A discomfiting thought has occurred.
Since comments are anonymous , critical comments against the Mayor could be more than they appear.
We are into an election .candidates are declaring themselves.
There's little to hinder a rival from using the blog for his or her own purpose.
I don't want to stifle discussion.
I don't want to provide unfair advantage.
Criticism is an occupational hazard in politics.
I've not been light-handed with the Mayor.
But he has many opportunities to defend himself from me.
We are both openly in the ring.
My criticism is directly related to my experience as a member of his Council.
Whatever I've said is related to an issue already in the public domain and it has my name attached.
Now people are talking about the up-coming election and that's a good thing.
Except I don't want the blog to be a medium for dirty tricks.
It's a personal quandary.
Councillors are criticized as well.
But the Mayor is a singular target.
A solution to the problem does not come immediately to mind.
If there's going to be a fight and we hope so ,I'm fairly sure voters would like it to be
clean
Maybe we should talk about that for a bit.
There's no reason why the Mayor should not be called to account. That's what elections are about.
On the other hand ,there's no reason rivals and enemies should be able to flail away without also being accountable.
I can't stop it from happening elsewhere but I am responsible for the blog.
Sunday, 23 February 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
It's Ok, Evelyn, I think this discussion is restricted to the vision thingee & there have been plenty of errors made right across the board. No one is getting signalled out from the supporters.
Frankly, I don't care whose vision this was in the beginning. I just don't want to hear the word again.
Perhaps comments about the mayor should be factual and about specific issues.
It should be in order to use adjectives that enlarge on or are relevant to the choice of subject matter.
Physical and mental criticism that are strictly personal should be disallowed.
The only reason for anyone to think you are "not being fair" is if you stopped or did not publish any comments from people like Mr. Albino or Mayor Dawe or their supporters. And I doubt that you would. In fact I for one would like to sincerely hear all about their reasons of support. I don't see these people trying to support their positions here besides that they “like it” or “look forward to it”.
This Blog has been a great forum to discuss this project. Why wouldn't Mayor Dawe or Mr. Albino chime into these discussions?
The Budget meeting shouldn't take too long unless I'm missing a place where anything positive can occur.
I though we had a ruling on these type of forums following the last council. You will recall an active forum was shut down following the initiation of legal action by the Town. We all know the result.
In fact, I believe some councillors wanted to petition the Province to pass a law to allow such forums. I recall Thompson led the charge.
The only concern today is that one councillor gets to screen the comments and could, I suppose, try to "manage" the posts. But then again it is her forum
It could be argued that other councillors could start a blog if they don't like what they read. A blog can be a lot of work so others will have to be careful what they wish for.
Another remedy is to have some type of a referee that views the posts along with the councillor to ensure there is no efforts to "manage" the comments.
I think it would be useful and informative to new candidates to identify themselves and provide a comment.
The blog often provides the unvarnished truth. If the heat in the kitchen gets too hot for some they know what they can do.
@13:33
That sounds suspiciously like a Code of Conduct
I share your concern, Cllr Buck. I can see those malevolent, mischief-making Morrisites trying to get their own back on the man who took over.
During the last election a # of candidates set up sites. I think Nigel had one, and Mr Clowater. There was Darryl Moore [ I think ] and even Geoff Dawe. I don't know when Cllr Ballard put his up but it doesn't do much now. Didn't the Former try a Blog ?
17:28
Say what ?
It would likely not be too productive to try & micro-manage E. She usually manages to police herself.
17:28-That's almost funny.
Evelyn you have been responsible with this Blog. Anyone thinking otherwise?.. well...too bad
I was overcome by Air Canada ads on the CBC's summary of the just concluded Olympic Games and really wanted to watch the closing ceremony, parts of which I had seen earlier, and which I thought were better than the opening ceremony, so my fingers did some walking and I came upon Report No. IES14-011 dealing with the Joint Operations Centre.
Members of Council had been concerned that the public was unaware of the urgent need for this facility, and because the cost had snowballed toward the $20million mark every effort should be made to communicate the facts, the rationale and the costs to the public.
It was decided to hold a Public Open House at 9 Scanlon Court, to tour members of the public through the existing facility demonstrating the serious shortcomings and need for the new joint facility. As an extra inducement the town would host a free Bar-B-Q.
My memory is blurred with regard to the publicity campaign for this event.
In the results section of the above mentioned Report it is noted that "29 residents signed in during the open house. They were asked to complete a written questionnaire identifying any other comments or questions of significance. No written comments were provided by the attendees."
Possibly this is typical but one has to wonder when watching the heart-wrenching events these past few days in Kiev how seriously do we take our democratic form of government?
21:28
29 people turned up for a free lunch and none of them commented on the questionnaire ?
That was deemed a ' success ' ?
Oh, my.
@17:33
I remember Darryl. Water wouldn't melt. I thought it was spelt differently though.
You're right, 21:26 - water wouldn't melt.
Post a Comment