Tuesday, 7 August 2018

MUNICIPAL ADVISORY: child hazard at Richmond Hill Public Library now corrrectly managed; thoughts on public art, including precision sundials

The telescope-like artwork, in essence a kaleidoscope without the moving beads,  installed in the rose garden of the Richmond Hill Public Library in the early afternoon of 2018-08-07. My iPhone3 photo, from perhaps a half hour after the installation was completed by the artistic crew. I have rotated the artwork on its azimuth axis into a dangerous position, such as a child might unwisely select when pointing the device at the morning sun during the winter months.  (At that season and time, the sun lies rather low in the sky, in the southeast.) Note the fine cooper detailing, with an open-book motif on the pedestal heat-treated under oxyacetylene; the fine selection of matte-or-similar stainless steel for the tube body; the fine selection of copper rings at sky end and ocular end; and the short-focal-length converging lens, in plain glass, at the sky end.

Revision history: 

  • 20180809T153000Z/version 2.0.0: Kmo added a big update, not only documenting a facourable response from the Town regarding the public-hazard question but also addressing a related topic: might the Town some day commission, as public art from the already-known artists, a -precision sundial? 
  • 20180808T164300Z/version 1.2.0: Kmo identified further aspects of the problem and wrote again to Clerks (appending the fresh correspondence as an "UPDATE"). 
  • 20180808T150200Z/version 1.1.0: Kmo added (1) photo, (2) update regarding municipal response.  
  • 20180807T172800Z:/version 1.1.1 Kmo wrote base version, and at the same time e-mailed his base version to clerks@richmondhill.ca

This starts out as a hasty posting, addressing a kind of civic emergency, but morphs into a rather significant reflection, at my customary "quality assessment" of 4-out-of-5, on high-precision sundials in the context of public art. So scroll down, folks, until you get to the meaty part, on sundials.

AS clerks@richmondhill.ca,

On 2018-08-07 (TUE), around 12:20 EDT or 12:30 EDT or 12:40 EDT, a team of artists finished installing a decoration in the rose garden of the Richmond Hill Public Library Main Branch, in Ontario.  

I discussed the hazard with the artists in a friendly way during their installation, which I stumbled upon through sheer accident (having taken my mid-day coffee into the Library rose garden). Pretty much as soon as the installation was complete and the artists gone, I went out again, inspecting the installation carefully to confirm my suspicions. 

The installation is a device which on a casual glance resembles a telescope, but in fact is identical to a classic kaleidoscope except in lacking the classic kaleidoscope's moving beads. Upon sighting through the eyepiece end one encounters, as with a classic kaleidoscope, a set of mirrors, producing multiple reflections. The view through the eyepiece is beautiful. Still more beautiful is the exterior of the installation - finished, as it is, in oxydized, partly torch-treated, copper, and in black matte-or-similar stainless steel, with an emblematic open book (worked in copper) on its pedestal. 

At the sky end of the device is a converging lens of short focal length. Between the lens and the ocular end (the end opposite the sky end) are one or more diffusing screens. 

Dangerously, the device is free to move through 360 degrees of azimuth, and to be pointed up to an altitude of very roughly 45 degrees. 

The danger scenario is the following: Some child, on some sunny morning or some sunny afternoon, when the sun is rather low in the sky and yet clear of nearby treetops, takes the device to be a telescope and points it to the Sun. The child does not sustain dramatic retinal burns, since (1) the converging lens at the sky end is of short focal length (surely bringing incoming parallel solar rays to a point far in front of the child's eye, rather than to a point within or near the eye), and (2) interposed between the converging lens and the child's retina are one or more diffusing screens. Nevertheless, the child sustains mild retinal burns, as a child might on staring at the Sun for a while through a piece of tissue paper or Kleenex. 

The danger scenario can be blocked (as I pointed out in a friendly way to the artists) by installing restraints, in peg form, preventing the device from moving through a full 360 degrees of azimuth. If the device were allowed to move in azimuth only within 20 or so degrees on either side of North, the danger would be gone, and the artistic integrity of the installation - I reiterate that it is of quite breathtaking beauty - would be unimpaired. 

I gather from the artists that this installation has cost the Town about 7,000 CAD. This is in my judgement money correctly spent. But where were the Town officials who are paid by us, the residents, to consider public safety? The artists told me the Town had been worried about the mechanical integrity of the mounting, fearing that the installation tube could come loose and fall. Although the Town had been right to worry about this (and the worry, as I saw, was duly addressed, with the wielding of a formidable spanner at installation time), the Town seems to have neglected the bigger, purely ophthalmological, problem. 

TOWN: I recommend your replying via the standard blogspot reply interface, so that full public transparency is maintained. My blogging-comment rules, as laid out here in 2006 April,  would be adequately met by a reply giving the name of the replying official, and an e-mail address for him or her, and the simple phrase "writing from Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario". 


UPDATE: At UTC=20180807T1902Z, Clerks wrote me as follows: /.../ your concerns as detailed in your email /.../ have been forwarded to senior staff at the Public Library and the Town.

UPDATE: Around UTC=20180808T160740Z, I wrote again to Clerks, as follows:

Coordinated Universal Time (= UTC = EST+5 = EDT+4): 20180808T160740Z

Dear Clerks, with subsequent cc to my blog:

I have now updated http://toomaskarmo.blogspot.com with a photo of the problematic artwork at the Richmond Hill Public Library (the subject of our correspondence yesterday, and of a blog posting yesterday under heading "MUNICIPAL ADVISORY: child hazard at Richmond Hill Public Library (telescope-like device capable of pointing to Sun)").

On brooding over this problem at lunch time today, I suddenly notice two things which i should have noticed yesterday, but failed to notice then:

(1) Since the converging lens at the sky end of the tube is of short focal length, and since there seems to be a diffusing screen just behind the lens, there is some danger that the lens could, when pointed at the Sun, form a (in ray-optics terminology "real and inverted")  image of the solar disk inside the tube, close to its presumed internal diffusing screen. If the lens-screen distance is within a millimetre or two of the lens's focal length, the consequent concentration of light on the diffusing screen will be high enough to raise its temperature, possibly to the point of combustion. The design of the device therefore needs to be checked. It will be necessary for the Town to learn the focal length of the lens, AND the lens-screen distance, and to check that the distances are safely far from equal. - Admittedly, if the device can be prevented from pointing to the Sun, with the azimuth-pegging solution I proposed to the Town yesterday (allowing the device to move in azimuth ("left-right", as opposed to "up-down") only within plusminus 20 degrees or so of North), rays from the Sun will never be parallel to the tube, and the combustion scenario will be blocked.

(2) On asking myself today (I should have thought of this yesterday) how the problem plays out in Ward terms, I note to my sudden grief that the problem sits in the ward of Councillor Cilevitz. I don't quite now where this leaves us. Perhaps the Councillor will want to reach out to me, taking this problem in the Town as an opportunity for the meeting which she owes me? - If it helps the Clerks, do please note (a) that I continue to request a meeting with Councillor Cilevitz, in my capacity as a resident of Richmond Hill, as I have already long been requesting; and (b) that the Councillor is formally required to grant my request, since she does meet with other residents of Richmond Hill, and since her oath of office formally commits her to impartiality.

I might further note (c) that I now, without referring SPECIFICALLY to the Cilevitz-Karmo 2014 out-of-court settlement, in GENERAL terms deprecate the idea of civil litigants settling their cases out of court. My legal reasoning for this deprecatory stand is the reasoning set out by jurist Dame Hazel Genn in her 2009 Hamlyn Lectures, to which I refer at http://www.karen-vs-toomas-legaldocs.ca/GNOC____20140505__settlement_schedule_c.pdf.

I would respectfully submit to Clerks that whatever the general merits or general demerits of out-of-court settlements in general jurisprudence, at any rate points "(a)" and "(b)" cannot be undermined by my out-of-court settlement with Ms Cilevitz, and that in general no out-of-court settlement can be used by any Councillor in any municipality as a reason for evading formal oath-of-office obligations (including the obligation to meet with any resident requesting a meeting).

Perhaps you could tersely acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, and in your receipt assure me that you are doing what you in legal and moral propriety are ABLE to do in the matter of Cnclr Cilevitz? I do note that you may not be able to do very much, and that I will therefore have to exercise restraint, good humour, and tolerance in this particular aspect of the Library-safety casework.


Toomas Karmo

86 Crosby Avenue - 647-267-9566

UPDATE: At UTC=20180808T1740Z,  an official with Community Services, Parks and Recreation, Town of Richmond Hill, sent me a mail with the following key passage:  The artist will be making alterations to the installation to address the possibility of someone looking directly at the sun, through the kaleidoscope. Signage is in place reminding visitors to keep safety top of mind while they interact with the installation.

I replied as follows, raising the idea of a high-precision sundial in our current public-art context:

UNIVERSAL COORDINATED TIME ( = EDT + 04h00 = EST + 05h00): 20180809T1447Z

Dear Ms ((REDACTED)), with also cc to http://toomaskarmo.blogspot.com:

Thanks so much for your briefing. The Town and its library have taken
appropriate steps.

It is a pity that this exceptionally fine piece of creative metalwork
is leaving the Library after the end of September.
i would therefore like to suggest now, in a respectful civic spirit,
that thought be given to some eventual PERMANENT
installation in the Library rose garden, along the same general aesthetic lines.

One idea that particularly comes to mind involves a high-precision
sundial. Low-precision sundials abound.
We have one at the David Dunlap Observatory, where I worked from
2006-11-15 to 2008-07-02. High-precision
sundials, however, are rare. As a kid, I did construct one in
cardboard, following instructions from the _Scientific
American_ from around 1963. I think my device was good to plus-minus
five minutes. Might a high-precision
sundial some day be worked in brass and steel by these same artists?

A five-minute precision, although more
impressive than what it achieved by the typical garden instrument
(such as at DDO), is still not impressive.
It is theoretically possible to achieve something better than
plus-minus one **SECOND** (with respect to
official civil time, not merely with respect to Local Mean Solar
Time), if the device
incorporates setting screws that are adjusted by an engineer every
time the Bureau international des Poids
et Mesures, in Paris, tweaks official civil time by proclaiming a "leap second"
(an unpredictable Paris event that tends to occur
not every year, but occurs perhaps once or twice every decade).

A high-precision sundial, somewhere in the Richmond Hill parks and
library system, would put Richmond Hill
onto the map internationally - the tighter the attained precision, the
more prominently onto the global map.

If you are inclined to pursue this line of thinking at some future
time, you can continue to reach me as
Toomas.Karmo@gmail.com (although from 2018-10-31 or so
I am liable to be physically at the dark-sky compound of Tartu
Observatory, in Estonia). A key local contact person, I would imagine staying
here in Richmond Hill over coming years, is Dr Ian Shelton
(DDO Defenders). He for his part would ideally establish a liaison
with the scientifically best-trained
member of the former daytime DDO engineering crew - an electronics
specialist who, being also
mechanics-literate, would be able to exercise the necessary
supervision on machining within the
atelier of the actual artists (checking tolerances with vernier
calipers or micrometer, etc etc).

It occurs to me this morning, as I continue worrying about that source
of intermittent municipal angst
which is Councillor Cilevitz, and in whose Ward the current
kaleidoscope-styed artwork happens
to my alarm to sit, that Ms Cilevitz could take this sundial idea on, working
closely with Dr Shelton. Although she may be upset if I
write to her directly, you could forward this present letter to her,
asking her for her views.

I also note that the artists, having demonstrated their skill in
metals, might now profitably
consider commissions for the PRIVATE sector, by making custom
mid-tower and full-tower
gaming-class computer cases, in a "Steampunk" aesthetic. This has
already been done, somewhere
in the world. But perhaps these artists could take the idea further.
Had I 8,000 CAD to expend, I would myself
commission such a computer case, specifying black glass, black steel,
and patina copper,
in Full Tower, and on the thermal-engineering side demanding water
cooling of CPU and GPU,
with external flow gauge and external water-temperature gauge! ;-) :-)

I add as an Appendix to this e-mail a slab of prose from my 2003
environmentalist manifesto,
"Utopia 2184", laying out my own fantasy of a high-precision sundial
(set, for narrative reasons,
in the Kentish countryside of 2184, with Saint Thomas More serving as
an interlocutor and guide).
My treatment of precession in the Appendix is not necessarily
accurate, though the essence is
okay. (Perhaps I err in implying a requirement for precession
correction in the first-order
terms of the overall precession equation? I can't get my head around
the problem right now.
Still, it is correct that SOME precession correction is required, with
respect to at least the
HIGHER-order terms. Some prof ought to set this as a problem in a
"Problem Set", as in what
I recall was the  UofT AST225H course.)

Perhaps you could also convey this letter to the artists, with my
regards and good wishes?


Toomas Karmo


Ahead of us lay a steadily widening patch of daylight,
the far end of the Yew Walk. England! - with the sun
bright now, and the Saint conversing easily in my own
debased English, as though cheerful enough to shed
the brocaded encumbrances of high Tudor idiom. As for
those other brocaded encumbrances: while he kept his
Holbein robes, they fitted him well in that
subtropical heat, as black and flowing robes
befit some solemn prince in the shimmering sands of Dubai.

'You really must start,' said he - we emerged now from
yews onto a fine open lawn - 'with a look at the Dial.' This
was most unexpected. Did he mean the dial of a television receiver?

But in a moment his meaning was plain, as we followed
the paving through severely trimmed herbs up the
steps on a low terrace. (A scent of sandalwood mingled
there with the English propriety of Lavandula angustifolia.) The
'Dial' was a dial in a sense Newton, or even Erasmus, would have
grasped, a sundial. And verily a sundial worthy of the practical
astronomer's art, a towering instrument in black glass and fine metals,
with many a pivot, many an adjustable parameter. 'The year we set
here, and here the month, and here the day,' remarked the Saint,
pointing to small, exact wheels. The year I knew without requiring further
instruction, through the same kindly inward light that told me it
was the Feast of Benedict. In a moment,
then, I had turned the yearscrew to 2184, the month to 07, the day to 11.

The yearscrew! A great, exquisite brass worm, the first in a train,
its finely pitched thread ultimately slewing the base of the
two-metre-high mechanism ever so slightly on altitude
and azimuth axes to compensate correctly for year-to-year precession.

Precession, I should perhaps add here - all Observatory people
everywhere and in all seasons show off - is that slow, stately gyration
of Earth's axis that makes celestial bodies shift their apparent
positions in our sky, for instance shifting the Sun's spring equatorial
crossing-point by on the order of fifty seconds of arc each twelvemonth,
as the celestial poles ever-so-slowly circle the ecliptic poles.
The effect is, although tiny, relentless. Thanks to precession, native North
Americans living 4000 years before Christ beheld the Southern
Cross from North Dakota. Thanks to precession, whatever humans
may ponder the skies in Anno Domini 16000 are destined to find not Polaris,
but Vega, marking the approximate location of the North Celestial Pole.
The precession circle repeats itself (or more accurately, comes close
to repeating itself) every 25,770 years, and I was much gratified to note
that the Dial was built with a sufficiently ample worm, and sufficient play in
its foundation mounting, to cover a generous quarter or third of that
immense period. If I recall correctly, the gear train allowed even for a
few of the more obscure of the ten or so terms in the full precession equation
(those are terms making it only reasonably, not fully, accurate to describe
precession as a tidy circular movement in the celestial poles):
a small regular nutation, or "nodding", in Earth's axis,
and a steady secular, nonreversing, tidal drag exerted by the Moon,
come dimly to mind.

The work of the second and third wheels was less dramatic,
more homely. Their joint action caused the sunlight to pass through
the appropriate short segment, hardly more than a pinhole, from a
long and judiciously sinuous slit. This little sliver of sunlight, duly
selected for the given month and day, in turn fell upon a black-glass plane
ruled in silver with curving hour, minute, and second lines. The
spacing of those curves
was evidently varied so as for any selected day firstly to reduce
local apparent solar
time to Local Mean (solar) Time - that's LMT, the time told by a fictitious
Sun that crawls along the equator instead of the ecliptic, and consequently
puts an unvarying twenty-four hours between each pair of adjacent noons -
and secondly to convert the LMT of that particular longitude to the LMT
of the zero meridian. (That's the meridian through Greenwich. The
French once did their best to refer the zero to Paris, but of course
Britannia rules.)

Well, as I say, Observatory people do show off when they get the chance.

Both of us stared, entranced, grinning schoolboys once again,
as we beheld the tiny sunlight sliver creep
forward on the fine black plate: 14:56:56, 14:56:57, 14:56:58.

[This is the end of the current blog posting.] 

Tuesday, 3 July 2018

Reconciliation with Councillor Cilevitz Sought for Week Ending 2018-07-07

Revision history:

  • 20180723T2003Z/version 4.0.0: Kmo updated Section 3, quite a few days later than he had originally intended. 
  • 20180705T2150Z/version 3.0.0: Kmo updated Sectoin 2, to document the situation as at UTC=20180705T2150Z. 
  • 20180704T2132Z/version 2.0.0: Kmo updated Section 2, to document the situation as at UTC=
  • 20180704T0203Z/version 1.0.1: Kmo corrected an unfortunate typo (changing the erroneous "2017-07-03" in the "NOW THEREFORE" paragraph to the correct "2018-07-03", and retransmitting his e-mail to clerks@richmondhill.ca, again with cc to 920@yrp.ca).
  • 20180703T2008Z/version 1.0.0: Kmo, having just e-mailed clerks@richmondhill.ca with cc to 920@yrp.ca, uploaded a complete section "1." , with stubs for the remaining sections.


1. Letter to Clerks in Town of Richmond Hill, with Also General blogspot Dissemination

Coordinated Universal Time (= UTC = EST+5 = EDT+4): 20180703T200418Z



Toomas Karmo = Toomas.Karmo@gmail.com 

(with effect from 2018-07-01
residing  at 86 Crosby Avenue, Richmond Hill L4C 2R2; 

cellphone is unchanged, continuing to be 647-267-9566)  

RE: requesting Clerks' assistance w/Cnclr K.Cilevitz casework 


A. Preliminary Remark

Although I am writing on a rather small municipal matter, I nevertheless find it convenient to use here the "WHEREAS...AND WHEREAS" and "NOW THEREFORE" format sometimes used in large municipal matters. 

B. The Body of My Letter

  • Councillor Cilevitz and I agree on the importance of free public speech

  • the Town and I jointly reinforced free-speech precedents on 2014-12-01 (MON), when I attended, unimpeded, and with plainclothes police protection, the social portion of the Town Council inaugural meeting, with flyers and placard in protest against the impending destruction of 32 out of the total 76.5 David Dunlap Observatory and Park greenspace hectares (therein opposing the pro-subdivision position of Councillor Cilevitz)

  • I have been placed under some personal-communications restrictions in a 2014 out-of-court settlement with Karen Cilevitz, in 2014 casework detailed at my sites http://www.karen-vs-toomas-blog.ca/ and http://www.karen-vs-toomas-legaldocs.ca/

  • my two principal previous efforts, in the 2016 summer and the 2018 spring, at effecting a personal reconciliation with Councillor Cilevitz have been unsuccessful

  • Councillor Cilevitz is now the subject of a public dispute, or public controversy, involving local music-industry figures Mr Matthew Bergman and Ms Steffi Goodfield

  • the controversy offers a fresh opportunity for a reconciliation between Councillor Cilevitz and me, as I alert the public to deficiencies in some media coverage of the dispute or controversy

  • no out-of-court settlement - and in particular, not the 2014 out-of-court settlement between Councillor Cilevitz and me, on whose specific terms I herewith make no commentary - can undercut citizens' rights to civic participation, including the right to interview Councillors of their municipalities

  • on 2018-06-20 I had a 1h22m phone chat with Mr Matthew Bergman, in which he has put his side of the case to me

  • it is ethically correct to balance this 2018-06-20 chat with Mr Bergman by having a corresponding chat with Councillor Cilevitz, in which she puts her side of the case to me, and in so doing additionally explores with me the possibilities of a personal reconciliation between her and me

  • Councillor Cilevitz declared her willingness to chat with the public on the controversy, in her Facebook posting of 2018-05-31 (using for her declaration the wording "Should anyone have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, I invite you to contact me personally to have that discussion")

  • I now seek a chat of at least 5 minutes' duration, face to face, in the evening (at any time from 5:00 p.m. onward) of 2018-07-05 (THU), in the morning or afternoon or evening of 2018-07-06 (FRI), or in the morning of 2018-07-07 (SAT), with permission to operate my voice recorder, and with permission to use my voice recording in any way that may at any time seem appropriate to me - letting Councillor Cilevitz tell her side of the story in any way she pleases, to balance the account I received from Mr Bergman in our 2018-06-20 1h22m phone chat

  • I additionally seek in our envisaged chat to put the following four questions to Councillor Cilevitz:

    (1) Has she directed the Richmond Hill bylaw enforcement authorities to action in respect of any person or business connected with the entertainment or hospitality industry?

    (2) Is she willing to affirm to me privately my civic right to attend her "Ward 5 Music Festival" municipal event of 2018-07-07 (SAT) in Mount Pleasant Park, and to affirm to me privately my civic right in the course of my attendance to carry chest and back placards worded "COMMENT ABOUT MEDIA", and to affirm to me privately my civic right in the course of my attendance to hand out flyers headed "COMMENT ABOUT MEDIA" bearing the approximate text of the "APPENDIX" to this e-mail?

    (3) Can Councillor Cilevitz suggest any improvements in the draft text shown in my "APPENDIX"?

    (4) Does Councillor Cilevitz, while recognizing that there can legally be no ban on communications between the two of us in her Town-official capacity, now join me in an additional willingness to lift the ban on communications in her private-citizen capacity, thereby effecting a personal reconciliation between us? 

I respectfully ask Clerks to convey the substance of this letter in some way or other to Councillor Cilevitz (for example, by referring her in e-mail to my 2018-07-03
blogspot posting, which displays the text of this same e-mail; or by referring her through a phone call to my 2018-07-03 blogspot posting; or by directly forwarding this e-mail to her),and to confirm for me in a short e-mail that they have in some way or other conveyed the substance to her.

C. Concluding Remark

It would be appropriate for me to receive a response by the late afternoon of 2018-07-04 (WED), either from Clerks or directly from Councillor Cilevitz, in one of the following three logically possible forms: 

  1. No; contrary to your own professed belief, Dr Karmo, Councillor Cilevitz is under no obligation to grant an interview to you, and indeed declines to grant an interview. The legal reasoning supporting the Town's finding of "no obligation" (Councillor Cilevitz's municipal Oath of Office and the Town's municipal Code of Conduct notwithstanding) is the following: [[[[some reasoning here]]]]
  2. Sorry; nobody at the Town can transmit a reply to you by the late afternoon of 2018-07-04 (WED). Please anticipate a somewhat delayed response, on or before [[[[date here]]]]. 
  3. Yes, short interview granted: please attend at [[[[time here]]]], at [[[[place]]]]. 

(signed) TK

APPENDIX: Draft of Flyer for Public Distribution 2018-07-07

It is my civic duty to alert the public to deficiencies in the media coverage of a dispute (a controversy) involving Councillor Karen Cilevitz. 

(1) The Richmond Hill Liberal, at  https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/8679645-richmond-hill-councillor-karen-cilevitz-demands-apology-retraction/ (dateline 2018-06-19, headline "Richmond Hill councillor Karen Cilevitz demands apology, retraction: Thornhill musician says councillor harassed vulnerable people", byline "Kim Zarzour") errs in discussing previous coverage. The most significant error is the Liberal's failure to supply readers, in the course of its discussion of previous coverage, with a link to the most pertinent piece of previous coverage - namely, to the YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBzt5jfE3zY) upload of 2018-06-08, by YouTube user "Rebel Media", under headline "Ward 5 Councillor's 'threats' to shut down musical acts baffles residents". The omission is significant because this particular coverage, unlike other coverage to which the Liberal does refer, explores by-law enforcement, raising a question of abuse of municipal power (to which the Councillor replies, in her remarks to the reporter, that there has been no abuse). As of early July, at UTC=20180703T173559Z, the "Rebel Media" YouTube upload had gained the surprisingly large total of 18,240 views.

(2) Councillor Cilevitz's Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/karencilevitz/, has been censored by someone, with incoming comments critical of the Councillor systematically, again and again, deleted soon after the server began displaying them (as I myself document, with screenshots, at http://toomaskarmo.blogspot.com/2018/06/public-service-posting-facebook.html (comment of 2018-06-05, headed "PUBLIC-SERVICE POSTING: Facebook operations of Town Councillor Karen Cilevitz")).

An unfettered press is one of the bulwarks of Ontario's liberties. 


Toomas Karmo ((((Toomas.Karmo@gmail.com; 647-267-9566; I perform my ethical duty to disclose personals, by citing the my two pertinent Web sites (illuminating Cilevitz 2014 legals): http://www.karen-vs-toomas-blog.ca/, http://www.karen-vs-toomas-legaldocs.ca/))))


2. Response from Councillor Cilevitz's Side

[Situation reports are arranged in reverse chronological order, i.e., with most recent report at the beginning rather than at the end.]

(2) Situation as at UTC=20180705T215000Z:

Mail received from an official at Clerks, from UTC=20180705T1701Z, indicating that Clerks communicated my case to Councillor Cilevitz 2018-07-04 (WED), and that this official is ((QUOTE)) in the process of following-up((/QUOTE)) on my e-mail, and that this official will communicate an update to me upon receiving ((QUOTE))a reply from the Councillor((/QUOTE)).

I replied to this official as follows, copying also Mayor and Council and Sergeant Chris Palmer:

Coordinated Universal Time (= UTC = EST+5 = EDT+4): 20180704T215000Z

Dear ((REDACTED WHAT="name of official")),
with cc Mayor and Council, and Sergeant Chris Palmer,
and with posting to http://toomaskarmo.blogspot.com with your name redacted:

Thanks very much. I am quite sure you have now done all that is presently in your power. I am now **NOT** left with any reason for distrusting Clerks, and a fortiori am **NOT** left with any reason for filing a complaint at the Ombudsman's office.

As you work on Councillor Cilevitz's file, the following fresh points may be of some help:

(a) I have today had a reasonably detailed chat, to a length of around 00h20m or 00h30m, with an individual, "ABCD", who has at least some inside knowledge of the Councillor Cilevitz file, and who has at least some level of personal sympathy for Councillor Cilevitz. On the strength of ABCD's various pieces of advice to me, I am now not at all certain that I should be distributing flyers at the 2018-07-07 (SAT) Ward 5 municipal event. My reasoning is now that in distributing flyers, I might be making myself the unwitting pawn of a faction in  Richmond Hill which wishes Councillor Cilevitz misfortune, and which has in ABCD's private estimation additionally shown some tendency toward intemperate action.

(b) In view of today's reasonably detailed chat with ABCD, it becomes all the more important for me to have an interview with Councillor Cilevitz, with my voice recorder running.  The Councillor may well have some argument for me establishing that my envisaged 2018-07-07 distribution of flyers would be unwise, as tending to assist an intemperate faction in our community without significantly tending to improve our community newspaper. Until I have such an interview, I cannot decide confidently either for or against flyer distribution.

My monitoring of e-mails tomorrow, 2018-07-06 (FRI), may be unreliable, as I continue working on a move from 406 Centre Street East (L4C 1B7) to 86 Crosby Avenue (L4C 2R2). On the other hand, I **COULD** interrupt my work on the move for 40, 80, or 150 minutes to attend to something as important as an interview with the Councillor. It would therefore be advisable for the Councillor or you to phone me as appropriate, on my usual number (647-267-9566), in place of relying on e-mail. You could always send me an e-mail also, for the formal record, secure in the assurance that I would be able to read it by 2018-07-09 (MON), perhaps without being able to read it as early as 2018-07-06 (FRI).


Toomas Karmo

(1) Situation as at UTC=20180704T211412Z:

Transmitted following to Mayor and Council, as
officemayor@richmondhill.ca, vito.spatafora@richmondhill.ca, brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca, greg@gregberos.com, tom.muench@richmondhill.ca, castro.liu@richmondhill.ca, david.west@richmondhill.ca, karen.cilevitz@richmondhill.ca, godwin.chan@richmondhill.ca, 

with cc both to clerks@richmondhill.ca and to 920@yrp.ca:

Coordinated Universal Time (= UTC = EST+5 = EDT+4): 20180704T211412Z

Dear Members of Town Council, with Office of Mayor
(and with cc both to Clerks and to YRP Sergeant Chris Palmer):

In trying to effect a reconciliation with Councillor Karen Cilevitz,
I sent important e-mail on 2018-07-03 (TUE) to Clerks,
making my e-mail also publicly viewable at http://toomaskarmo.blogspot.com
(in a posting of 2018-07-03, headed "Reconciliation with Councillor Cilevitz
Sought for Week Ending 2018-07-07". To my surprise, Clerks have
not responded to my mail, even though they know it is their
formal duty to respond, and even though they know I have had
success in the past at the Ontario Ombudsman's office, in
resolving casework in which Clerks appeared negligent in
correspondence formalities. I have asked Clerks to respond
on 2018-07-05 (THU).

Any suggestions or advice from any of you would now be
useful, as I seek to avoid an escalation to Ombudsman
on 2018-07-06 (FRI).


Toomas Karmo

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Toomas Karmo <toomas.karmo@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:13 PM
Subject: Clerks: seeking yr response to my mailing of 2018-07-03 (TUE)
To: clerks <clerks@richmondhill.ca>
Cc: "Toomas.Karmo" <Toomas.Karmo@gmail.com>

Coordinated Universal Time (= UTC = EST+5 = EDT+4): 20180704T210544Z

Dear Clerks,

I e-mailed you twice yesterday. 2018-07-03 (TUE)  on the same matter,
once in the afternoon and once in the evening.  The second mailing,
copied below, corrected a typo in the first mailing.

It is now just after 5:00 p.m., and to my surprise I have received no
response to yesterday's e-mails. Could you respond, please, at some
point on 2018-07-05 (THU)? I will be away from my computer for part of
that day, but will nevertheless be able to deal with correspondence
intermittently - being, further, able to deal with incoming
correspondence thoroughly and with full concentration toward the end
of the day, perhaps around 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m.

Sincerely, anxiously,

Toomas Karmo
647-267-9566; new municipal address, as of 2018-07-01 = 86 Crosby
Avenue, Richmond Hill L4C 2R2

((SNIP WHAT="copy of text from my 2018-07-03 e-mail submission to Clerks")) 

3. My Impressions upon Attending Councillor Cilevitz's 2018-07-07 Municipal Event

The event was not too well attended. Of the other Councillors, I saw only Mr Tom Muench (representing Ward Two; he has recently been strongly critical of his Town Council colleague Karen Cilevitz). A minor unelected public servant whom I here choose not to identify more closely remarked to me that attendance overall seemed to him to be low. I carefully replied that I had no comment to offer regarding his assessment. 

However, the total attendance cannot have been too catastrophically low, since I distributed between 100 and 120 copies of my own flyer, over six or seven hours.

In its final text, the flyer read as follows:



I write as a resident of Ward 2, Richmond Hill, operating a cellular
phone at 647-267-9566, receiving e-mails as Toomas.Karmo@gmail.com,
and blogging at http://toomaskarmo.blogspot.com. My 2014 legal
difficulties with Councillor Cilevitz are detailed at

(A) I reach out to the public in my continuing efforts at effecting a
personal reconciliation with Councillor Cilevitz. I have been trying
in various ways to secure an interview with the Councillor. The Town
Clerks did the best they could for me in the period
2018-07-04/2018-07-06, but were unsuccessful. Having failed with
Clerks, I now try a different avenue. Can someone in Karen’s circle of
friends and colleagues clarify to her that she is obliged, as a public
official, to grant me a face-to-face interview, and that this
obligation cannot be extinguished by any out-of-court legal settlement
which she and I may have been signed before her 2014 election to
public office? (In making this legal point, and in referring obliquely
while making it to the fact of a 2014 out-of-court settlement between
the Councillor and me, I do not comment in any way on the specific
terms of our settlement, and indeed do not herewith quote any of its
specific terms. Our settlement terms, and also the commentaries
permitted to Karen and me, are published at

(B) I have a civic duty not only to effect a reconciliation with
Councillor Cilevitz but also to alert the public to deficiencies in
the media coverage of a recent dispute (a controversy) involving her.
I now explain those deficiencies.

(B.1) The Richmond Hill Liberal, at

(dateline 2018-06-19, headline “Richmond Hill councillor Karen
Cilevitz demands apology, retraction: Thornhill musician says
councillor harassed vulnerable people”, byline “Kim Zarzour”) errs in
its discussion of previous coverage. The most significant error is the
Liberal’s failure to supply readers, in the course of its discussion
of previous coverage, with a link to the most pertinent piece of
previous coverage – namely, to the YouTube
YouTube user “Rebel Media”, under headline “Ward 5 Councillor’s
‘threats’ to shut down musical acts baffles residents”. The omission
is significant because this particular coverage, unlike other coverage
to which the Liberal does refer, explores by-law enforcement targeting
within the broad entertainment-and-hospitality sector, raising a
question of abuse of municipal power (to which the Councillor replies,
in her remarks to the reporter, that there has been no abuse). As of
UTC=20180707T1547Z, the “Rebel Media” YouTube upload had gained the
surprisingly large total of 18,400 views.

(B.2) Councillor Cilevitz’s Facebook page,
https://www.facebook.com/karencilevitz/, has been censored by someone,
with incoming comments critical of the Councillor systematically,
again and again, deleted soon after the server began displaying them
(as I myself document, with screenshots, at

(comment of 2018-06-05, headed “PUBLIC-SERVICE POSTING: Facebook
operations of Town Councillor Karen Cilevitz”)).

Two principal bulwarks of Ontario’s liberties are (A) access to
elected representatives and (B) an unfettered press.

(signed) Dr Toomas Karmo

Almost as soon as I started distributing my handout, I was interviewed by the Rebel Media camera. Perhaps we shall be lucky, and either (a) none of this interview will go to air or (b) what will go to air will escape tendentious truncation, being left long enough to preserve the true gist of what transpired. (Although I do not, in general, trust the media, I do realize that they can sometimes get things right.)   

As a precaution, I at any rate set down here the true gist of the interview: 

  • I neither affirm nor deny that Karen is a bully, and neither affirm nor deny that our 2014 out-of-court settlement places restrictions on my use of the word 'bully' in discussing Karen. More broadly, I make no comment on the terms of the 2014 out-of-court settlement between Karen and me, and I do not engage in partial quotation of our settlement terms. Our terms can be read in full on the obvious Web site [namely - I remark here, for the benefit of blogspot readers, although I probably did not say this to the camera - http://www.karen-vs-toomas-legaldocs.ca/].  (The Rebel Media camera tried to draw me out on the overall b-word topic. Mindful of my legal position, I politely declined to be drawn.) 
  • I am anxious to effect a reconciliation with Karen. (Rebel Media asked whether I would be willing to have an immediate reconciliation. I responded in some surprise by asking whether this meant a reconciliation here and now, right on camera, before remarking that yes indeed, a reconciliation here and now on camera would be fine. Having asked the question, Rebel Media then said that no on-camera reconciliation was in fact in prospect, explaining that Karen was at the given instant unwilling to chat with them.) 
The best reaction from the (rather sparse?) crowds came from a person on Councillor Cilevitz's side, who told me that I was making the affair more about me than about her, and that if I were to pull back Karen might for her part become more amenable to a meeting. I obtained from this person a promise to intercede with Karen on my behalf were I to pull back.  

A strong anti-Karen reaction came from a lady I did not know. She denounced Karen to me in private, vehemently.

Some pro-Karen reaction came either from one sweet old lady or a pair of sweet old ladies. Those pro-Karen comments somewhat reminded me of the Canadian television series Road to Avonlea - it was shocking that I was so persistent (et cetera; the tone was wholesome, like the television series). 

A lady from the Town Clerks argued with me that while I was within my legal rights distributing my flyer, civic protest was inappropriate in the context of a family event. Although her argument did have some force, and moreover was politely put, it was partially undermined a few minutes after our chat by the actual programme content. At that point a member of the First Nations rightly denounced, right into the official microphone, the past injustices inflicted on her community, while evidently speaking in ignorance of the 2008-through-2018 First Nations grievance regarding the loss of 32 David Dunlap Observatory and Park greenspace hectares. (The full facts here are the following: Karen, after shifting her political allegiance in or just after 2010, came to back a 14-street subdivision on 32 of the legacy 76.5 DDO&P hectares; the subdivision was strongly opposed by the (duly articulate) Mississaugas of the New Credit, who have a moral claim to be heard in the context of the Toronto Purchase, since this (unjust, exploitative, manipulative)  pre-Victorian treaty embraced the 1935-through-2008 DDO&P; through the Toronto Purchase, the Mississaugas of the New Credit are in a special and distinctive legal position, in contrast with other First Nations groupings, who have only a weaker claim to speak to the DDO&P file; relations between the Mississaugas of the New Credit and Karen were in 2012 strained, as I heard with my own ears at a recess during the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.)  If First Nations are right in protesting at the microphone (as they surely are, even in the context of a family event), then I for my part must analogously be right in protesting by means of a handout (even in the context of a family event).

At one point in the day, an angry middle-aged male told me, without any stimulus from me, that I was to keep away from his daughter. Since this odd remark was provocative in character, I called the York Regional Police, alerting them to the possibility that an attempt was being made to tip me into autistic meltdown. The police conferred with the angry male and the above-mentioned lady from Town Clerks, outside my hearing, for what seemed to me a surprisingly long time, perhaps on the order of ten minutes. The police then told me that no report would be filed, with my call merely being entered into their daily log. This police response seemed to me appropriate.

I stayed for pretty much everything, until the end, but with perhaps 45 minutes off in the early evening. Proceedings wound down around 8:00 p.m.

Although the music was for the most part not to my taste, I did enjoy what purported to be a "Cajun", or Acadian-exile, number, with vocals, and with a poignant melody line. 

[This is the end of the current blogspot posting.]