Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Cameras On The Blink":
I am still looking for an answer to a question.
Does anybody know if Gaertner apologized for accusing the town clerk of doctoring the minutes or is her "impugning character" behaviour still out there without resolution? What did mayor Dawe do about that one other than block her microphone?
*****************
The Councillor did not apologize for her accusation. She did not acknowledge she did "anything wrong"
There is nothing the Mayor can do about the situation.
Except:
We could retain a lawyer to advise on a solution to the problem of a councillor who simply will not be quiet and pay him $16,200.
We could resurrect the Code of Conduct and re-write it to suit our purpose.
Appoint a third Integrity Commissioner. Make sure he understands the rules to bring about the desired result. Pay him $50.000 for enough time to render a decision.
We could retain another lawyer at a cost of $70,000.also from the public purse. Instruct him to "investigate "the councillor. Have him view tapes of meetings and examine all public utterances in letters, .e-mails and contributions to debates to seek out miscreance. Then instruct him to compose and forward a complaint on to the Integrity Commissioner.
We could publish the complaint concurrently in the press and the town's website in contravention of all known rules to make sure the unproven allegations are known to the greatest number of people. At public expense of course. Because it's all in the name of righteousness and the public good., don't you know.
If the third Integrity Commissioner does not produce the right result. Fire him and hire another.
At the end of all that, the councillor might be found guilty of saying something that doesn't please everyone and we will be able to dislodge her from the seat to which she was duly elected by the simple means of refusing to pay the remuneration to which the job entitles .
For the token sum of $126,000 of other people's money, we might be able to persuade the electorate, never ,never,never .elect the Councillor to public office again ,
Then again. Maybe not.
Oh Yes... and here's the kicker.
When we have undertaken all this to hold a councillor accountable , we have assurance the town has paid sufficient premiums to an insurance company to provide yet another lawyer to argue all of our actions were within our authority as elected representatives. Public resources used to accomplish our objective were used in service to the community. A Councillor's right to free speech only extends as far as fellow politicians decide it should. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no place in the back rooms of the town halls of the nation.
Now, Mr Anonymous does that give you a satisfactory answer to the question?
Thank you for asking.
Man, that felt good.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
ROFLAO
I have better idea, why don't we just move on and forget the past, sometimes its better to do that then waste money and drag on topics that don't add value. Anna :)
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT Evelyn, nothing could summarize this question better than that response, sad to think that it all really happend
It answers the question to a degree.
The main point of the question was to demonstrate the double standard and hypocrisy that still exists on council. One councillor is permitted to accuse one town official of doctoring minutes, which is tantamount of calling him a liar, with no consequence or resolution.
When another councillor is accused of impugning the reputation of another town official, all hell breaks loose. One councillor hits the blogosphere blackguarding the accused councillor and calling for her to do the "honourable" thing. However, he never said a word when the town clerk was accused of doctoring minutes.
The councillor who accused the town clerk was most vocal about the councillor who was accused of "impugning ..." stating that she should apologize and not be allowed back in council chambers until she had.
What hypocrisy! What double standards! Where is the mayor and the other councillors at the table when such principles (or lack of them) are allowed to happen?
If you want to dish out castigation, then at least do it consistently to one and to all! We don't want a continuation of the witch hunt that haunted the last term.
Speaking of not adding value , check out the Living in Aurora post May 28, "Little Things Can Add up"
Perhaps your Valuable contributor Anna should get her facts straight before she posts theses critical rants that have absoulutly nothing to do with the Town or their staff.
Ouch, what just happened here ... I thought that Evelyn's post here was really good, and my point was that sometimes, if something like that happens its better to leave it behind.
Anonymous, well no body is perfect, please let me know what I have missed in my post - grass or trees?
On the other hand if I was wrong, may be this tell you how little I know :). After all it all happened on town's property ... that was my assumption.
Anna :)
PS I don't know if I am that valuable ...
Anna (Living in Aurora)I don't think you got the point of this answer. I also agree that there are many things we should move on from and in Councilor Buck's case I think she has every right to keep this in the forefront. This is how some elected officials feel that your tax money should be used!
Required reading for former councillors, and
a couple who made the new council, as well as
staff of that period as they cringe in anticipation
of incoming subpoena and their examinations for
discovery.
To Anna
I would agree to move on and forget the past if these kinds of issues were being handled differently and consistently but als, it is quite evident that there is none of that. There is still a lynching for Councillor Buck but not for Gaertner and the mayor and other members of council show no consistency in dealing with similar situations.
Oh and don’t forget coaxing the staff, even after thrown from office, to keep up the good fight on an un founded complaint of harassment against a sitting politician , it boggles the mind !!!
Too many Anonymous responses on my back here, a nick name (not even a real name) would be nice just so I could refer my answer back, lol.
Well, in this case, I will state my point again in general.
I can see that some of you agree with moving on ... but like you said it may be hard depending on the situation. I agree.
Evelyn stated 'There is nothing the Mayor can do about the situation.'
I think she is right. In addition, if I was in Evelyn shoes, I wouldn't even want to put him in that situation. He cannot take the sides ...
The issue I see here, is that the public still digging into the past.
Some like more answers ... which I find it is nice thing to do, but is this practical. Correct me if I am wrong, but her answer in the post summarized in three words, any further action is 'waste of money'. That is what I understood.
I like to keep positive flow. And I really think that if we focus our energies towards resolving issues and not on 'who said what to whom and not apologized', we will be in a better position. We all know that Evelyn is probably the most valuable person in the whole council with the experience she carries on her back, never mind how theoretical she is, which is unusual for the public figure. So lets all acknowledge that, and let she be an example to all of us (... and this is not sucking up, lol).
Let's face it, even if Gaertner did apologize, there would be still the same number of believers that Gaertner was right, and more believers that Evely was right, and it just could go on and on and on ....
Okay, in the first place how did I got here anyway. May be next time I just be a silent reader. I don't like politics, it is just too damn complicated for me. Most of the time I don't know if I am even talking the same thing, never mind I could be totally wrong ... may be I just go back to my birds, lol.
Have a good night everyone!
Anna :)
To Living in Aurora:
'There is nothing the Mayor can do about the situation.'
The mayor - and councillors for that matter - can do something. They can apply the rules that govern council fairly and consistently. Not doing that IS effectively taking sides!
Post a Comment