0
The war of words
23 February 2008
[indent]I was on vacation when I found out during an afternoon trip to the local Internet café in Mexico that our mayor had been attacking me again. One email writer who sent me a link to his comments noted that the timing seemed 'convenient' since I was out of the country and unable to respond.
But I've been belittled by the mayor in the past and I'm accustomed to it. He's good at it and I'd hate to deny him his small pleasure. We should all reach for something. Maybe belittling me is what he reaches for. And if it is an easier reach to do so when I can't speak in my own defence, then so be it.
The comments were published on both Collingwood Living and made in an interview on the Beach Radio earlier this month, as noted by Ian Adams on his blog. (Before I continue, you might want to refresh your knowledge of the Soviet tactic of 'dezinformatsiya', better known in the West as disinformation...)
As noted on Collingwood Living (spelling mistakes are in the original)...As, of course, can be regular radio and TV shows - both of which are used by the mayor to push his own agenda. But of course we can't criticize that...
The article continues...Well, my original post was not about that issue - that part was merely a footnote - but rather the piece was about the inappropriateness of putting a letter clearly marked confidential into the public agenda without even the courtesy to inform the writer that it was being published. The mayor is careful to avoid that discussion because it would be a brisk walk into a nasty cactus patch.
Since I was not at the mediation process, I have no knowledge of what was said by either side, and I have not commented on it. What I commented on was allegedly said to the town's lawyer AFTER the meeting, when town staff had left, not during the closed session of the meeting. Again the central issue of my post was a breach of expected confidentiality, as well as the publishing of personal data about the fire chief included in that letter, but neither was raised in the interview.
What the mayor didn't say was that I explained to him and council via email that the person who made the comment to me was a customer in my store doing personal business unrelated to the town or the negotiations. He commented not about the mediation process or the negotiations, rather on the publishing of an HR report in the agenda and later on the town's newspaper and Web pages, a report that described a portion of those negotiations. In other words, we were speaking about a decision by the mayor himself to make that information public, not about the process or the details, much less anything confidential.
But it wasn't a group or a side: It was simply someone sending a package through my store during the Christmas season and we chatted about something in the public record. It's very common and likely in a small town where there are limited places of business like ours, that I will encounter people doing business with the town, people working for the town, even people suing the town. The mayor was made aware the topic of conversation was his decision to allow a report to appear on the agenda, not the mediation process. (You did read the stuff on disinformation, didn't you?)
I discuss politics with many people, even those who disagree with me. I am adamant about my 'open door' policy and my staff all know that I can be interrupted by anyone to answer questions or discuss my stand on town issues. It's that openness thing so many promised, and so few delivered. I am equally firm on my unwillingness to discuss in camera items or confidential matters, even when I personally disagree about the appropriateness of that material being disclosed outside public scrutiny.
The mayor publicly chastised me over my comments in a series of emails copied to all members of council and the CAO (therefore available as a public document through a $5 Freedom of Information Act request). He accused me of interfering politically with staff by publishing my comments online (even though I have never once discussed the negotiations with staff outside normal council business and did not comment on the negotiations which were over before my blog post was published) and of being "manipulated" by the firefighters' bargaining unit by having a conversation with one of their members (which is really a stretch - see the note on dezinformatsiya above - since I didn't take a stand for either side, merely questioned the mayor's tactics of making public some material I considered inappropriate for that venue. But in our current L'Etat C'est Moi regime, any attack on the mayor's actions are construed as an attack on the town...).
I responded to him in email (copied to council and the CAO) that,
What's ironic in this discussion is the mayor's insistence that under no circumstances should I or anyone else on council be talking with a member of our electorate - perhaps because they are a special interest group, doubly ironic considering the involvement of special interest groups to get him elected.
During the 2006 election campaign the firefighters' association sent out a questionnaire asking candidates to respond to many issuers and questions. Included was this statement: Elected officials (Mayor and Councillors) should have an “open door policy” with representatives of their Fire Fighters Association on matters relating to its members and the fire service. The firefighters asked for a comment on that statement.
Here's how our current mayor responded to that statement (emphasis added):
So "all personnel have the right to address matters of concern with... Council" - except of course, when it displeases the mayor for one of us to do so. Or maybe it's just with me (a conclusion with which Susan agrees). One wonders what defines that 'rare circumstance' where 'leap frogging' is necessary.
All that election stuff about openness, accountability, transparency - it was just words, right? And you can't be held accountable for election promises...
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Well, some of us at the table still take those promises seriously, although I'd say we're in the small minority.
But again, what was commented on was not a point of negotiation, but simply what the mayor put into the public agenda himself, and a reported response to that publication. Perhaps it's time to include another reference to disinformation here.
The mayor continues...And he's repeated that accusation on the Web, in the paper and on radio. Three times, which, like Lewis Carroll said in The Hunting Snark, is the proper number of times to conjure an imaginary beast:
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.”
Well, calling another member of tour town's Board of Directors a liar - aside from the question of slander and libel it raises - leads into a follow up post about the nature of leadership versus position, and what makes the difference between a leader and someone who simply holds authority - something about which I had time to muse upon during my vacation. And I'll leave it here to compose that shortly... (but keep in mind this Snark IS a Boojum - but that's all grist for another post) [/indent]
But I've been belittled by the mayor in the past and I'm accustomed to it. He's good at it and I'd hate to deny him his small pleasure. We should all reach for something. Maybe belittling me is what he reaches for. And if it is an easier reach to do so when I can't speak in my own defence, then so be it.
The comments were published on both Collingwood Living and made in an interview on the Beach Radio earlier this month, as noted by Ian Adams on his blog. (Before I continue, you might want to refresh your knowledge of the Soviet tactic of 'dezinformatsiya', better known in the West as disinformation...)
As noted on Collingwood Living (spelling mistakes are in the original)...
Quote
Mayor Carrier also talked about the difficulty he has had with this issue appearing on a Collingwood Councilor’s (sic) blog. “The internet (sic) serves a good purpose, but the internet (sic) can also be a very poor tool for those who wish to push their own personal agendas” Carrier stated.
The article continues...
Quote
“When you look at the blog and you see postings on the blog that talk about the mediation process that the Town of Collingwood was involved in with our fire service … well first of all, the mediation process is supposed to be confidential. Neither side is supposed to disclose what’s going on in a mediation or arbitration process. So we have where a member of council has disclosed to the public that the Town of Collingwood received, I think the term was that they had their knuckles sharply wrapped for inappropriate conduct.
Since I was not at the mediation process, I have no knowledge of what was said by either side, and I have not commented on it. What I commented on was allegedly said to the town's lawyer AFTER the meeting, when town staff had left, not during the closed session of the meeting. Again the central issue of my post was a breach of expected confidentiality, as well as the publishing of personal data about the fire chief included in that letter, but neither was raised in the interview.
Quote
“This was pointed out to this member of council that the Town did not receive any reprimand in any way” Carrier said, adding that the member of council in question had said that he had spoken to a member of the fire service and that the person had disclosed this information to the councilor (sic).
Quote
“First of all, once again it’s inappropriate for these two groups to be talking about something that occurred in mediation” Carrier said. “It’s completely inappropriate for either side to be talking to one another about what has occurred at this mediation process.
I discuss politics with many people, even those who disagree with me. I am adamant about my 'open door' policy and my staff all know that I can be interrupted by anyone to answer questions or discuss my stand on town issues. It's that openness thing so many promised, and so few delivered. I am equally firm on my unwillingness to discuss in camera items or confidential matters, even when I personally disagree about the appropriateness of that material being disclosed outside public scrutiny.
The mayor publicly chastised me over my comments in a series of emails copied to all members of council and the CAO (therefore available as a public document through a $5 Freedom of Information Act request). He accused me of interfering politically with staff by publishing my comments online (even though I have never once discussed the negotiations with staff outside normal council business and did not comment on the negotiations which were over before my blog post was published) and of being "manipulated" by the firefighters' bargaining unit by having a conversation with one of their members (which is really a stretch - see the note on dezinformatsiya above - since I didn't take a stand for either side, merely questioned the mayor's tactics of making public some material I considered inappropriate for that venue. But in our current L'Etat C'est Moi regime, any attack on the mayor's actions are construed as an attack on the town...).
I responded to him in email (copied to council and the CAO) that,
Quote
Having discussions with constituents about their concerns is our job. To suggest I was in some way manipulated by doing what I was elected to do speaks volumes about our different approaches to the role of an elected representative.
No confidential information was discussed. All I could talk about what was what you yourself put into the public record.
I listened to the concerns and comments as I would and do those of other residents. The members of the association have the same right to be represented and to voice their concerns as any other resident. I promised to be accessible to everyone. I will not tell someone who comes into my store to leave, or turn away legitimate business, if the conversation turns to politics or current affairs.
Please learn to respect the members of your own council and accept that we will represent our community fairly and honestly to the best of our ability, even if we do it in a manner different from what you would do.
No confidential information was discussed. All I could talk about what was what you yourself put into the public record.
I listened to the concerns and comments as I would and do those of other residents. The members of the association have the same right to be represented and to voice their concerns as any other resident. I promised to be accessible to everyone. I will not tell someone who comes into my store to leave, or turn away legitimate business, if the conversation turns to politics or current affairs.
Please learn to respect the members of your own council and accept that we will represent our community fairly and honestly to the best of our ability, even if we do it in a manner different from what you would do.
What's ironic in this discussion is the mayor's insistence that under no circumstances should I or anyone else on council be talking with a member of our electorate - perhaps because they are a special interest group, doubly ironic considering the involvement of special interest groups to get him elected.
During the 2006 election campaign the firefighters' association sent out a questionnaire asking candidates to respond to many issuers and questions. Included was this statement: Elected officials (Mayor and Councillors) should have an “open door policy” with representatives of their Fire Fighters Association on matters relating to its members and the fire service. The firefighters asked for a comment on that statement.
Here's how our current mayor responded to that statement (emphasis added):
Quote
My understanding of the current contract is that during negotiations it is against protocol for the Association to have contact with the Board of Directors regarding contract matters that are under review. That being said, all personnel have the right to address matters of concern with their supervisor, their department head, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Human Resources Committee (comprised of 3 members of Council, the CAO and the HR Director), and of course Council. The chain of process should be respected but should recognize the rare circumstance that “leap frogging” the chain would be necessary.
So "all personnel have the right to address matters of concern with... Council" - except of course, when it displeases the mayor for one of us to do so. Or maybe it's just with me (a conclusion with which Susan agrees). One wonders what defines that 'rare circumstance' where 'leap frogging' is necessary.
All that election stuff about openness, accountability, transparency - it was just words, right? And you can't be held accountable for election promises...
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Well, some of us at the table still take those promises seriously, although I'd say we're in the small minority.
But again, what was commented on was not a point of negotiation, but simply what the mayor put into the public agenda himself, and a reported response to that publication. Perhaps it's time to include another reference to disinformation here.
The mayor continues...
Quote
“I made the statement in the newspaper that the statement was either a lie or misrepresentation … you pick” Carrier added. “What I cannot stand for as the Mayor of Collingwood is for inappropriate comments made by members of council that are saying that we’ve acted inappropriately when it’s not true” Carrier said.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.”
Well, calling another member of tour town's Board of Directors a liar - aside from the question of slander and libel it raises - leads into a follow up post about the nature of leadership versus position, and what makes the difference between a leader and someone who simply holds authority - something about which I had time to muse upon during my vacation. And I'll leave it here to compose that shortly... (but keep in mind this Snark IS a Boojum - but that's all grist for another post) [/indent]
I fear that the Mayor is myopic and will not respond to constructive criticism. Action is required by Councilors to insure they carry out their community duty to operate effectively and openly. Councilors, under the Ontario Municipal Act, have the collective power and responsibility to direct community affairs through motions and bylaws in spite of the Mayor. His paranoia for secrecy and individual Councilor attacks must be addressed. The excess of Council’s in-camera meetings is a starting point.
At Council’s February 18th meeting an in-camera session was held to discuss a Georgian College matter of “security of the property of the municipality or local board”. This secrecy implies that the Mayor and Council are against Georgian College operating in Collingwood. Surely Georgian College is important for all residents and it should be encouraged through open discussion.
For Council’s February 25th meeting an in-camera session is proposed for committee appointments and an offer to purchase land. Why the secrecy?
There is a place for in-camera sessions but it should be tightly restricted to only matters dealing with staff personnel issues and not for the Mayor's personal projects. I suggest that every Council agenda request for an in-camera session have a recorded vote so we residents can be aware of the Councilors who want to do their work in the dark.
Dick Hill