We have until October 27th to contemplate our choice in the next election. We don't know the extent of our choice yet.
Remember the last time. I think There were about twenty candidates. The only certainty in many people's minds were those who should not under any circumstance be re-elected.
An almighty effort went into the campaign by a lot of good people.
Surprisingly, it was only half successful.
Lack of the job experience was likely the cause
It was the reality. Despite that, three neophytes took the top votes.
It gave them a lot of confidence,
They thought they were masters of the universe. It's a heady experience being elected to top the poll.
They may still think they have it mastered. Or they may now understand there's more to the job than they thought.
Challengers thus far registered have no more experience than the last.
Should the experiment be repeated?
Is that the wisest option?
Incumbents now have four years experience under their belts.
Is that plus or a minus?
It's something to think about. We have time .And possibilities.
Sunday 4 May 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
There are five sitting members on council that I will not be voting for into the next term. Unfortunately there isn't 5 new candidates that I would vote in to replace them.
We also have hope because the current options depress the heck out of me. Most of the newbies natter about green spaces - got lots of those - ward systems- not needed/too expensive and transparency
which has become a weasel word.
Have a good day - the wind seems to be giving us a break.
It was partially our fault. During the last election, it was possible to get elected just by being a new name. There would have been people content if a candidate had read from a phone book. Even dear nigel might have gotten a council seat if he hadn't insisted on thinking he could be mayor.
We also saw how an effective team campaign is run.
Take the high ground and otherwise shut up. ...
I am seeing none of that so far.
Periodically I see the acronym EDAC and looked up what this referred to. Economic Development Advisory Committee.
From its name it must be a very important committee in the life of our town.
I checked further and two members of council sit on it, as does a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, and finally four members of the public approved by council. In addition, those attending meetings are the Manager of Long Range and Strategic Planning, the Strategic Program Coordinator and the Council/Committee Secretary.
What I would like to know are the experiences and qualifications for committee members.
There have been 6 meetings scheduled for the first half of this year, two of which have been cancelled. One of them is still in the future on June 12.
At the January and April meetings there were three members absent; the March meeting saw four members absent and Mayor Dawe had to sit in to form a quorum.
Obviously some members do not take this committee too seriously.
In the minutes of the March meeting reference is made regarding Preferred Medical Campus Locations and that the committee recommend to Council "that staff be directed to prepare the required planning amendments to enable the establishment of a medical campus in the Bayview Avenue and St. John's Sideroad area."
This is all very interesting as a university campus was more recently proposed for the Yonge Street and St. John's Sideroad area as part of our town's joint venture with Newmarket.
I must admit I am completely confused by this committee's existence, its purpose, its influence on staff and council.
Can you help?
9:11 Your right. This term's council didn't have to do much to be better than last term. That being said. We do need to get it right for next term. We really do need additional candidates to register. Or be prepared for bigger tax increases next year.
13:40
I agree. No matter how I shuffle them around, I cannot work with the cards that we see so far.
There is plenty of time. I suspect we are just seeing the surface. Anyone can run for election. We have seen it before & will see it again.
I think the topic heading here is appropriate.
It would appear that tonight might be an important time with all kinds of possibilities.
Sort of like watching someone hit a wasps' nest with a stick.
Enjoy your evening.
12:25
The motions ?
I think Rogers looks good for tonight. Fingers crossed.
Is there a school for speed-talking ?
Cllr Ballard obviously " miss-spoke " when he said he would step aside if an election were called. He seems to be stuck on the word " Vision " tonight. I lost track after 12 mentions on a single item.
OK what happened with David Heard ? are we into another Code of Conduct thing ? with a Farmers' Market ?
David has let them know on many occassions of a handicap with hearing.Some have been trying to force him into the park with loud music playing.He cannot function there.My understanding is David only has partial hearing in one ear.Guy sure is resilient..
Nice try with that second clause.
23:40
What is your problem ?
10:05 You are bang on.
@ 10:05
The problem? Vindictiveness.
Not content with the hiring of a curator, that second clause was included to claw back at the funding of the Historical Society and the Cultural Centre. Spite was couched in illogical 'logic,' but didn't fool those around the table (or watching at home).
11:19
I did not see that at all. I did hear a # of councillors point out that the town already funds culture & history to the one outfit which only provide the single product. It makes sense to draw a fraction from that source to support the Museum which was after all there first. Just saying.
12:50, that number you heard was a total of ONE.
No, your "fraction" doesn't make sense. The created void is being filled with different programming and events. We aren't being provided with less service, just fewer instances (but not none) with a heritage focus.
13:24
The vote was 6-2
Is that why you are frothing ?
Frothing, 14:56? Hardly.
The only place for any froth is on a pint of Guinness.
Ahhh..No…Those “different programming and events” can find another source of funding!
That second clause was brilliant!! Nice one Eve!
Um, it didn't work, 19:46/48. Hardly "brilliant" then, was it?
A "brilliant" clause would have passed. Just sayin'
Post a Comment