0
A councillor's education
14 April 2008
[indent]Apparently now I need a law degree to discuss issues at the table. That's what Mayor Carrier suggested when he commented about me in the Collingwood Connection this weekend that, "He doesn't have a law degree, our lawyer does."
Well, to be honest, I already knew our lawyer had one. I just didn't know I needed one to make a comment on a legal issue at the table. After all, I don't have an engineering degree, so should I be allowed to comment on engineering issues? I'm not a planner, so should I be allowed to comment on planning issues?
Apparently not, at least according to what I read into the mayor's statement. He has twice disparaged me this term for not being an "expert" in his eyes (see my previous post), when I challenged him on things he wanted to push through.
I'm also not a police officer, a fire fighter, a doctor, an architect, a sociologist, a recreation specialist, a librarian, a teacher, a weed control expert, an accountant, an artist, an Elvis impersonator, a horticulturalist, a branding expert, a statistician, or a traffic specialist. Nor are any of us at the table. Yet every week council gets to decide on issues that relate to these professions.
Should those of us at the table who lack the degree or training step aside from any discussion in which we lack the necessary background? That would mean most of us - including the mayor - can't contribute to the majority of discussions at the table. And if it does happen to fall into our areas of practice, we'd probably be in a conflict of interest. Be very few people left to make decisions in that case. Maybe none.
The mayor was, of course, commenting on my and the Deputy Mayor's decision not to hear an issue in camera that he wanted presented behind closed doors. The issue is whether the public should have the right to hear our discussion on how council is spending the public's money, not whether I have a law degree.
The mayor didn't address that in his comments. Instead, he told the Connection, he "didn't think Chadwick's opinion was valid." Now there's a surprise. I suppose it's only valid when I agree with him.
The mayor resorted to his habit of turning a discussion on process in which we disagree into a snide personal attack. He's good at that, and done it rather well several times in the past. But perhaps it's not the skill we need in the head of council. It's certainly not the sort of comment I would classify as a "leadership" comment. But, hey, I don't have a degree in leadership either, so what do I know?
The mayor seems to think that council should simply be rubber stamps for staff decisions - at least when they echo his own. As the mayor himself wrote in a recent, scolding email, "To question the appropriateness or to continue to question or to question it in the media is most counter-productive and questions the professional competency of our staff.
These folks are highly qualified in their jobs.
While some of us may question the content of the discussions in-camera as sometimes all of us go off on a tangent.
Please rely upon staff advice or not but stop openly questioning their ability to determine the appropriateness of the in-camera."
And when we actually do what we're elected to do - act in the best interests of the community as we see it - he turns to personal attack.
Only 2 years, 7 months, 17 days of this term left to go...[/indent]
Well, to be honest, I already knew our lawyer had one. I just didn't know I needed one to make a comment on a legal issue at the table. After all, I don't have an engineering degree, so should I be allowed to comment on engineering issues? I'm not a planner, so should I be allowed to comment on planning issues?
Apparently not, at least according to what I read into the mayor's statement. He has twice disparaged me this term for not being an "expert" in his eyes (see my previous post), when I challenged him on things he wanted to push through.
I'm also not a police officer, a fire fighter, a doctor, an architect, a sociologist, a recreation specialist, a librarian, a teacher, a weed control expert, an accountant, an artist, an Elvis impersonator, a horticulturalist, a branding expert, a statistician, or a traffic specialist. Nor are any of us at the table. Yet every week council gets to decide on issues that relate to these professions.
Should those of us at the table who lack the degree or training step aside from any discussion in which we lack the necessary background? That would mean most of us - including the mayor - can't contribute to the majority of discussions at the table. And if it does happen to fall into our areas of practice, we'd probably be in a conflict of interest. Be very few people left to make decisions in that case. Maybe none.
The mayor was, of course, commenting on my and the Deputy Mayor's decision not to hear an issue in camera that he wanted presented behind closed doors. The issue is whether the public should have the right to hear our discussion on how council is spending the public's money, not whether I have a law degree.
The mayor didn't address that in his comments. Instead, he told the Connection, he "didn't think Chadwick's opinion was valid." Now there's a surprise. I suppose it's only valid when I agree with him.
The mayor resorted to his habit of turning a discussion on process in which we disagree into a snide personal attack. He's good at that, and done it rather well several times in the past. But perhaps it's not the skill we need in the head of council. It's certainly not the sort of comment I would classify as a "leadership" comment. But, hey, I don't have a degree in leadership either, so what do I know?
The mayor seems to think that council should simply be rubber stamps for staff decisions - at least when they echo his own. As the mayor himself wrote in a recent, scolding email, "To question the appropriateness or to continue to question or to question it in the media is most counter-productive and questions the professional competency of our staff.
These folks are highly qualified in their jobs.
While some of us may question the content of the discussions in-camera as sometimes all of us go off on a tangent.
Please rely upon staff advice or not but stop openly questioning their ability to determine the appropriateness of the in-camera."
And when we actually do what we're elected to do - act in the best interests of the community as we see it - he turns to personal attack.
Only 2 years, 7 months, 17 days of this term left to go...[/indent]
