying substantially more traffic.

A councillor must not only act independently. A councillor must also exercise the judgment necessary to avoid reasonable questions about whether campaign contributions could influence future decisions.

Ward 11 candidate Mike Bleskie has voluntarily disclosed his present campaign contributors before Election Day. That is a useful transparency standard because voters can consider the information while their votes still matter.

The Goswell campaign is self-financed by me within the legal candidate personal contribution limit of $7,091.20.

I have not accepted any outside campaign contributions.

Based upon MacIntyre's 2022 campaign disclosure, that has just now come to my attention. I am asking the other Ward 12 candidates to disclose their 2026 contributions exceeding $100.

Accepting a lawful contribution does not establish wrongdoing. But disclosure allows voters—not candidates—to decide whether a contribution raises questions about independence, perception or judgment.

“Development decisions affect the streets where people live,” he said. “For residents concerned about Montrose, traffic and the character of their neighbourhood, confidence in their councillor's independence matters. I believe accepting financial support linked to a developer deserves scrutiny. Voters should have the facts while their choice can still make a difference.”


Goswell says he and his wife are financing his campaign themselves, a choice that has imposed limits on what he could afford to put on lawns and street corners.


“People have asked why they see so few Goswell signs. Others have asked for signs I could not supply. I budgeted for four lawn flags, and all four were snapped up quickly. There were residents willing to display more. I did not have the budget to buy them.”


Ontario limits the combined amount a council candidate and spouse can contribute. Candidates accepting eligible outside contributions have another source of campaign funds, although they remain subject to campaign spending limits.


MacIntyre's 2022 return reports $6,539 in contributions from others, $1,983.47 from the candidate and spouse, and $3,192.31 in sign expenses, including the sign deposit. Those figures describe his previous campaign; they do not establish his current fundraising or spending.


“My largest commitment was to the Journal Printing bill for my booklet and the Canada Post bill to distribute it in Ward 12,” Goswell said. “That took the vast majority of my budget. I chose to put my “job application” into people's hands: my experience, my qualifications and my reasons for asking to serve.

That booklet is available on my website at Goswell.ca in digital form.

I wanted residents to have enough information to compare the applicants.” But going door-to-door and talking to residents in all parts of Ward 12, I also now realize that my specific disclosures cannot be measured against the other candidates' disclosures of "hundreds of clients," without naming them specifically.


“Please do not mistake fewer signs for a lack of people prepared to display them. And do not mistake a decision about where to spend limited funds for a failure to prepare. I made a choice, and I am explaining it.” Had I chosen to take DONATIONS I would have had plenty of money for lawn signs, but with those donations, I believe come obligations. Instead, I chose disclosure so that voters know who specifically you are electing, and specifically what they did in their lifetime.


Goswell says the same approach would guide his conduct at City Hall: explain decisions, account for costs and give residents particulars they can examine. His central spending commitment remains “No new spending without new revenue.”


“I have named the organizations where I worked and the responsibilities I held. That puts my record up for examination, and I accept that. I am asking for the same openness about campaign financing. Tell voters who is helping pay for the campaign before they finish choosing their councillor.”


“I chose self-financing because I want residents to have confidence in my independence. Other candidates have made different choices. Put those choices in front of the voters. Good judgment should stand up to daylight.”


My campaign is 100% self funded, so I owe nothing to anyone but the voters of Ward 12.

I will serve full time, be available when you need me, and always do what is best for Greater Sudbury. I have built businesses here for more than 50 years.

This city has given me and my family so much, and serving on council is how I want to give back.

Thank you as well to the other candidates in Ward 12. Running takes courage, and I respect everyone who steps forward to serve.

Campaign financial statements should not become meaningful only after the election is over. Ward 12 voters deserve the relevant facts before they cast their ballots.

Ron Goswell

Candidate for Councillor, Ward 12

BA, B.Comm, MBA



Sources





October 20, 2015 Landry-Altmann moved the direction to incorporate a meandering Montrose Avenue design into the Transportation Master Plan; René Lapierre seconded it. The adopted main motion was CC2015-346.

December 13, 2016 Council directed a traffic impact study and Official Plan policies intended to preserve the neighbourhood’s residential character. The resolution was CC2016-380-A2. I verified its date and substance, but have not independently confirmed its mover and seconder.

September 12–13, 2022 Landry-Altmann moved PL2022-131, seconded by Robert Kirwan, seeking stronger Montrose design provisions in the Phase Two Official Plan review. Council ratified it the next evening. This preceded the October 24 election.

March 18, 2024 After her re-election, she sought a deferral of the revised Royal Oaks/Nickeldale subdivision to address street connections and traffic concerns. The deferral failed; she then cast the only vote against the revised plan at Planning Committee.

Residents have had to press these concerns for years. Councillor Joscelyne Landry-Altmann moved stronger Montrose Avenue protections in September 2022, building on earlier Council directions intended to preserve the neighbourhood’s residential character.

Her advocacy continued after her re-election. In March 2024, she sought further consideration of street connections and traffic concerns before approval of Dalron’s revised Royal Oaks/Nickeldale subdivision. When that effort failed, she cast the only Planning Committee vote against the revised plan.

MacIntyre challenged her for the Ward 12 seat in 2022. His campaign financial statement records a $500 contribution from John Arnold, publicly associated with Dalron. Things we ought to consider before we choose who to vote for. Jeff MacIntryre :

⦁ “Voters cannot inspect his 2026 contributors” with “Voters should not have to wait for post-election financial statements to learn who financed a candidate’s campaign.”  He does not live in Ward 12.

 MacIntyre presents himself as an experienced civic and business advocate few examples found, so his public record and financial relationships deserve corresponding scrutiny.

 MacIntyre’s “fighter” positioning can be tested against specific achievements, positions and measurable results….none found.

 MacIntyre previous candidacy gives voters a financial statement and public record to examine.

Ron Goswell:

⦁ 44 years of Ward 12 residence with MacIntyre residence outside the ward.

⦁ Goswell resident knowledge, independent judgment and demonstrated governance experience.

“I live here, I know the files, I have managed consequential organizations, and I will arrive at council without financial obligations to outside contributors” Goswell

 
 
bottom of page