When he made the assertion that he had documented proof of improper spending, Councillor Bountiful was challenged to produce it.
He didn't.
Last week, Councillors received copies of an e-mail exchange between the treasurer and manager of communications.
The Banner reporter had noticed variances between Councillors' expense claims for last year's conference in Ottawa and wanted details.
Most of us on the social media circuit have read of the tweeting detente between Councillor Righteous and Managing Editor that the community will be informed of deficiencies of this Council in good time for the next election.
Apparently no tome will be wasted.
I don't read the newspaper.
If a story appears posing more questions than answers, there is likely an explanation.
This week's headlines on the OSSTF's settlement fits the category.
The Premier assured taxpayers,no more money was available for a settlement.
The headlines suggest otherwise.
More benefits are provided and there are "fewer unpaid days"in the contract.
Benefits are not free. More benefits would have to cost more
Fewer "unpaid " days would have to mean more paid days.
What unpaid days can there be?
If teachers are off sick, they get paid. If they are not off sick, they get paid for not being sick.
If they now have fewer unpaid days.they must be getting paid for more days.
How can those improvements be provided without costing more money?
Do we expect the media to cut through the crap and get to the meat of the matter?
Or does all the media make pacts about what will or will not be disclosed.
OK, I think I can deal with the teachers thing for you. Seems that certain days were ' traded ' for other days. And instead of getting 10 cents per dollar for certain benefits, that number went up to about 25 cents on the dollar. What has not been covered is that the Catholic Board is going to want the same deal. They never voted on the earlier acceptance - were just told by their union that they were on board with McGinty. Now, they want equal shares. Fair enough but sure it's going to cost.
ReplyDeleteBallard began his term with weird letters about Mayor Dawe & possible legal action against him in connection with the Centre. He has not changed one iota - always threatening, never producing. He lost all credibility over the Lucid fiasco, destroying a decent outfit for the sheer joy of it. We waste too much time on him.
ReplyDeleteThat's an easy question. The Banner has only had one decent reporter & he got clobbered regularly for actually trying to cover Aurora. The Banner lost it's contract with the town because it fudged it's distribution numbers & was not being read by residents. It is also the paper of choice for propaganda for the past Council, not bothering to cover tiny little events like Morris' appearance in the Newmarket courthouse with her cronies.
ReplyDeleteThe town should be able to handle a genuine request for clarification without it escalating any further.
ReplyDeleteThe Auroran will have been put to bed by now. I wonder who the writer-of-the-week for that pack will be. Tracey Smith has been quiet for quite a while.
On another topic could you please clarify potential conflict vs.conflict.
ReplyDeleteI just read the Heritage Advisory minutes and there is a "potential conflict" stated by a member.
If the media has reported out specifics of a potential real estate sale, is that not specific?
Why the grey area?
To 2:47 PM
ReplyDeleteQuote: "I wonder who the writer-of-the-week for that pack will be"
Good question ! Your comment made me laugh openly because it is so true.
The transparent effort to try and sway public opinion through letters to the editor is most definitely a strategy of a very small political band of people that appear to see themselves as “the righteous”. The funny thing is that I have to believe that more often than not, lapses in logic and fact are so often laid bare for all the world to see. Of course that is what political debate if for… exposing both sides of the story and either finding the truth or meeting in the happy middle ground !
Sometimes I wonder if letter writers think the public is stupid. They seem to forget that the truth has a way of carrying weight and it takes either some serious contempt or large doses of ignorance to believe that you can mislead the public in a way that we have seen some people try to do in our local politics. The public has been fooled before but we can only hope that far too much water has gone under the bridge to be dismissed or ignored.
Consider the list of contentious issues from this council term as compared to the last one. I think that it is obvious to many people that there is a small band of people doing everything in their limited political power to undermine the majority of the current council and they strike me as grasping at straws. Lawsuits are down, the mayor has not received a cease and desist letter, senior staff turn-overs are down, contracts are being prepared by experienced professionals, the national papers are not trashing our current council, steps have been taken to protect political free speech from town funded strategic lawsuits intended to silence political participation and we are taking care of business. There is no question that this council is moving in a more positive direction than the last council despite the best efforts of a few councillors to impersonate “chicken little”.
ReplyDeleteWhere the local media falls down, blogs fill in. Why else would some people be hell bent on trying to shut political blogs down ? In the minds of some politicians (more than others) politics is about controlling what people are told and what they say and think.
ReplyDelete8:34 AM
ReplyDeletet is going to be hard to beat the letter from Lucid last week. I doubt of councillors Gallo & Ballard clipped that indictment out for their scrap-books.
"The transparent effort to try and sway public opinion through letters to the editor is most definitely a strategy..."
ReplyDelete...also employed by Councillor Buck.
Good points 8:38am.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to take more notice of controversy.
The majority of reality shows (which I am no fan of because they are not real) thrive on controversy between the characters. Would anybody watch the show if everyone got along and worked together for the common good. For some of the current councillors, it seems to be that if there isn’t a controversy they will attempt to create one in order to knock someone down and in doing so it helps them to get them into the papers and onto the net. But I think more so it may be in preparation for the next election in that they are trying to create a checklist against the mayor and other councillors to have something to fight them against and to start pointing the fingers at them now. But as you said they are “grasping at straws”.