Before the vote, here’s what stayed with me

Lauren Anderson

Lauren Anderson’s campaign centres on infrastructure for growth, a coordinated response to mental health, addiction and homelessness, and responsible economic development. What stands out to me is her emphasis on bringing the organizations that control different parts of a problem into the same conversation. Water, utilities, housing and health services do need that coordination. The next question is what changes because those people met.

Our profile review found no named first infrastructure corridor, complete project budget or funded sequence behind those priorities. Her proposed care table also needs to explain what it would add to the Municipality’s already approved 2025–2029 Community Safety and Well-Being Plan. I’d want a decision, an owner and a deadline that residents could follow, rather than another table covering familiar ground.

Her October 9 interview, examined in our October 13 brief, gives us more consequential choices to examine. She proposed advocating against provincial payments for people experiencing homelessness and addiction, and against addiction as a reason for long-term Ontario Works receipt. Before accepting that approach, I’d want the exact rule she would change, the available treatment capacity and the safeguards for people unable to work or at risk of losing housing. Her grouping of homelessness, supportive housing and rent-geared-to-income housing also does not establish that all these arrangements contribute nothing through property taxes. The actual ownership and tax treatment matter.

Her Wheatley recovery account deserves the same care with attribution. The provincial record confirms a $12.3-million allocation announced in January 2025; it does not establish how much of that result belongs to one councillor. Her later written answers add useful ideas about job baselines, road-ranking criteria and capital-project reporting, but leave several targets and first funded decisions open.

I’d start with two questions for Anderson: which infrastructure corridor moves first, and what would her care approach add to the existing plan? Then show the cost, who is responsible and when residents would see a change. That would tell us whether the coordination is producing something people can use.

Michael Bondy

Michael Bondy’s commitments to earlier reports, plain language, balanced options and long-term costs give residents something specific to ask for. I’d welcome those changes. But his 14 commitments and claim of experience across 16 budgets also invite a look back: which alternatives did he put forward, which votes followed, and what changed? Our review did not establish a complete voting ledger behind his claim that he never voted for a tax increase.

His shelter proposal needs the practical details: building suitability, staffing, treatment and support capacity, annual costs and housing outcomes. Our September interview review found waste-to-energy ownership described the wrong way round and treated his claimed 95% anti-Hub correspondence as a personal tally, without a published sample. Those are reasons to ask for the source behind a confident claim. Personal correspondence cannot tell us what the whole municipality thinks.

Committee work is part of the job. The August 12 attendance review reported Bondy at zero of 35 LTVCA meetings and three of 34 heritage meetings, alongside about 97% at Council and four of four encampment meetings. He cited work, family and scheduling conflicts. Those pressures explain a clash; they do not make the responsibility disappear. I find the committee record unacceptable. If an assignment cannot be fulfilled, bring that problem back to Council and seek a change.

The appointment process deserves a clear record too. In that same report, Canniff said councillors submit preferences and Council approves the recommended appointments, with changes open for discussion. I would want Bondy’s requests and any proposed changes put beside that account. Residents deserve to see what was requested, what was assigned and what was done.

His environmental leadership also deserves a direct question. The federal registry records a November 4, 2013 guilty plea by the company Bondy’s Cleaners, with a $5,000 fine and $750 surcharge under federal dry-cleaning regulations. His municipal biography lists him as owner from 1999 to 2020. What did he learn, what compliance practices changed, and how has he put that learning into practice in his environmental responsibilities as a councillor?

The pavilion allocation belongs here too. Our public-money and public-trust brief documented Bondy’s $30,510 allocation to the Acceptional Riders pavilion. CKXS reported that he was a paid employee of TJ Stables and the pavilion was on its property. Bondy said the project benefited Acceptional Riders, that he gained nothing personally and that he had not sought Integrity Commissioner advice. Our reviewed record did not establish a violation. I’d expect an employer relationship like that to trigger documented disclosure and independent advice before any allocation. Residents should be able to see why the project was chosen.

His earlier tennis-dome motion, reported February 2, 2022, also belongs in the spending record: $200,000 from reserves, conditional on the Chatham Tennis Club securing the remaining funding. I want to see the public-benefit case, the selection criteria and any relationship disclosures. Residents should be able to judge why that request took priority.

I’d bring Bondy’s transparency commitments straight into his first budget: which shelter decision comes first, who must approve and operate it, what does it cost, and when will residents see the result?

Nelson Burm

Nelson Burm’s public statements bring together lower taxes, better roads and traffic safety, healthcare access, homelessness and addiction, local jobs and a stronger voice for communities. Those are substantial concerns, and our profile records six recurring directions. The question is how those directions become decisions inside one municipal budget.

The financial tension in his agenda deserves a direct answer. Lower taxes and more road investment have to meet inside the same budget. Does he propose a lower levy, slower growth in spending, different service levels, more borrowing or another revenue source? Which road and safety projects would move first? Our reviewed statements did not identify the budget lines, project order or full costs that would connect those goals. I’d ask him to put the tax promise and the road promise on the same page.

His health, homelessness and addiction priorities also need a clear municipal role. Some decisions belong to the Province, healthcare providers or other organizations. The existing Community Safety and Well-Being Plan already provides a coordination framework. I’d want Burm to identify the service the Municipality would change, the partner that must agree, and the result residents could expect. The same applies to job growth: which local tool would he use—serviced land, approvals, business retention or something else—and what would it cost?

His emphasis on hearing communities across Chatham-Kent is worth following through. Would that mean advisory meetings, published responses, changes to delegations or another process? Listening becomes easier to judge when residents can see what was heard and why a request was accepted or declined.

With Burm, I’m still looking for the details of the first year: a costed decision, what he would give up to pay for it, and when he would report back. Our coverage has not established that plan, a reporting schedule or a clear position on strong-mayor powers. Those are the answers I’d press him for.

Darrin Canniff

Darrin Canniff’s campaign asks voters to judge a record of progress and eight future directions, with later positions on taxes, an arena and data centres. I’d examine the past record and those next-term proposals together. A claimed achievement needs a full account of the result; a new direction needs its costs, authority and first decision.

My concern with Darrin Canniff’s presentation of his record is the gap between the favourable example and the fuller picture. Our September interview review put the reported 28 Pathways transitions into long-term housing alongside the municipal record: known homelessness rose from 84 people in December 2019 to about 228 in January 2025. Those people helped by Pathways matter. So do the people still waiting. I want both parts in the conversation.

The same concern runs through the financial claims. Our waste-to-energy review found about $40.3 million in expected municipal participation, before land and other exposure, behind the narrower $16-million investment description. Our public-money review also examined the Community Hub’s $52.8-million budget, funded through public reserves, property sales and borrowing. Saying a project needs no additional project levy still leaves residents entitled to a clear account of the public resources being used.

His 1.5% tax figure needs the same scrutiny. Our September 11 interview review recorded Canniff’s estimate that average annual increases over ten years would have been about 1.5% without infrastructure cost inflation and homelessness pressures. Those were real municipal costs. Residents need the full record, including them.

For an equal eight-budget comparison, our historical tax review reproduced 14.95% compounded for 2011–2018 and 35.37% for 2019–2026: Hope’s last eight budgets as mayor and Canniff’s first eight. These are compounded budget tax impacts, rather than the change in every household’s bill. A ten-year annual estimate with costs removed cannot stand in for that full eight-budget record. I’d ask Canniff to publish the year-by-year calculation behind 1.5%, showing every cost taken out. Infrastructure and homelessness cannot be set aside when explaining the budget residents funded.

Then there is the timing and presentation of announcements. The September 25 and 30 Canadian Energies reporting examined in that review described a proposal with confidential sites, no firm timeline and investment still being sought. Coming so close to an election, an announcement like that deserves straightforward follow-up: what was secured, what was still being negotiated, and what might the Municipality have to provide? Canniff has acknowledged that work remains to bring the energy proposal to fruition. That belongs beside the forecasts too. The earlier OHL meeting backlash and his March communication apology raise the same practical question: when do residents and Council receive enough information to examine the decision?

Campaign financing deserves a look as well. CKXS reported on May 30, 2023 that $8,400 of Canniff’s $9,844 in contributions for the 2022 election came from seven people with Brampton, Mississauga or Toronto addresses. That concentration of outside-town funding is a reasonable subject for public questions about donors and local interests. These are 2022 figures, not a finding of improper financing or a picture of the 2026 donor list.

For Canniff, I’d want the next-term promises tied to a first funded decision, the full municipal cost and risk, and a date for reporting back. Residents should be able to follow what was promised through to the service or result.

April Colby

April Colby’s campaign puts household stability at the centre of municipal choices. Affordability, housing, essential services, community access and transparency run through her material. I think the useful question she brings forward is whether growth and public spending make daily life more manageable for the people who already live here. Her proposals to explain decisions in plain language and follow up afterward are things residents could hold an administration to.

That transparency promise also needs to apply to the campaign’s own figures. Our October 14 profile check found her Facts and Stats page describing the 228-person homelessness figure as early 2026. Our September interview review ties that municipal figure to January 2025. That difference matters if readers are being asked to judge present conditions. Figures about rent, assistance and instability need their sources, definitions and reporting periods beside them too. A real hardship does not make every number used to describe it accurate.

The proposals also need a workable route from diagnosis to service. Her former-YMCA transition-site idea needs a building assessment, an operating model, qualified service partners, a budget and a clear account of who would be housed and supported. A location and an urgent need do not answer those questions. I’d want the same evidence from anyone proposing a shelter or transitional-housing facility.

Our review also questioned how she described strong-mayor powers in relation to restricted program money and personnel. Those powers have defined legal uses and public written-decision requirements. They do not by themselves remove funding conditions, Council’s role or employment rules. If a proposal depends on moving money or changing who does a job, residents should be able to inspect the specific authority and consequences.

I’d ask Colby to start by reconciling the figures, naming the first affordability decision and showing how it would be paid for and carried out lawfully. What would a household actually notice? That would give her transparency argument something concrete to stand on.

Ryan Gow

Ryan Gow’s campaign connects infrastructure, economic growth, fiscal responsibility and open government. His later answers add more to examine than those broad headings: a proposed target of 1,000 net new filled local jobs over four years, road-project weights, a municipal-land inventory for housing, and monthly reporting on major capital projects. Those specifics give residents a way to ask what would happen and what evidence would count.

The financial starting point needs care. Our September 27 interview review found that the 2024 audited statements report $332.764 million in net financial assets and $20.300 million in long-term liabilities at December 31, 2024. They do not establish $330 million in unrestricted reserves available to spend. The asset-management report’s estimated $2.663-billion ten-year funding gap is a different measure again. It is a long-term planning problem, not an immediately payable bill.

That distinction goes to the centre of his infrastructure argument. Grants, borrowing, asset sales, phasing and other revenue each have consequences. I’d want the first project list to show which source pays for which work, what restrictions apply, the operating costs afterward and what service choices follow. A large balance-sheet number cannot settle whether a no-tax-rate-change approach is affordable.

His CK45 housing concept and later proposal to identify serviceable municipal or surplus land deserve the same follow-through. An inventory can be a useful first step; it does not establish a serviced site, financing or completed homes. The missing details include eligible land, affordability conditions, approval steps, operating responsibilities and the first occupied-home milestone. His written follow-up also proposes road weights—30% safety and 25% condition among them—and an employer-based jobs baseline. Those are proposed rules and targets that would need public implementation and consistent measurement.

Gow has given residents specific targets to return to. I’d ask him to name the first assets, funding and people responsible, and show how the jobs target counts filled work. Then tell us what changes if funding, demand or project costs differ from the plan.

Randy Hope

There are concrete achievements to recognize from Randy Hope’s years as mayor. Chatham-Kent earned its first A+ credit rating in 2013. The approved annual budget tax impacts compounded to 14.95% across 2011–2018, including a zero increase in 2015. The municipality’s published figures show unemployment falling from 8.4% in 2015 to 5.8% in 2018, while assessment growth from property development rose from 0.73% in 2016 to 1.43% in 2018, exceeding the municipality’s 1% target.

There were tangible housing results, too. Riverview Terrace opened in 2012 with 24 affordable rental units and three market-rent units. The federal parliamentary record also documents $50.5 million in announced federal and provincial infrastructure funding for Chatham-Kent in 2009. These belong in his record as mayor, alongside the contributions of Council, municipal staff, other governments and community partners.

Randy Hope’s current plan contains 15 commitments across economic opportunity, housing and community services, including a proposed seniors’ property-tax rebate. What stands out in our profile review is the repeated promise to publish baselines, business cases, pilot results and rules for expanding, changing or stopping a program. That gives residents useful questions to return to if he is elected. It is also a set of promises that should be tested as firmly as the projects themselves.

Much of the evidence needed to judge the plan is still to be produced. Costs, full resource requirements, partner commitments and several numerical targets remain open. His homelessness response, for example, proposes a baseline within 100 days, a costed Home First CK pilot by day 180 and a first performance report within 12 months. The initial housing target, full costs and confirmed partners are left to that process. Those dates leave a hard question: what help can people expect while the baseline and pilot are being developed? A reporting timetable still needs a funded service decision.

The seniors’ rebate needs local eligibility rules, an annual cost, a funding source and a first Council decision. An example from another province does not establish a Chatham-Kent benefit. His campaign’s visual summaries propose asking the CAO to identify ten workflows in the first 30 days and publishing a baseline by day 100. I’d still want the first pilot named, its full costs, privacy and human oversight, and an independently checked result before expansion. I’d want staff time, errors and the cost of operating the tools included in that test.

The tax comparison also needs its financing context. I’d put reserve withdrawals, services and infrastructure obligations beside both periods’ totals, and keep gross and net debt measures separate. The wind and wells record also remains part of the scrutiny of his administration’s decisions.

The question I’d keep asking Hope is whether those reports still arrive when the answer is inconvenient. Do they show the full cost and the partners who said no? Does a missed target actually change or stop a favoured project? The reporting promises matter when they affect what gets funded and carried out.

Tom Askew

We list Tom Askew in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Mark Authier

We list Mark Authier in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Michael Bond

We list Michael Bond in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Melissa Harrigan

We list Melissa Harrigan in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Andréa Palmer

We list Andréa Palmer in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Gerhard Taves

We list Gerhard Taves in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Chad Carnie

We list Chad Carnie in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Anthony Ceccacci

We list Anthony Ceccacci in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Matthew Giffin

Giffin describes the proposal as a manufacturing campus rather than a data centre, notes pending government support and Council review, and asks about capital, customers, infrastructure and protections if projections change. The video is attributed candidate material, not independent verification.

Fred Hooper

We list Fred Hooper in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Matt Lamarche

We list Matt Lamarche in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Denise Maynard

Maynard proposes quarterly reporting on movement from emergency or transitional shelter into stable supported housing, with year-over-year targets and a budget review after repeated misses.

Albert Pilbeam

We list Albert Pilbeam in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Brad Snobelen

We list Brad Snobelen in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Spencer Stinson

Stinson proposes public housing waitlist and housing-stability measures, six-month public reporting and an annual review of still-to-be-defined delivery goals.

Hassan Tariq

We list Hassan Tariq in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Lauren Aziz

Aziz identifies dust control, opposition to industrial wind turbines, accessible municipal services and councillor availability as priorities. The reviewed material does not yet publish service baselines, costs, municipal mechanisms or measured targets.

Kyle Carter

Our coverage records arena, safety, parks and rural-transit priorities. The reviewed item does not establish a complete costed delivery plan.

Cory Couture

We list Cory Couture in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Mark Huston

We list Mark Huston in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Emery Huszka

We list Emery Huszka in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Matthew Pietens

We list Matthew Pietens in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

James Plunkett

We list James Plunkett in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

John Cummings

We list John Cummings in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Kirk Hooker

We list Kirk Hooker in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Rhonda Jubenville

We list Rhonda Jubenville in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Bill Arends

We list Bill Arends in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Brendan Authier

We list Brendan Authier in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Loree Bailey

We list Loree Bailey in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Jim Blake

We list Jim Blake in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Dave Brundritt

We list Dave Brundritt in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Steven Burritt

We list Steven Burritt in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Mark Childs

We list Mark Childs in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Jason Debuck

We list Jason Debuck in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Brent DeNure

We list Brent DeNure in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

David Hyatt

We list David Hyatt in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Zac Nicholson

Nicholson’s public campaign Page names fiscal responsibility, a larger share of infrastructure, housing and economic-development investment for Ward 5, support for agriculture and stronger resident and youth representation. The post does not yet provide implementation details or measurable targets.

Victoria Stewart

Stewart identifies four campaign priorities for Ward 5: Wallaceburg and area’s future, responsible spending and infrastructure, community safety and supports, and a community where people can stay, belong and thrive. Stewart outlines a Ward 5 response on homelessness, housing exits, emergency capacity, costs and public reporting for the first year of a new council term.

Bill Wolsing

We list Bill Wolsing in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Chris Young

We list Chris Young in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Jeff Comiskey

Comiskey identifies the infrastructure funding deficit and responsible project spending as the two leading issues, while connecting business growth, budget management and citizen-centred decisions to lasting public value.

Ben Labadie

Labadie connects housing affordability and seniors’ quality of life to local jobs, safer public spaces, family outreach on addiction and open government, while citing real-estate and addiction-care training.

F. Brian Machado

Machado connects fiscal responsibility and affordability to public value, infrastructure, safety, local businesses, farmers, homelessness and transparent decisions made with residents.

Sheila Moir-Martin

A CK News Today interview and YourTV candidate video record the Ward 6 candidate’s priorities, criticisms and service commitment. They establish attributable positions, while several numerical and planning claims still require controlling public records.

Karen Montgomery

The Ward 6 candidate’s public video identifies economic, housing, tax, infrastructure and agriculture conditions she wants voters to consider. It is useful candidate framing, but most supporting claims summarize third-party reporting, surveys or forecasts rather than a costed municipal programme.

Dave Palmer

We list Dave Palmer in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Bonny Pigeon

We list Bonny Pigeon in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Alysson Storey

Storey's campaign pages add attributable positions on housing and homelessness, affordability and jobs, transparency, health and mental health, public transit, accessibility and recreation.

Marc Westerman

We list Marc Westerman in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Steve Adkins

Adkins adds outcome claims about median income, unemployment, tents and crime to his investment, tax and bylaw priorities. The Q&A does not provide baselines, targets, costs, deadlines or a causal delivery chain.

Marjorie Crew

Crew prioritizes housing, homelessness, responsible taxation, efficient services, partnerships and external funding. Her response does not identify a first programme change, baseline, savings target, partner commitment, cost or deadline.

Penelope Duchesne

Duchesne calls for lower tax and water-bill growth, infrastructure priority, stronger Council direction and local hiring. The Q&A does not provide the definitions or records needed to verify her numerical and nepotism claims.

Michael Fife

The Ward 7 statement identifies seven priorities. It does not yet quantify savings, implementation or reporting commitments.

Amy Finn

We list Amy Finn in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Dustin Gawne (Duddee)

We list Dustin Gawne (Duddee) in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Michael Gibbons

We list Michael Gibbons in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Rick Hottot

We list Rick Hottot in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Larry Hutchins

We list Larry Hutchins in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Steve Kenney

We list Steve Kenney in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Marc King

We list Marc King in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Jonathan Meriano

We list Jonathan Meriano in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Jason Reynolds

We list Jason Reynolds in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Doug Robbins

We list Doug Robbins in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Karen Robinet

Robinet's campaign site sets out positions on housing, homelessness, taxes, infrastructure, the Community Hub, municipal AI, agriculture, downtown Chatham and public trust. The platform rarely identifies complete costs, authority, deadlines, responsible owners or measurable results.

Dustin Ryan

We list Dustin Ryan in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Dale VanDusen

We list Dale VanDusen in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Conor Allin

We list Conor Allin in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Bruce Caldwell

We list Bruce Caldwell in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Cynthia Côté

We list Cynthia Côté in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Sandra Dorner

Dorner's public Facebook Page identifies her Ward 8 candidacy and emphasizes trust, transparency and practical results. Her campaign site adds a candidate-owned biography, six broad priorities and a five-question resident survey.

Ryan Drouillard

We list Ryan Drouillard in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

John Duquette

Duquette's public campaign posts call for responsible spending, local jobs, small-business support, affordable housing, infrastructure basics, public safety, transparent decisions and fair treatment across Chatham-Kent. The reviewed material does not yet specify complete municipal actions, costs, deadlines or result measures.

Andy Fisher

We list Andy Fisher in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Paulo Graciano

We list Paulo Graciano in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Brock McGregor

We list Brock McGregor in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Rick Nicholls

We list Rick Nicholls in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Stephani Shill

We list Stephani Shill in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Scott Thompson

We list Scott Thompson in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.

Luke Van Der Vliet

We list Luke Van Der Vliet in our candidate directory. We haven’t published enough reviewed material to give a fair summary of their positions here.