"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday 26 July 2013

Da code is the law.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Guest Post Councillor Abel":

7:57 AM
If I read the comment of 7:21 PM correctly, the point would appear to be that nothing positive has emerged from this Council. And I tend to agree that there is a lack of constructive projects and plans that might be able to make the councillors work as a team.

Some times I  lose confidence and think it's not reasonable to expect the public to recognise the crux of the problem  just from the dynamics of council. 

Then a comment  goes straight to the  core amd  I take comfort again.

Council  has passed another unenforceable  Bylaw; a combination of the previous Codes of Conduct  and Ethics and a perfect illustration of  lack  of understanding of the antipathy the community had to  the  basic concept. 

Passing a new code to govern  political conduct  proved beyond a doubt how little this Council has grown in two and  a  half years of  exercising  authority delegated by the electorate. 

Da Code requires Councillors to read and understand it and sign it to convey their commitment. 

It's  a standard piece of writing. Recommended by staff. Obviously Councillors did not feel the need to read and understand it. 

 Just like the last lot. 

Staff were asked to combine the two previous Codes and they did.  Staff are not politicians.

The document is chock-a -block full of pitfalls for politicians. 

If politicians  are not sharp enough to recognize the job is not like any other, how can they be protected from themselves.

Clause 3  on Communications, requires  Councillors ,even if they disagree with the majority, to 
accurately portray decisions  and   attitude of the majority in the making of  same. 

In following the Code, I could say "The devil made me do it"  or  more to the point, " The Code requires  me to do it"

I have read  it. I  do understand it to the letter. 

In speaking to attitude:

I believe the Mayor has steadfastly refused to exercise his role of leadership and guidance as spelled out  in The Municipal Act. I knew it was going to be difficult for him to provide guidance  to others when he didn't know where he was going  himself. 

I did not anticipate that he knew exactly how he intended to exploit the opportunity and that he would opt out  of leadership altogether and chose  what he perceived to be the safer route.

He aligned himself  completely with the administration and  made no  effort to identify with  Council.

Our Mayor is an elitist. Thinks he knows how to handle people. 

He's wrong about that. 

As are most who  believe leadership is about "handling people"

His attitude is not good. 

A Council  needs  to agree on  one principle only; the common objective of service.  

If the Mayor is  focussed simply  on covering his own ass, no possibility  exists of creating a cohesive working Council. 

A divided  Council is an ineffective  Council

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 

We are almost two-thirds through the current term.

Time  for assessments to  begin .


Anonymous said...

A lovely post, Evelyn. Unfortunately the individual to whom it is addressed with such concern will not be reading it. He dismisses ALL blogs & prefers to use his " moral 'suasion ." I have no idea what he means by that term. It does not appear to be effective when dealing with a group of adults - might work with small children, for a while, until they catch on.
Pity, that.

Anonymous said...

It is difficult to rally around the flag when the person supposed to be carrying it is lost in the bushes.

Anonymous said...

I encountered a problem with one of my first summer jobs. Unexpectedly, there was a demand that I swear loyalty to the Queen. I looked hard for an escape but could find none. A refusal would mean loss of the job & would require that I pay the train fare for myself and belongings back across the country to return home.
As slowly as possible, I tucked my hands behind my back and crossed as many fingers as possible.
The oath came easily. The lackey demanding it believed it no more than I - I figured it was a draw.
So, if you have to sign than stupid Code, Councillor, I believe you are free to do it. No one on Council even knows what it means.
It's a gutless wonder.

Anonymous said...

I thought the job of a Councillor was to make a decision on an issue, give a brief explanation at the table & vote. You would turn yourself into a pretzel trying to explain the thought processes of all the others. What if there was no thought behind how they voted?

Anonymous said...

CBC News
'Senator Harb didn't live at 'primary ' residence, RCMP says '
OK. That should please all the people claiming that only conservative senators are implicated.

Anonymous said...

Question for clarification, please
What happens if you do not sign that thing ? Demerits? Shunning?

Anonymous said...

8:02... Whether you sign it or not, to continue in the office, you ipso facto agree to the letter of it and are expected to uphold it.

If you do not sign and plead ignorace later... ignorance is no excuse.