Monday, 4 August 2014

What does it profit a man .

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "New Topic":

"Many saw this as The Mayors biggest mistake..."

Many would be wrong. It was an issue of little consequence

Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 August 2014 12:17


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

Why would  they be wrong. Why would there not simply be a different opinion. 

Why the obsession with who is right and who is wrong? 

If it was of  such little consequence, why did the decision have to be made on July 29th

Council had until August 23rd to make the appointment.

If  every Councillors  needed to participate, why was a date not chosen to accommodate all Councillors?

Why such an elaborate  process that exploited  eighteen citizens to make it look like the decision was not predetermined. ?

You really need to  be either totally cynical or incredibly unintelligent to imagine the public would fall for such blatant artifice when they saw the result.

The candidates  obviously did but except for one, I doubt they came away from the experience with the same respect they had at the beginning.

An appointment was indeed a simple straightforward task that hardly seemed necessary.

Hardly worth the elaborate pretext ...and certainly not to anyone's credit.

7 comments:

  1. A few walked away with less respect for sure.Some are talking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We cannot put it back in the bottle.
    On a positive note, I discovered that it is possible to camp on the Oak Ridges Morraine. We spent a few days in Clarington watching & listening to country music's royalty. It was amazing how many familiar faces from Aurora/Newmarket there were in that crowd of thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh please.... what exactly did everyone expect?? Good God... of course it was already predetermined. I don't even know why he even showed up and presented.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Predetermined, 20:32? But, didn't Cllr Buck tell us that the fix was in on a completely different candidate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. To 21:51 either way the process is flawed.FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Uh, not quite, 21:51. The "idea" of there being a pre-selected candidate was out there. It really did not matter who that individual might be. None of it matters now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 21:51 - The fix was on a different candidate? I didn't get that anywhere from Evelyn blog.

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.