0
Mayors are from Mars, Councillors are from Venus
04 May 2009
[indent]
If there ever was proof that the mayor and I are from different planets, the weekend special report in the Connection provides it. One on One is actually two interviews: one with the mayor, the other with the deputy mayor. The two pieces juxtapose their different views and ideologies in several key issues and developments this term, in two distinctly separate interviews. It's worth reading both.
You might call them "views on the journey" - they show how each feels he, she and council have progressed and what each has accomplished individually during this term. And quite obviously the mayor and I disagree on how we see that journey, as does the DM.
My first thought on reading the mayor's interview was, "What planet have you been living on?" I've obviously been on another one this term - hence the title of this article - since we see the state of current affairs quite differently. We're obviously two different species of aliens.
I don't know if the reporter is making a statement on his own or quoting the mayor, but the idea he is the most open and transparent mayor would be risible, were it not so comi-tragic that anyone could possibly believe that.*
Having staff with the mayor when he makes decisions or has meetings or when he walks around town hall does NOT make him any more or less open and transparent than former mayors. When discussions and decisions come to the table and involve the public, then a member of council can claim it was an open process. Lots of decisions are made in camera with staff present - that doesn't mean they are more open than those made at the council table. I suggest this council has more in camera meetings than previous councils, and many important things have been discussed behind closed doors this term that I feel should be part of the public process.
The decision to buy the Simcoe Street properties - right or wrong, good or bad decision as it might have been - was made by a majority of council, after lengthy debate and discussion. It was made with support from the BIA and senior staff as a solution to a parking problem that was stated in a public document endorsed by previous councils. It was held in camera because - as this council has frequently done - discussions about the municipal purchase or sale of land are held in camera according to the Municipal Act.
Even before the discussion, there had been serious concerns raised by the police about problems at the former Georgian Grill property and many complaints from nearby residents. The decision to buy the properties came with significant support from neighbours, police, BIA and staff. Whether that was a good decision or not, the process followed was appropriate.
As I read his comment, the mayor disagreed with the result of the vote, so therefore a decision made democratically and legally, after full discussion, and the support of senior staff was an improper process. Or was it because the BIA chose to hire a well-known Liberal to present their recommendations, which didn't agree with the current mayor's oft publicly-proclaimed Conservative loyalties? Either way, disagreeing with the result doesn't make it a less-open process than ones we have followed in this council.
Former Mayor Geddes was merely one vote in the decision arrived at by the majority of council. Geddes did not make the motion to buy the properties, either. On the other hand, our current mayor does make motions - the motion to rescind the former council's approval of the heritage report for the Admiral Collingwood project is one example.
And as for the water treatment plant - nothing was ever presented to council for debate. The proposal was scuttled before it came to the table after it got into the media. The proposal to discuss a purchase of a share in the plant (not the water service, merely the bricks and mortar) came from the company that made the water treatment equipment we currently use, and was not initiated by the town. It would have made an interesting and lively debate, but it never had the chance to be more than a suggestion. It might have also given us a lot of money to use for an expanded plant, and continue to have the plant used as an international training centre. But it never got beyond the suggestion stage.
Why bring up a past opportunity that never reached the council for discussion as an example of the differences between Himself and the former mayor? Why in fact does the mayor need to measure himself against the former mayor at all? Especially in print?
Open and transparent? Like the in-camera decision by this council to exceed the $50,000 limit on legal bills the previous council put on the battle against education development charges? That's the mayor's pet battle and there was no public discussion let alone debate and input on the matter. Really open and transparent, that one. We've spent $400,000 on it based on decisions made in secret! Had it not been for the resistance by me and the deputy mayor, this issue would never have come to the table at all.
Well, we lost at the OMB. Of course if the OMB decides for our side, we're willing to accept their decision rather than support our opponents who scream the OMB erred.... but even if the OMB erred in some minor legal way, almost all of all support for this battle has evaporated from the rest of the county, even though Collingwood is footing the legal bills.
What about the mayor's refusal to allow the treasurer to prepare a report to state publicly the cost of the legal bills associated with the Admiral Collingwood debacle, that forced me to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get the facts he didn't want made public? How open and transparent was that?
Or his unilateral decision to change board and committee structures, especially the budget committee, without any input from the rest of council? And the attempt to hold the budget committee meetings in camera? Council members weren't even allowed to speak during the initial budget committee meetings in the early part of this term. How open is that?
The interview with Mayor Carrier continues,
A BAD decision? Or just another democratic decision he doesn't like? The last council didn't decide NOT to ignore the heritage impact assessment. That assessment allowed that the Admiral Collingwood development met the minimal requirements of the heritage district, but suggested it could do better. The last council did NOT ignore the HIA: we accepted it. The decision was arrived at openly, publicly, with full debate and a democratic vote. It was all legal and above board. The current mayor apparently didn't like that process. And when the mayor disagrees with the results, it is tagged "bad."
The BEST decision we have made so far? Geez, by comparison everything else we've done must be worse - and that decision is considered by everyone I've spoken to since it was made to be the single WORST decisions ANY council in this town has ever made.
I personally would have pegged our initiatives for walkability and sustainability, and our ongoing urban design standards project far above the decision to delay a crucial and publicly-supported downtown development - a delay that has resulted in a water-filled hole dubbed 'Carrier's Pond' on the main street. I guess that further illustrates our different home planets. But of course, the delay was the mayor's initiative, and the other accomplishments were council's, so perhaps council's initiatives rank lower in his esteem.
We also differ what the term "back on track" means. To me it suggests going forward, or continuing to build. To the mayor it must mean stalled, in stasis, a water-filled hole in the ground.
But wait: "respect the desires of the electorate"? Respect? When a petition signed by 2,500 people to restore the rights to the developer was presented to this council, the mayor shrugged it off and refused to discuss it at the table. That was the electorate. The project was also supported by the BIA - more than 400 shop owners, doctors, lawyers, bankers, grocers and all their staff - roughly 1,200 people. Aren't they part of the electorate too?
The people who opposed the proposal were some members of a small special interest group whose membership was at best one-twenty-fifth of the number of names on the petition. There was no public input into the decision to rescind the HIA, and no public meetings; just a motion made by the mayor and passed by his council supporters. No one ran in the previous election promising to retract the permissions for the development either, so the public had no warning about it. That is not what I would describe as respecting the electorate or conducting an open process.
And what about the mayor's recent refusal to vote the way council directed on the NVCA budget? Members of council represent the electorate - and a larger portion of it than the mayor. But the mayor adamantly refused to vote the way council directed and stated publicly that he would vote as he saw fit. Is that respecting the desires of the electorate? Certainly it wasn't respecting the electorate's representatives.
Those of us who voted in favour of the projects he demeans don't think the cost was a waste or the decisions were bad. That's a lot of disrespect for the rest of council in one statement. I didn't vote for Heritage Park, myself, not because I thought it was a "waste" but rather because I didn't think we could afford it this year. Others did, so it passed, and we move ahead.
I wonder how the mayor would appreciate it if the rest of council publicly called the projects he voted for a waste - the downtown revitalization, the new Y pool, the educational development charges battle, and the roundabouts included. He would probably get pretty steamed that we were showing him disrespect.
I wonder how approving a 500,000 sq. foot mall sprawl that even his mentor, Sonny Foley opposed, is a better decision than the former mayor might have made? What sort of good business decision does this represent for the vitality of the downtown? And despite the promise this will become a regional shopping centre. I see Future Shop is opening in Wasaga Beach instead of Collingwood. How did his worship's business acumen miss that development?
And how did his business background miss what I and others perceived as glaring holes in the numbers presented by the consultants to support their argument in favour of this commercial sprawl? Or the financial impact of stalling the Admiral Collingwood development and letting competing seniors' retirement homes get built instead of the proposed Strand?
Sorry, but I'm a small business owner too, and I disagree that being in business gives anyone better qualifications to be mayor than any other sector or profession. Private sector business is what drove us into our current recession - think Enron and AIG if you want prime examples of private sector mismanagement. Let's dispense with the well-debunked myth about the superiority of the private sector over the public.
The work history of the person at the head of the table is less important than his or her ability to lead council to create great things. And this term we don't have a lot of great things to show.
The former mayor has a university degree, followed by years of management experience as a school principal, as well as many years spent as a member of local boards and committees. That seems like a pretty good set of qualifications to me. He learned from experience to be a mediator and facilitator, and as a result we worked much more like a team last term.
But why, I have to ask again, does the current mayor need to keep justifying his actions in contrast to the former mayor?
Perhaps the difference lies more in how each of us sees the role of mayor:
The current mayor doesn't seem to appreciate that being mayor is a 24/7 job. Just like being a councillor is. You can't stand aside from the role and pretend that you're not representing the town every time you're in public. You can't stand aside and say this is personal, while this is official business so my being mayor doesn't count here.
The minute you get elected, you're under the microscope. You represent the town every minute you're in public. Act like it. Being mayor means that you're under scrutiny 24/7. Behave accordingly. People don't invite a junior partner in a small local business as the focal point of an event - they invite the mayor, regardless of his personal career or who is buying the ticket.
Don't make insinuations about other peoples' character simply because they question if the person and the office are really separate. Blaming others won't make a person seem better by comparison.
It doesn't matter who paid for the ticket. People saw the recipient of the gift as the mayor, not a private person. It's not legally wrong to accept them, but why be secretive when you do? That's what raises public ire and makes people suspicious.
All the current mayor had to do to defuse any criticisms was to announce at the table that he had won a trip and what it was worth. Period. That would have been the end of the matter and defused any "whisper campaign." Perception is reality and even if there is no legal wrongdoing involved, the public can perceive a moral conflict. Perhaps the real question on people's minds is how appropriate is it for any mayor to accept gifts of this nature?
Terry understood the role of mayor and public perception very well. As far as I recall, never accepted any gifts like this, but if he did he offered them back to the organizers to raffle off for fundraising opportunities. He understood how to win the hearts and minds of the people.
Lest we forget that our current mayor voted AGAINST the new library when I first proposed it, last term. The election campaign brought home the community's widespread support for the library, so he changed his spots. I'm glad he's behind it now, of course. Credit goes to the former council and the former mayor for its success and its development, and to the former council for its relocation to the current site.
I don't even know where to begin about the mayor's comments on Collingwood Ethanol. He said, ""Fifty seven jobs are important, but not at the expense of neighbouring industry, commercial business and residents." I wonder how the 57 employees and their families feel about his comment. Are the workers at Canadian Mist worried, too?
And, as expected, I am subject to the mayor's irate commentary:
Any criticism of His Highness is always perceived by Himself as "mean-spirited" not simply as a difference of opinion. The mayor has often insulted and belittled me in public. I can't recall any former mayor publicly insulting or belittling any member of council, or calling their decisions a "waste." Former mayors all seemed more respectful of dissent and other opinions, even when those mayors disagreed with the result of a debate or vote.
A democracy is measured by how it handles dissent, not on how it achieves consensus. Thus too are its leaders measured.*
I understand that anyone who isn't slavishly supportive to the point of sycophancy will be accused of being "mean spirited" and worse. Terry was able to see critics as "the loyal opposition" and still be open and accessible without resorting to name calling. But let's not compare the current and former mayors any more. **** After two years of this treatment, I expect nothing better from this mayor.
Alan Keith, of Lucas Digital, said, "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen." This term isn't about encouraging our contribution as councillors as much as it is about personal ideologies and agendas - many coming from the head of the table. But there is hope on the horizon: the next election is only about 18 months away.
~~~~~
* I am reminded of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
** John correctly writes "compared to" - the differences between the two mayors are often pointed out. Had he written "compared with", it would suggest there are also similarities.
*** Mean-spirited is defined as, "Having or characterized by a malicious or petty spirit" and "characterized by or displaying a propensity to be mean; selfish, malicious, etc." I would have agreed with him had he used a word like contentious or even controversial. But malicious? That's an insult.
**** When weighing the differences between the former and current mayor, I always feel like saying to the current mayor, "mene, mene tekel upharsin."
[/indent]
You might call them "views on the journey" - they show how each feels he, she and council have progressed and what each has accomplished individually during this term. And quite obviously the mayor and I disagree on how we see that journey, as does the DM.
My first thought on reading the mayor's interview was, "What planet have you been living on?" I've obviously been on another one this term - hence the title of this article - since we see the state of current affairs quite differently. We're obviously two different species of aliens.
Quote
Carrier believes he is the most open and transparent mayor. Carrier said there isn't a lot that he does, when he doesn't have staff with him or staff doesn't know about it.
I don't know if the reporter is making a statement on his own or quoting the mayor, but the idea he is the most open and transparent mayor would be risible, were it not so comi-tragic that anyone could possibly believe that.*
Having staff with the mayor when he makes decisions or has meetings or when he walks around town hall does NOT make him any more or less open and transparent than former mayors. When discussions and decisions come to the table and involve the public, then a member of council can claim it was an open process. Lots of decisions are made in camera with staff present - that doesn't mean they are more open than those made at the council table. I suggest this council has more in camera meetings than previous councils, and many important things have been discussed behind closed doors this term that I feel should be part of the public process.
Quote
Carrier - who has often been compared to** former Mayor Terry Geddes - criticized Geddes for the decision to purchase the Tremont Property and a proposed plan to sell the town's water treatment plant.
"When you look at the circumstances of the purchase of the Tremont and the Livery Palace and a business plan being drawn up to sell our water treatment plant. I am more open and transparent," Carrier said.
"When you look at the circumstances of the purchase of the Tremont and the Livery Palace and a business plan being drawn up to sell our water treatment plant. I am more open and transparent," Carrier said.
The decision to buy the Simcoe Street properties - right or wrong, good or bad decision as it might have been - was made by a majority of council, after lengthy debate and discussion. It was made with support from the BIA and senior staff as a solution to a parking problem that was stated in a public document endorsed by previous councils. It was held in camera because - as this council has frequently done - discussions about the municipal purchase or sale of land are held in camera according to the Municipal Act.
Even before the discussion, there had been serious concerns raised by the police about problems at the former Georgian Grill property and many complaints from nearby residents. The decision to buy the properties came with significant support from neighbours, police, BIA and staff. Whether that was a good decision or not, the process followed was appropriate.
As I read his comment, the mayor disagreed with the result of the vote, so therefore a decision made democratically and legally, after full discussion, and the support of senior staff was an improper process. Or was it because the BIA chose to hire a well-known Liberal to present their recommendations, which didn't agree with the current mayor's oft publicly-proclaimed Conservative loyalties? Either way, disagreeing with the result doesn't make it a less-open process than ones we have followed in this council.
Former Mayor Geddes was merely one vote in the decision arrived at by the majority of council. Geddes did not make the motion to buy the properties, either. On the other hand, our current mayor does make motions - the motion to rescind the former council's approval of the heritage report for the Admiral Collingwood project is one example.
And as for the water treatment plant - nothing was ever presented to council for debate. The proposal was scuttled before it came to the table after it got into the media. The proposal to discuss a purchase of a share in the plant (not the water service, merely the bricks and mortar) came from the company that made the water treatment equipment we currently use, and was not initiated by the town. It would have made an interesting and lively debate, but it never had the chance to be more than a suggestion. It might have also given us a lot of money to use for an expanded plant, and continue to have the plant used as an international training centre. But it never got beyond the suggestion stage.
Why bring up a past opportunity that never reached the council for discussion as an example of the differences between Himself and the former mayor? Why in fact does the mayor need to measure himself against the former mayor at all? Especially in print?
Open and transparent? Like the in-camera decision by this council to exceed the $50,000 limit on legal bills the previous council put on the battle against education development charges? That's the mayor's pet battle and there was no public discussion let alone debate and input on the matter. Really open and transparent, that one. We've spent $400,000 on it based on decisions made in secret! Had it not been for the resistance by me and the deputy mayor, this issue would never have come to the table at all.
Quote
We truly believe the OMB erred in this decision.
Well, we lost at the OMB. Of course if the OMB decides for our side, we're willing to accept their decision rather than support our opponents who scream the OMB erred.... but even if the OMB erred in some minor legal way, almost all of all support for this battle has evaporated from the rest of the county, even though Collingwood is footing the legal bills.
What about the mayor's refusal to allow the treasurer to prepare a report to state publicly the cost of the legal bills associated with the Admiral Collingwood debacle, that forced me to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get the facts he didn't want made public? How open and transparent was that?
Or his unilateral decision to change board and committee structures, especially the budget committee, without any input from the rest of council? And the attempt to hold the budget committee meetings in camera? Council members weren't even allowed to speak during the initial budget committee meetings in the early part of this term. How open is that?
The interview with Mayor Carrier continues,
Quote
...the Admiral Collingwood project was not his 'pet project,' but calls the decision to reverse the HIA, the best council has made so far.
"Decision of the previous council to ignore the HIA was a bad decision," Carrier said. "I think this council said we will respect the desires of the electorate. We got the development back on track. I'm still expecting that site to be developed."
"Decision of the previous council to ignore the HIA was a bad decision," Carrier said. "I think this council said we will respect the desires of the electorate. We got the development back on track. I'm still expecting that site to be developed."
A BAD decision? Or just another democratic decision he doesn't like? The last council didn't decide NOT to ignore the heritage impact assessment. That assessment allowed that the Admiral Collingwood development met the minimal requirements of the heritage district, but suggested it could do better. The last council did NOT ignore the HIA: we accepted it. The decision was arrived at openly, publicly, with full debate and a democratic vote. It was all legal and above board. The current mayor apparently didn't like that process. And when the mayor disagrees with the results, it is tagged "bad."
The BEST decision we have made so far? Geez, by comparison everything else we've done must be worse - and that decision is considered by everyone I've spoken to since it was made to be the single WORST decisions ANY council in this town has ever made.
I personally would have pegged our initiatives for walkability and sustainability, and our ongoing urban design standards project far above the decision to delay a crucial and publicly-supported downtown development - a delay that has resulted in a water-filled hole dubbed 'Carrier's Pond' on the main street. I guess that further illustrates our different home planets. But of course, the delay was the mayor's initiative, and the other accomplishments were council's, so perhaps council's initiatives rank lower in his esteem.
We also differ what the term "back on track" means. To me it suggests going forward, or continuing to build. To the mayor it must mean stalled, in stasis, a water-filled hole in the ground.
But wait: "respect the desires of the electorate"? Respect? When a petition signed by 2,500 people to restore the rights to the developer was presented to this council, the mayor shrugged it off and refused to discuss it at the table. That was the electorate. The project was also supported by the BIA - more than 400 shop owners, doctors, lawyers, bankers, grocers and all their staff - roughly 1,200 people. Aren't they part of the electorate too?
The people who opposed the proposal were some members of a small special interest group whose membership was at best one-twenty-fifth of the number of names on the petition. There was no public input into the decision to rescind the HIA, and no public meetings; just a motion made by the mayor and passed by his council supporters. No one ran in the previous election promising to retract the permissions for the development either, so the public had no warning about it. That is not what I would describe as respecting the electorate or conducting an open process.
And what about the mayor's recent refusal to vote the way council directed on the NVCA budget? Members of council represent the electorate - and a larger portion of it than the mayor. But the mayor adamantly refused to vote the way council directed and stated publicly that he would vote as he saw fit. Is that respecting the desires of the electorate? Certainly it wasn't respecting the electorate's representatives.
Quote
He said spending the money on Heritage Park is a waste. Carrier did vote in favour of the new pool - $1.5 million - at the YMCA because he felt they should be the one's in the wellness centre business, not the town.
"We wasted millions of dollars from bad decisions," he said. "We have to stop saying to ourselves, we have to do this because everybody needs it. I don't believe it."
"We wasted millions of dollars from bad decisions," he said. "We have to stop saying to ourselves, we have to do this because everybody needs it. I don't believe it."
Those of us who voted in favour of the projects he demeans don't think the cost was a waste or the decisions were bad. That's a lot of disrespect for the rest of council in one statement. I didn't vote for Heritage Park, myself, not because I thought it was a "waste" but rather because I didn't think we could afford it this year. Others did, so it passed, and we move ahead.
I wonder how the mayor would appreciate it if the rest of council publicly called the projects he voted for a waste - the downtown revitalization, the new Y pool, the educational development charges battle, and the roundabouts included. He would probably get pretty steamed that we were showing him disrespect.
Quote
Carrier... claims because of his business background - he is co-owner of T.D. Snow & Son, a local truss builder - he is better qualified to wear the chain of office.
"I believe my business background, gives me a better perspective to sit in this chair," Carrier said.
"I believe my business background, gives me a better perspective to sit in this chair," Carrier said.
I wonder how approving a 500,000 sq. foot mall sprawl that even his mentor, Sonny Foley opposed, is a better decision than the former mayor might have made? What sort of good business decision does this represent for the vitality of the downtown? And despite the promise this will become a regional shopping centre. I see Future Shop is opening in Wasaga Beach instead of Collingwood. How did his worship's business acumen miss that development?
And how did his business background miss what I and others perceived as glaring holes in the numbers presented by the consultants to support their argument in favour of this commercial sprawl? Or the financial impact of stalling the Admiral Collingwood development and letting competing seniors' retirement homes get built instead of the proposed Strand?
Sorry, but I'm a small business owner too, and I disagree that being in business gives anyone better qualifications to be mayor than any other sector or profession. Private sector business is what drove us into our current recession - think Enron and AIG if you want prime examples of private sector mismanagement. Let's dispense with the well-debunked myth about the superiority of the private sector over the public.
The work history of the person at the head of the table is less important than his or her ability to lead council to create great things. And this term we don't have a lot of great things to show.
The former mayor has a university degree, followed by years of management experience as a school principal, as well as many years spent as a member of local boards and committees. That seems like a pretty good set of qualifications to me. He learned from experience to be a mediator and facilitator, and as a result we worked much more like a team last term.
But why, I have to ask again, does the current mayor need to keep justifying his actions in contrast to the former mayor?
Perhaps the difference lies more in how each of us sees the role of mayor:
Quote
Carrier then went on the defensive to clear the air about a whisper campaign about a trip he took to the Dominican Republic in December. Carrier visited the resort in the Dominican that is owned by the owners of Georgian Manor Resort in Collingwood.
Carrier won the trip at the Daisy of Hope Putting Challenge - held at Georgian Manor Resort, which raises money for My Friend's House. Carrier said he purchased raffle tickets and tickets to the event with his personal funds and said there was no wrongdoing. He said the trip didn't include meals and airfare.
"My trip to the Dominican was a personal trip. There is no relationship to me being the mayor," he said. "To make the inference (that there was wrongdoing), is misleading the public. It calls into question their character," he said of those spreading rumours about the trip.
Carrier won the trip at the Daisy of Hope Putting Challenge - held at Georgian Manor Resort, which raises money for My Friend's House. Carrier said he purchased raffle tickets and tickets to the event with his personal funds and said there was no wrongdoing. He said the trip didn't include meals and airfare.
"My trip to the Dominican was a personal trip. There is no relationship to me being the mayor," he said. "To make the inference (that there was wrongdoing), is misleading the public. It calls into question their character," he said of those spreading rumours about the trip.
The current mayor doesn't seem to appreciate that being mayor is a 24/7 job. Just like being a councillor is. You can't stand aside from the role and pretend that you're not representing the town every time you're in public. You can't stand aside and say this is personal, while this is official business so my being mayor doesn't count here.
The minute you get elected, you're under the microscope. You represent the town every minute you're in public. Act like it. Being mayor means that you're under scrutiny 24/7. Behave accordingly. People don't invite a junior partner in a small local business as the focal point of an event - they invite the mayor, regardless of his personal career or who is buying the ticket.
Don't make insinuations about other peoples' character simply because they question if the person and the office are really separate. Blaming others won't make a person seem better by comparison.
It doesn't matter who paid for the ticket. People saw the recipient of the gift as the mayor, not a private person. It's not legally wrong to accept them, but why be secretive when you do? That's what raises public ire and makes people suspicious.
All the current mayor had to do to defuse any criticisms was to announce at the table that he had won a trip and what it was worth. Period. That would have been the end of the matter and defused any "whisper campaign." Perception is reality and even if there is no legal wrongdoing involved, the public can perceive a moral conflict. Perhaps the real question on people's minds is how appropriate is it for any mayor to accept gifts of this nature?
Terry understood the role of mayor and public perception very well. As far as I recall, never accepted any gifts like this, but if he did he offered them back to the organizers to raffle off for fundraising opportunities. He understood how to win the hearts and minds of the people.
Quote
In response to a question from a resident about the need for the new Collingwood Public Library, Carrier praised council for bringing the project back to life. He said differences between the previous architect and the heritage committee threatened the project.
Lest we forget that our current mayor voted AGAINST the new library when I first proposed it, last term. The election campaign brought home the community's widespread support for the library, so he changed his spots. I'm glad he's behind it now, of course. Credit goes to the former council and the former mayor for its success and its development, and to the former council for its relocation to the current site.
I don't even know where to begin about the mayor's comments on Collingwood Ethanol. He said, ""Fifty seven jobs are important, but not at the expense of neighbouring industry, commercial business and residents." I wonder how the 57 employees and their families feel about his comment. Are the workers at Canadian Mist worried, too?
And, as expected, I am subject to the mayor's irate commentary:
Quote
Carrier said many times Chadwick's points are valid, but doesn't like it when Chadwick questions - in Carrier's words "attacks," - himself and members of council on his blog.
"It's often mean-spirited," Carrier said of Chadwick's blog***.
"It's often mean-spirited," Carrier said of Chadwick's blog***.
Any criticism of His Highness is always perceived by Himself as "mean-spirited" not simply as a difference of opinion. The mayor has often insulted and belittled me in public. I can't recall any former mayor publicly insulting or belittling any member of council, or calling their decisions a "waste." Former mayors all seemed more respectful of dissent and other opinions, even when those mayors disagreed with the result of a debate or vote.
A democracy is measured by how it handles dissent, not on how it achieves consensus. Thus too are its leaders measured.*
I understand that anyone who isn't slavishly supportive to the point of sycophancy will be accused of being "mean spirited" and worse. Terry was able to see critics as "the loyal opposition" and still be open and accessible without resorting to name calling. But let's not compare the current and former mayors any more. **** After two years of this treatment, I expect nothing better from this mayor.
Alan Keith, of Lucas Digital, said, "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen." This term isn't about encouraging our contribution as councillors as much as it is about personal ideologies and agendas - many coming from the head of the table. But there is hope on the horizon: the next election is only about 18 months away.
~~~~~
* I am reminded of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
** John correctly writes "compared to" - the differences between the two mayors are often pointed out. Had he written "compared with", it would suggest there are also similarities.
*** Mean-spirited is defined as, "Having or characterized by a malicious or petty spirit" and "characterized by or displaying a propensity to be mean; selfish, malicious, etc." I would have agreed with him had he used a word like contentious or even controversial. But malicious? That's an insult.
**** When weighing the differences between the former and current mayor, I always feel like saying to the current mayor, "mene, mene tekel upharsin."
[/indent]
We Collingwood residents are left to pay for the Mayor’s expensive decisions. Hopefully, there would be a way for the Mayor to resign before the next election in 2010.