0
Tax dollars to repair our reputation?
24 September 2009
[indent]
Do you think politicians should spend your tax dollars to make their image cleaner and sweeter? Basically to buy a makeover at your expense?
Neither do I. But apparently our mayor does.
According to a story in this week's Enterprise-Bulletin, the mayor supported a secret (in-camera) decision at the county last month to spend $250,000 of taxpayers' money on a PR consultant to make the county look good.
Which, in effect, means making the politicians look good.
Coincidence that next year is an election year? Hardly.
As the story points out, the county already budgeted $1,207,953 in 2009 to "operate its own in-house, four-person communications department." But a majority of county councillors - including your mayor - don't seem to think that's enough of your tax money being spent on their own image. Couldn't the already well-funded communications department handle that task? If not, why are we spending tax dollars on them?
No, it seems only a high-profile PR firm that cost an additional quarter-of-a-million dollars of taxpayers' money was the only answer.
As the EB reported,
Our mayor getting upset about someone else's unilateral actions? Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black! I don't even know where to begin pulling that statement apart. There are so many examples. But I'm confused. How can they be unilateral actions if, as the mayor says, they were approved by council? Is this some sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument?
And if we're going to spend taxpayers' money polishing someone's image after a bad public reaction to a political decision, why aren't we spending money to repair Collingwood's own reputation after the debacle that resulted in what might have been the signature development in our downtown now being only a dirty pond on the main street* for the last three years? (Although I doubt any PR firm would want to tackle what may be an impossible task.)
After all, it's an election year here, too. Why not dip into the apparently bottomless public purse to make council look squeaky clean, not merely our council county representatives?
You've got to wonder how anyone at the county could justify this as an in-camera meeting. And wonder, too, how our "open, accountable and transparent" mayor can support a secret meeting about what seems clearly an issue of self-interest rather than confidentiality.
Maybe it's because he felt it was perfectly acceptable for our council to hold secret discussions about spending tax dollars (more than $400,000 to date) on his battle against the board of education's development charges. Ah, such openness and transparency.
Of course, our mayor isn't the only critic of the county's handling of Site 41. Penetanguishene Mayor Anita Dubeau is quoted saying, "We have not done a good a very good job in public relations, especially concerning Site 41." And Midland Mayor Jim Downer said the county "dropped the ball" on Site 41. But those are carefully chosen words; critical, yes, but not insulting. They are far and away from accusing the warden and CAO of acting to "demean people and intimidate them." Or at least that's what I read into that statement.
There are others who question why the secrecy of an in-camera meeting, according to the EB:
Which is, frankly, just baffle-gab. What sort of legal advice is required to recommend a PR firm be hired to massage the political face? Come on! That's tissue-thin! It sounds like politicians trying to hide themselves from public scrutiny over a self-serving decision.**
As you might expect, Collingwood Council was not told by the mayor about this decision, nor asked to come up with a municipal position on how we would like to see our tax dollars used (and if we collectively agreed on hiring a PR consultant for the county). Like the rest of the residents here, we learned about it from the newspaper article (except, of course, for those on council who frequently boast they never read the local papers).
~~~~~
* Locally known as "Carrier's Pond" after the architect of the debacle.
**I'd recommend someone in the public file a complaint through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to investigate the validity of holding this meeting behind closed doors. But perhaps the county, like Collingwood, has put the cost of filing a complaint so high that individuals are discouraged from peering behind the curtain to see who lurks in the shadows. Nonetheless, it would be an interesting challenge.
[/indent]
Neither do I. But apparently our mayor does.
According to a story in this week's Enterprise-Bulletin, the mayor supported a secret (in-camera) decision at the county last month to spend $250,000 of taxpayers' money on a PR consultant to make the county look good.
Which, in effect, means making the politicians look good.
Coincidence that next year is an election year? Hardly.
As the story points out, the county already budgeted $1,207,953 in 2009 to "operate its own in-house, four-person communications department." But a majority of county councillors - including your mayor - don't seem to think that's enough of your tax money being spent on their own image. Couldn't the already well-funded communications department handle that task? If not, why are we spending tax dollars on them?
No, it seems only a high-profile PR firm that cost an additional quarter-of-a-million dollars of taxpayers' money was the only answer.
As the EB reported,
Quote
Collingwood Mayor Chris Carrier is backing a Simcoe County decision to hire a high-priced public relations firm to repair its reputation following the Site 41 situation.
Carrier said the summer-long problems dealing with protesters at the proposed dump site have left the county with a black eye and a badly-tarnished public acceptance.
"Its image has taken a severe beating over Site 41 and some of the unilateral actions that were subsequently approved by the council as a whole and by the warden and CAO," said Carrier. "There are so many things the county does very well to assist with objectives it's easy to have a good image. We've fallen so far, we do need some fresh new help. I think it's made us, as a county, look small.
"If we're going to demean people and intimidate them, then clearly we need some professional advice to move ahead and go forward," he added.
Carrier said the summer-long problems dealing with protesters at the proposed dump site have left the county with a black eye and a badly-tarnished public acceptance.
"Its image has taken a severe beating over Site 41 and some of the unilateral actions that were subsequently approved by the council as a whole and by the warden and CAO," said Carrier. "There are so many things the county does very well to assist with objectives it's easy to have a good image. We've fallen so far, we do need some fresh new help. I think it's made us, as a county, look small.
"If we're going to demean people and intimidate them, then clearly we need some professional advice to move ahead and go forward," he added.
Our mayor getting upset about someone else's unilateral actions? Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black! I don't even know where to begin pulling that statement apart. There are so many examples. But I'm confused. How can they be unilateral actions if, as the mayor says, they were approved by council? Is this some sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument?
And if we're going to spend taxpayers' money polishing someone's image after a bad public reaction to a political decision, why aren't we spending money to repair Collingwood's own reputation after the debacle that resulted in what might have been the signature development in our downtown now being only a dirty pond on the main street* for the last three years? (Although I doubt any PR firm would want to tackle what may be an impossible task.)
After all, it's an election year here, too. Why not dip into the apparently bottomless public purse to make council look squeaky clean, not merely our council county representatives?
Quote
On Aug. 25, county council decided at an in-camera meeting to approve the hiring a of public relations firm to "elevate the public perception of the county."
You've got to wonder how anyone at the county could justify this as an in-camera meeting. And wonder, too, how our "open, accountable and transparent" mayor can support a secret meeting about what seems clearly an issue of self-interest rather than confidentiality.
Maybe it's because he felt it was perfectly acceptable for our council to hold secret discussions about spending tax dollars (more than $400,000 to date) on his battle against the board of education's development charges. Ah, such openness and transparency.
Of course, our mayor isn't the only critic of the county's handling of Site 41. Penetanguishene Mayor Anita Dubeau is quoted saying, "We have not done a good a very good job in public relations, especially concerning Site 41." And Midland Mayor Jim Downer said the county "dropped the ball" on Site 41. But those are carefully chosen words; critical, yes, but not insulting. They are far and away from accusing the warden and CAO of acting to "demean people and intimidate them." Or at least that's what I read into that statement.
There are others who question why the secrecy of an in-camera meeting, according to the EB:
Quote
Ray Millar, a former CMC chair, said he wondered, "on what grounds was the meeting at which council decided (to hire Fleishman-Hillard) closed to the public? The Municipal Act is clear on the matter of closed meetings, with very few exceptions enumerated."
Anne Ritchie-Nahuis, another CMC member, argues that the Municipal Act restricts councils to what it can discuss behind closed doors, and public relations is not one of them.
"No one reading the minutes of the Aug. 25 council meeting would suspect that council had made such a decision or that it involves such a large sum," she said. "The recommendation was contained in a confidential report 'regarding security of the property of the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.'"
Anne Ritchie-Nahuis, another CMC member, argues that the Municipal Act restricts councils to what it can discuss behind closed doors, and public relations is not one of them.
"No one reading the minutes of the Aug. 25 council meeting would suspect that council had made such a decision or that it involves such a large sum," she said. "The recommendation was contained in a confidential report 'regarding security of the property of the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.'"
Which is, frankly, just baffle-gab. What sort of legal advice is required to recommend a PR firm be hired to massage the political face? Come on! That's tissue-thin! It sounds like politicians trying to hide themselves from public scrutiny over a self-serving decision.**
As you might expect, Collingwood Council was not told by the mayor about this decision, nor asked to come up with a municipal position on how we would like to see our tax dollars used (and if we collectively agreed on hiring a PR consultant for the county). Like the rest of the residents here, we learned about it from the newspaper article (except, of course, for those on council who frequently boast they never read the local papers).
~~~~~
* Locally known as "Carrier's Pond" after the architect of the debacle.
**I'd recommend someone in the public file a complaint through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to investigate the validity of holding this meeting behind closed doors. But perhaps the county, like Collingwood, has put the cost of filing a complaint so high that individuals are discouraged from peering behind the curtain to see who lurks in the shadows. Nonetheless, it would be an interesting challenge.
[/indent]
