Jamie Young is the former Mayor of East Gwillimbury. He didn't run in the last election. He said he wanted to spend more time with his family. Jamie was young when first elected. Still young when he retired. Not much time to make a mark.
He has been hosting a panel show on Cable television for several months.
Last week's show could have been interesting .
An editor-in-chief and a couple of reporters formed the panel.The first question was communication within municipal administrations.It led to the question of whether elected officials were being sidelined.
Neither a reporter nor an editor could have had more than an impression to contribute to the topic. But they did. Consensus led by the editor- in- chief seemed to be, professional staff expertise meant anything attempted by an elected official would be interference in the smooth operation of the town's business.
Coming from print media. I thought... AHA.... that explains why the newspaper isn't. It's not about bias, it's about a complete political vacuum.
The host was clearly frustrated. The issue demanded discussion. But he couldn't get a foot or a finger hold.
He complained about trouble finding anyone willing to talk .
He didn't ask me but I'm not sure I would have accepted. Panel discussions are a free-for-all. I don't like fighting to get a word in edgewise. I also like to be able to complete a thought.
Still, he never asked.
But I felt for Jamie.
Under his leadership, East Gwillimbury passed a Code of Conduct. The Mayor and a veteran Councillor were first and only persons complained about. I believe by the CAO, no less.
Municipal Law expert, George Rust D'Eye was retained by the municipality and advised the two would have a conflict of interest if they participated in the discussion. He also advised them to retain legal counsel.
They did. At their own expense.
East Gwillimbury was in chaos for weeks while legal bills were wracked up.
In the end, people filled the council chamber and said, in effect;
Enough of this damned nonsense. Mayor and Marlene get back to work. We will replace the trees that were cut and make sure everything is made right.
The Mayor and Marlene did as bid. The remaining three councillors were glad to have the situation resolved. They obviously had no clue how to get out of the jackpot created.
The CAO demurred, there was still a complaint to answer but no attention was paid and council resumed its function. Whatever else occurred behind the scenes remained there.
The story never really made headlines.
Jamie Young finished the term and did not run again.
I know only what I've seen on television. He demonstrates intelligence. His smile reaches his eyes.He clearly needs to talk about the situation. But he picked the wrong panel.
In the last program hosted, he brought forward the question of authority of elected officials versus appointed. It didn't get off the ground.
He isn't there this week. I caught a glimpse of the program last night. Host and theme escape me.
I wonder, does the editor-in-chief of York Region's news group who seems to believe elected officials should be subservient to professional expertise of appointed officials and a Code of Conduct , despite our experience, should be de rigeur, knows something I do not.
Is hers a view shared by the populace at large.
Is it the change critics claim, I have failed to grasp.
Has our right to govern ourselves slipped through our fingers from failure to take hold?
Next week, our current budget deliberations may provide some insight..
.
Friday, 20 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Council members are elected and for the most part their personal background (job, experiences, etc) take a back seat to their credentials as presented (volunteer here, chaired there, etc.).
Staff are hired and employed for their specific area of expertise. Some staff are paid in excess of $100K for this expertise. Compare that to the salary of an Aurora council member. If monetary renumeration is an indication of anything, the professional "staff" is a more legitimate than the council member.
@12:12 With all due respect, you are missing the point.
The question is not whether or not the staff are better qualified to IMPLEMENT policy. The question is whether or not they have the authority to SET policy.
The answer to that question is, on the surface, easy. They do NOT have that authority. However, when council abdicates its responsibility by allowing itself to be overly influenced by staff, or when it gives terms of reference that are overly broad, the effect is that setting policy is in effect handed over to staff.
Evelyn consistently argues against this, as it represents an eroding of the democratic process.
Its not that hard to understand.
To Anonymous 20 January, 2012 1:33 PM
"@12:12 With all due respect, you are missing the point.
....
Its not that hard to understand."
With all due respect sir/madam, I read again a tone in this reply that permiates the Aurora blog-sphere that makes people that reply unwilling to participate for fear that they will have their wrists slapped.
You say... "The question is not whether or not the staff are better qualified to IMPLEMENT policy. The question is whether or not they have the authority to SET policy."
Where does that question come up in Evelyn's original post? I know here prose are sometimes circuitous, but here question was... "I wonder, does the editor-in-chief of York Region's news group who seems to believe elected officials should be subservient to professional expertise of appointed officials and a Code of Conduct , despite our experience, should be de rigeur, knows something I do not.
Is hers a view shared by the populace at large. "
I simply extended my opinion on this subject. She never asked if it was right or wrong but if it was a shared opinion.
Step off your soapboxes once and while and read what others write. You might learn something.
1:13 perhaps your and Evelyn's version of democracy is not the only version.
For some that is hard to understand, eh.
There were probably very well paid, professional staff in charge of the various components running the Concordia. But when the ship sinks, the blame rests entirely on the shoulders of a 52 year old captain. It may take years but 'staff' who made decisions are ultimately not responsible. Ceding authority only works when there is no threat to the entity.
To revert to the topic of Aurora staff, we did have an experienced seasoned and decent staff who were largely routed over a period of 4 years. The new ones have not earned their stripes yet and cannot be expected to make knowledgeable decisions in place of Council. They must work together to form opinions. The period of 'we' against ' them ' showed that only the taxpayers paid the bills.
Has our right to govern ourselves slipped through our fingers from failure to take hold?
Yes it most definitely has , and will continue to do so until weak kneed politicians grow a pair , get wise to the bureaucratic BS and get back to basic government, not likely to happen any time soon.
Re 20 January, 2012 5:32 PM
You have summed it up to a tee , Say no more.
Interesting how one of the legal expenses NOT attributed to the past Council was the cost they had to pay to terminate long-term employees. Another elephant in the room. And that does not take into account the anger felt in the town when suddenly no one was in charge of anything unless you lived in a rich neighbourhood. In that case, Councillors were at your beck and call.
Do the flipping math to determine responsibility. There was an overdue exodus of councilors. ONE staff member left and I would guess he was given a golden parachute. The people in town will never blame a staff member - they will zero in on councilors for stupidities. { I have 3 on my personal hit list. }
]
Reading the venomous, sarcastic posts scattered through Evelyn's Blog, one has to question if the former Mayor wrote any of her own material. It all sounds like the work of the hind quarter of the dreadful duo. God help us if she is coming out from the cloister.
Sitting Council are still paying the price for not cutting at least 3 staff after they took office. What a different picture we might have now if they had acted decisively to send those deeply allied to the former Council packing. Oh, well, too late for regrets.
Post a Comment