A comment:
The larger picture must be viewed to place this issue into context.
From the beginning, town staff were informed.by the Mayor..... if they worked for the town they worked for Herself ...... friends were to be chosen carefully...... Herself had a list.
In an early public meeting, the person in charge of communications presented her annual report and referred to her department as " corporate communications"
The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern tag-teamed with repeating demands for an explanation of the term. It was their way to convey the definition did not suit them. Figuratively speaking, the employee was being beaten into the ground to acknowledge the error of her ways.
From that point on, every media release carried the sentence; "Mayor ...... commented"
or "Mayor ......said " or "Mayor ...... remarked"
No media release was ever released without the reference, no matter how inappropriate to the context.
As staff began to be replaced, there was never any doubt in my mind, of the difficulty they had had in coming to terms with the fact they were no longer servants of the Municipal Corporation.
The former person in charge of communications lasted longest. Eventually and only recently she too was displaced.
It therefore makes sense , replacements would be made to understand at the outset of their real place in the scheme of things.
The Code of Conduct states Council Members must accept staff are servants of the Corporation.
A final statement requires Council Members to read and understand the document and sign two copies. Given the circumstances that seemed to me to be fairly presumptuous.
I made a critical reference once, in relation to staff , to the lateness of council meetings ;
'"Staff are here to serve us.They must be here when we need them to be here " Councillor Gaertner stated with complete hauteur.
I tried to do a tally of lieu time once .I found it depressing. Hardly left time for anything but
being a captive audience to the Mayor's performance at meetings.
Soon after the new CAO's appointment, a blog comment reflected unfavourably on the Mayor.
There was a great kerfuffle. Another improper in-camera meeting. Direction given to root out the culprit . The CAO commented to the Blog demanding its removal. By a deadline. The Mayor is very fond of deadlines.
The town solicitor wrote to Google demanding the identity of the writer be revealed.
The Mayor commented staff had been unable to do" their own work" for weeks since the issue arose.That meant department directors were occupied with what was essentially politics..
It seemed clear to me, the difference between "their own work" and chasing after the author of an anonymous comment critical of mayoralty conduct was well understood by the Mayor. Though not enough apparently to understand or care that it was an abuse of public resources, also a contravention of their Code of Righteousness. .
When the Nisbet Drive resident appeared before Council with his humorless pitch to have a road
shifted to save him from having a sidewalk on the public right of way in front of his property, a "political compromise" was presented by staff and accepted by Council.
The resident had visited the Mayor. A meeting was arranged and....Whamo....a solution was found to please him at the expense of all of his neighbours.
The list is endless.
The most recent was a lengthy report on "the accomplishments of Advisory Committees" being "proof" of good working relations between staff and an "informed and supportive Council"
It represented re-regurgitating four years of committee reports, including the name of every street that came before the traffic advisory committee during the term.Following which the Mayor requested it be condensed because it was "heavy reading"
The resources of the corporation are constantly exploited to boost the political fortunes of the Mayor and followers and that is a secret to no-one .
Least of all, to employees of the Corporation and members of the Municipal Council.
The people who pay the bills certainly have the same right of access..
Saturday 21 August 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Was the critical blog comment ever removed? What blog was it in, and when was it posted?
The people who pay the bills will be voicing their opinion in October, and I for one will be working very hard until then to help them form an opinion of this travesty of a Mayor.
Section 70 (4) 3 of the Municipal Elections Act expressly prohibits municipalities from contributing to campaigns. Contributions include not only money but goods and services as well. Many municipalities are taking the high road and have policies prohibiting or have advised their members of council not to use town issued equipment such as telephones/blackberries, voice mail and email for campaign related activities as it could be seen as a municipal contribution. The question to be asked then around this public relations campaign is, has a targeted effort such as this one occurred before (ie. in non election years)?
If it is a one off that just happens to be occurring right before an election then you have to wonder. I can't believe that some staff would jeopardize their positions and their professional integrity by using town resources (and our dime!) to get a member of council re-elected not even to mention putting the Town in possible contravention of the Act.
A seasoned public servant knows to do their job without fear or favour. In this case, I would suggest that they not put all their eggs in one basket - word on the street has it that this mayor is on her way out.
Awesome post. Do you mind if I ask what your source is for this information?
Post a Comment