Two Sides Of An Argument

I read your recent comments wherein you put the blame for this issue squarely on Gaertner's shoulders.

The fact of the matter is that the issue was initiated by the Mayor in failing to ensure someone moved the motion. Mr. Leach simply assumed the motion had been properly moved.

While I would not respond with a suggestion of "doctoring", I can see the councilor's frustration with the responses she received. It would have been simple for council to defer the issue until everyone agreed to review the DVD.

Insofar as the Mayor's discretion, it is not unfettered, and I question the right to extend expulsion or censorship beyond the meeting where the alleged misbehaviour occurred.

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


It is not argued the Mayor's authority is unfettered.

Councillor Gaertner made a firm and shocking allegation the clerk deliberately falsified the record.

That cannot be allowed to stand.

The remedy is for the Councillor to withdraw the allegation of deliberate intent.

Until she does so, no staff person should be placed at similar risk of injury.

Political debate does not involve staff

Rules of debate provide for a question to be asked of staff while a Councillor has the floor. The purpose is to emphasize a political point in debate.

The purpose is not to draw officials in to the debate or to argue merits or otherwise of their professional advice.

I have myself been obliged on occasion to state with respect, my inability to accept advice provided. Disputing or refuting the advice within a formal meeting of Council is not conducive to public confidence. It is also an unequal contest.

Political versus the political is the purpose of a Council debate.It is a poor measure of a politician's competence who uses an appointed official as a whipping boy to score political points.

It is equally poor measurement of judgment of the appointed official who allows himself to be used.

If a councillor has a complaint about staff performance, there is a protocol to follow.

The protocol is not to make accusations in a formal public meeting injurious to reputation, to which there is no right of defence.

Discretion of the chair is a light touch in the basket of tools of the presiding member to ensure justice, fairness and prevent damage from the process.

The Councillor was not censured. She was not escorted from the chamber. She has not been denied authority to participate in debate.

She has twice been given the opportunity to undo the injury.It will no doubt be offered again. She has refused to avail herself.

So far as I am concerned, the Councillor must continue to be denied access to staff for questions during council meetings until she indicates comprehension of the damage to the corporation and personal injury to staff of making unsubstantiated accusations against the integrity of an officer of the corporation.

I do not pretend to be a lawyer. Merely a citizen given the opportunity and charged with responsibility of exercising my judgment of common sense and fairness over a very long period of time.

You might call it common law.