Aurora Coalition has left a new comment on your post "Sins and Omissions":

"You have written tens of thousands of words, the majority of them very informative.

But to date they have had no real effect. Very few of the wrongs you have identified, the money that has been squandered, the organization restructured, the meaningful titles rendered incomprehensible, are ongoing with no end in sight.


It's easy to say that justice will prevail in October.

The only way this will happen is if a goodly number of experienced citizens of sound moral and ethical character are prepared to run for public office, and in the course of their campaigns destroy Morris and the "five who follow" so thoroughly with proven examples of the Morris years blatant megalomania, that she and her troop will be roundly trounced.

The first order of business for the new Mayor and Council should be By-laws to do away with the Code of Conduct and the Ethics Commissioner.

If nine honest citizens, whoever they might be, are elected, one would expect that they would, between them, know how to conduct themselves with honour, distinction, morals and ethics; their character would shine through.

Posted by Aurora Coalition to Our Town and Its Business at January 24, 2010 11:35 AM"

***************

The Coalition assumes the public being informed means decisions can be altered and better judgement exercised. They can't believe council keeps on doing what they do even when they are aware that people are aware of what they are doing

The key is, they are doing what they think politicians are supposed to do.They believe their decisions are righteous. They are not alone.

My blog on town business and letters to the editor are considered by some to be no-fair and disruptive. No good can come from my activity. My sole objective, they say, is to undermine the House of Morris They are not inclined to think otherwise.

While I, on the other hand. maintain I am simply keeping to the contract I made when I last asked for voter support.It wasn't a secret.

The governing process of Council meetings does not permit issues to be re-hashed continually. Nor should it. Comes a point, when blether has to stop, the vote cast and get on with the next order of business.

No issue can be re-introduced until six months have passed, unless two-thirds approve.

A majority vote is a done deal.

Since power was wrested from Kings and Queens, it has always been this way.

Our current council's consistent majority believes the rule providing structure and order in a meeting, is intended to prohibit public discussion and possible dissent as well. She who must be obeyed has so informed them.

A solicitor was consulted. A Code of Conduct was created to enforce the principle. Even if opposed to it, a councillor is required to explain the decision and attitude of the majority in the making of it. It's not clear who inserted that clause. But that's what was approved alright.

Many residents think it's fine. The Code is a legal document, they say and by golly, everybody should get in line and obey it.

Failure to obey, triggers investigation by a solicitor of all one's utterances, a formal complaint being filed and ultimate judgement being pronounced by a separate party. All at substantial public expense and disregard for the people's right to choose.

My intention is to inform.

I don't tell people what to think. I give them the raw material. They expect it from me.They ought to. I do what I said I would.

I have shameless passion for the liberties we enjoy. I think it would be a good thing to break through the apathy that chokes us like a nuclear cloud of sticky pink spun sugar.

I state the case,complete with details. Hit it with a pile driver, then again and still one more time, according to the advice of a famous and wise political person .

It is not conventional wisdom. I hear from people who want to be informed. But for some, facts are inconvenient and others do not wish to be disturbed.

Computer technology is a marvel. Information is easier to come by all around.

We will soon know if it has made a difference.

We always have numerous candidates in Aurora. With a Mayoralty contest, there will be interest in the election.

I think an accounting will be required. New candidates would be wise to be at least as well informed as the voters. Records have never been so readily accessible so it wont be hard.

Avoidance of issues will be a measure of a candidate.

Being positive is a good thing. Denying the obvious will not obviously be right.

Playing safe may no longer be a viable political imperative.

The electorate as always, will make the decision. One by one, in private, they will mark the ballot.

Once in four years, we have our chance. No Knight on a White Charger can ride to the rescue after the fact. The decision is not variable. Only a new election, four years down the road, will unmake it.

Senior levels of government can decide at any time to bring a four year mandate to an end to re-establish authority with the electorate.They can throw the dice a second or third time and risk all.

We have no such option.

We should have nine independent thinking individuals, each recognising their separate authority and responsibility to the people who elected them .

A candidate slate does not conform to the structure of a municipal council. It's not a new idea. We have learned to our cost.

A well functioning council is not a team with everyone pulling in the same direction. Tension between ideas is wholesome, natural and necessary. Debates should be hard fought. Order impartially maintained. Respect begets respect. The right to disagree is paramount. Civility is essential.

Elections are easier for some than others. But they are never easy.

The free flow of information may have made a difference to our town's affairs.

We can only hope... and continue the endeavour..