"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

Wednesday 25 June 2014

I left at 11.10pm

Just so you know. I left the table a few minutes  before the rest last night. I wanted to catch Bob McRoberts before he left the Council Chamber

Last time  I spoke  to him he  said he was leaning against being a candidate.

That was a disappointment.

Last night I needed to know if he might consider offering to fill the vacant seat. Bob attends all the meetings and could slip into a seat at the table without missing a beat.

It certainly  will help if he comes forward.

I disagree  entirely with staff's interpretation of legislation that Council cannot dicsuss the matter behind closed doors.

Nothing so lugubrious could possibly be intended. By legislation.

Of course the decision must be public.

A by election is not permitted with a certain period prior to an election.

Therefore the seat must be filled by Council appointment. Appointment is not election.

That council and candidates  should participate in a process that defies sensibility is preposterous.
Every time there's a vacancy on an advisory committee, Council deliberates their choice behind closed doors. At the beginning of  each term of office, Council invites applications with resumes
from citizens interested in serving on an advisory committee.

The decision is public the selection is confidential and made behind closed doors.

The reason is another piece of legislation called the Privacy Act.

Another little detail  in the process is called the secret ballot.

No-one has ever suggested that's against the democratic process


Anonymous said...

Staff were talking through their hats last night on that issue. Their emphasis on " open-ness " and " transparency " had nothing to do with the process. They could have said they would prefer Council have a live audition. It was wrong to say it was required.

Anonymous said...

The live audition process was done in Richmond Hill. I believe council had some sort of a points system set up to help make their selection on the appointment. It gave the smoke and mirror illusion that the process was all opened and transparent. It was not. It was clear that the appointment was made even before the auditions took place. It was quite disturbing for those who did the live audition and witnessed they didn't stand a chance and their time and efforts were wasted. The live auditions took 4-5hrs to hear.

Anonymous said...

Nothing can be simple - it all have to be complicated. Not to mention the cost.

Anonymous said...

This council can't do anything right.

Instead of the October election we should take all those whose names have been put forward and run them through the "audition" process.

It probably wouldn't produce a worse result.

Anonymous said...

This is insane. I can't believe this is even happening when elections are in 4 months. Yet another example of government wasting time and money. Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

16:07 has it right. There is no need to fill the position.

Anonymous said...

Apart from the legal requirement as per provincial legislation, right, 19:49?

Anonymous said...

there is no need but there appears to be a legal requirement of sorts from the powers above. The problem seems lie in the manner council has chosen to proceed.