Continuing yesterday's thought that a sensible politician needs to listen to what people are saying and understand .
I am accustomed to the comment that I am no angel, I am wrong, I am just as bad as the rest.
Robert the Bruce insists I should not continue disputes in the media after council makes a decision. He rationalises that by claiming I am too old and no longer relevant..
Robert, is undoubtedly younger than me. I have sons who are older. But he's the one behind the times.
He uses the Internet to express himself in a way he never could before.He insults me without revealing his identity but he doesn't understand the difference it makes in how we do politics.
I,on the other hand, know very well how it was before and have a full appreciation of the new opportunity.
Politicians were always dependent on media and word of mouth to get a message across.
Not any more.
Anyone who aspires to politics and cares to confide , can elucidate on everything that might be relevant to a voter.
Controversies can be kept alive right up to an election.
Details can be provided in a way they never were before. Right down to body language or a phrase like "playful banter"
A Blog or a Letter to the Editor can be read or not. It is not cocktail chatter. It is not council debate where discipline and civility are supposed to be the rule.
It is not a church social.
Politics has rules. Mostly no holds barred with the individual's sense of fairness and decency as the only limit.
Robert's instinct tells him what I do is not fair.
In your world maybe Robert.
But all is fair in love and war and politics.The Internet is the great leveller. Let participants beware.
In this rough territory, no politician in their right mind goes out of their way to make gratuitous enemies. They never have.
Morris and MacEachern did that at the outset of this term. At first, I tried to establish a working relationship. They wanted no part of it.
Then,when it became apparent what they were doing, I wanted no part of it.
The battle lines were drawn, the gloves off and the fight was on.
They used lawyers, town resources and cloaked their methodology behind Ethics and a Code of Conduct.
They made one incredible oversight.
I am not an employee of the municipality.
My life cannot be made a living hell while they tag- team taunt and torment.
I cannot be escorted from the building.
I don't need to be everybody's darling.
Like Shirley Valentine, her kitchen wall and a rock on the beach,
I have Blog and people who read.
And sae The Lord be thankit
I'm always happy to read your posts - I both admire and respect your resilience in these tough political times. Keep it up, you have my support.
ReplyDeleteRight on.
ReplyDeleteMr. Harper with his prorogueing shennanigans has found out about the power of the internet, facebook and blogs.
Me thinks our upcoming election will be the first in history where this medium could have more effect than a forest of signs sprouting on every corner of our fair town.
Although you have yet to declare your intentions in October, I'm sure it's comforting to know that should you run again the Mayor will no doubt extend to you the same services our Communications Guru will be commanded to provide to the GOS.
By the way, what was the time limit on the reconsideration of a motion in Council, was it not six months?
Evelyn,
ReplyDeleteThank you for giving Aurora its Valentines day present early.
Your presence on council this week was fantastic.
I think you summed quite well what the G.O.S. doesn't get : "A Blog or a Letter to the Editor can be read or not. It is not cocktail chatter. It is not council debate."
The reason that both are successful is because the encourage involvement and participation.
The mayor was on her high-horse at the last meeting about rules.
What rule is there exactly that prohibits continued discussions after council makes a decision?
God forbid we actually discuss in an open and transparent way the goings on about our government. I do not subscribe to the belief that once a decision has been ruled upon that it is no longer relevant for discussion. We all have to live with the decisions that are made, we should never allow complacency or government for that matter tell us that we can't talk about them.
This blog and others are a testament to the connectivity of the citizens to the political process.
Its not that people didn't have an opinion, a passion or even an insight or too to add to the discussion before blogs came about, it just erases the barrier to entry. It makes things easier, it makes things immediate.
If that scares some people who are in office, than perhaps they should step down.
I can just feel an outstretching of our mayor's arm.....to keep the community at arms reach for the purposes of preventing any of us from getting closer. God forbid we see behind those closed doors.
It is my belief that any governing body that is not embracing these new communication tools for the purposes of engaging AND listening to the people is arrogant and it is this arrogance that will be its downfall. It is starting to happen around the world, and yes even in our funny, and not so small town.
Will there be consequences for accusing others of a conflict of interest during a council meeting?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Ford get into trouble for that in Toronto?
Just wondering.
Nobody accused anyone of having a conflict of interest. As Councillor Buck states it is up to the person to decide. Councillor Buck just stated what she thought and that she believed she had one and why. So don't you think that the others have the same reason? Just asking.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothered me was that none of the MorMac faction even addressed it. Fine, you don't agree with Cllr Buck's stance, but at least refute it, discuss it or produce the legal opinion you dictated... er, I mean sought after reading Clle Buck's 'A Quandary' blog.
ReplyDeleteThe mayor was anxious to escalate Cllr Buck's remarks into "serious allegations" re: conflict-of-interest and the Municipal Act. I'm betting she had a legal opinion in her back pocket ready to pounce had Cllr Buck measured reasoning turned accusatory towards the Bloc Party. MacEachern was trying to set the stage by repeating if anyone had declared a conflict.
Cllr Buck didn't rise to the bait but by taking an ethical stand it effectively sidelined her from the issue. Cllr McRoberts laid out a good case and Cllr Collins-Mrakas echoed his thoughts and introduced the concept of engaging the services of an IC on an as-needed basis. One can only wonder what their additional, personal thoughts are on the whole misbegotten mess.
Of course, they were talking too much sense and their arguments were moot even before they uttered them. But thank you both for trying and stating what people in the town are saying.
Waste of staff time and taxpayer money reports on voting records aside, we all know how this council operates. The points presented by Bob and Alison were cannon fodder in the sanctimonious, 'butter wouldn't melt in their mouth' barrage of bull$#!t from the MorMac hypocrites!
Doubtful this post will see the light of day on the blog, but here it goes anyways....
ReplyDeleteEvelyn,
Once again you seem to show your fascination with bringing my name into your rants without any provocation from me. If I was interested in running for office this fall, I would relish the attention, but I have no aspirations so this becomes tiresome. I have learned that while you like to discuss/argue about topics on this blog, you also have an advantage in that you can control the contrary opinion. You also show some "selective" memory in what you bring forward.
"Robert the Bruce insists I should not continue disputes in the media after council makes a decision. He rationalises that by claiming I am too old and no longer relevant."
I have in the past, suggested that all members of council - not just you (it's not always about you Ev) - should not use the media to continue DEBATE after council makes a decision. To do so shows a petty, sore-loser attitude and does nothing to present any sort of unified elected body. The council chambers are where issues are to be debated and decisions made - if you don't like the results of the decision, crying to the press or writing a letter to the editor about how the other council members don't know what they are doing smacks of being a sore loser. Again, this is true of all members of council, I have never said that you are too old or irrelavant as justification. It sounds like you are accusing me of elder abuse, and I take offense to that! By the way, in previous councils, Nigel Kean did similar things and I take him to task for the same reasons. I am closer in to age to Nigel than you, so it certainly can't be age-related.
"He uses the Internet to express himself in a way he never could before.He insults me without revealing his identity but he doesn't understand the difference it makes in how we do politics."
I have been using the internet since 1993 and similar technology before that. I am an IT person and I understand the technology and possibilities. I thought in politics all is fair - including insults. I do not think that I have insulted you, clearly you have insulted me (someone you do not know the name of by the way) with the elder abuse statement above.
"A Blog or a Letter to the Editor can be read or not. It is not cocktail chatter. It is not council debate where discipline and civility are supposed to be the rule."
Here is the difference. A Blog is read by someone who must initiate the desire to read it. A Letter to the Editor falls into your lap when you read the paper. Unfortunitly, the paper that prints your letters (I assume the Era-Banner decides not to print them) is basically a paper full of letters to the editor. There is not much "news" in the paper. The letter typically has a headline "Reader thinks council does not know what it's doing" and then as you start reading it, you realize that you've been dupped into another Buck letter - a continuation of debate on an issue that is now closed. You're right, there is no discipline nor civility in your writings, there is no retort from the other side. It is simply the rantings of someone who cannot realize that their opinion was 180 degress opposite to 8 others around the table.
"Robert's instinct tells him what I do is not fair."
It's not a question of fairness. If the only issue was fairness, I would expect the "other side" to respond in kind. I find the practice is just wrong. The person that does it comes across as the type that, as a child, would have taken their ball and go home if they did not like the outcome of a game. It's a childish thing to do.
Fuimus
What happened to the "Duped???" blog post?
ReplyDelete