0
Throwing stones?
09 April 2010
You have to shake your head and wonder, some days. Today was one for me. There on the front page of the EB is a quote from the mayor aimed right at me:
So what does he then go on to do in the story? That's right: throw those proverbial stones at me. Ironic? Perhaps just a little...
Ah, so, according to the mayor, releasing figures about publicly-funded legal expenses is campaigning. I suppose that means residents shouldn't be told how council spends their tax dollars*. It's not being open, accountable and transparent - as he promised to be last election - to tell people where their money went. No, it is apparently self-serving. Mea culpa.
I suppose I've never learned to be as secretive as it seems I am expected to be. And I wasn't 'feeding it to the press' - I was responding to a reporter's question about the costs.
Of course, a really open, accountable mayor would have released those figures himself.**
While he's telling the rest of us not to throw stones, he lobs a handful of them himself. Well, it's always been a 'do-as-I-say' administration, not a 'do-as-I-do" one.
I see the mayor doesn't even defend himself over the sloppy process that led to the speed limit fiasco where police had to tear up speeding tickets because the new limits weren't legal. Yet somehow it becomes a victory:
What a spin. The municipality WASN'T proven right. We had to toss away the early tickets and stop giving them out until the town got the belated (and somewhat grudgingly given) Ministry of Transport approval for the speed change. Something we should have done at the start, so we wouldn't have to pay those legal cots to bandage the problem later.
People today still complain about the lowered speed limits and how much longer it takes to get through those areas. But since public input wasn't allowed in the debate, why should council listen to it after the act?
Even though he led the speed limit change and controlled the process that got us into that mess, it's my fault for bringing to the public's attention the illegality of those actions. Another mea culpa.
In another of those ironic twists, the mayor defends his own action of leaking information to the media before the last election. He says that was something quite different from what he's accusing me of doing:
Another spin. The letter in question was a request to meet with all of council and the utility services to open a discussion about buying the building for use as a training facility - not taking over the water system or the rest of the infrastructure. It wasn't some nefarious plan to secretly sell public infrastructure under the table, just a potential talking point being floated. Under the previous mayor, it certainly would have led to public meetings and public input. It wasn't the act of a heroic whistle blower to leak confidential information before the rest of council could even discuss it.***
It "turned up" in his mailbox because it turned up in all of council's mailboxes. It was meant for us to collectively read and consider. The then-councillor didn't choose to have that discussion with the rest of council, however. Instead, he ran it to the media where it became a headline story. Just coincidence that it was done during the 2006 election year and got him a lot of media coverage. Nope, that wasn't campaigning.
The result, by the way, was that Zenon felt the publicity wasn't a good sign, and decided against continuing the discussion. Nothing further was said by either party. The town still owns the building and it isn't a privately-owned training centre that draws thousands of technicians, politicians and engineers annually as a showcase and demonstration for their filtration system. What the heck, eh: we didn't need the money, the international exposure or the private-public sector partnership. Right?
Would it have been good or bad for the municipality? No one will ever know because before the democratically-elected council could debate it, one of our members arbitrarily made it into a news item that caused the issue to vanish before we had that opportunity.
That's okay because it wasn't campaigning. It wasn't democracy at work, either, but back then who would have guessed what it presaged for this term? Ah, the benefits of 20-20 hindsight...
~~~~~
* Lest we forget, the mayor led the town in the fight against the educational development charges. We continued to spend money on the fight even after we lost our initial challenge. In the end it cost the town $428,000 in legal fees. The discussions and decisions on spending that money were all conducted in camera. Only the deputy mayor and I refused to participate in those closed-door sessions. Last council capped the expenses in this fight at $50,000. Under this mayor, council allowed them to blossom to more than eight times that amount. All done in secret.
** And let's not forget my fight to reveal the legal costs to repeal the Admiral Collingwood HIA in 2007. My request for a staff report for those costs was voted down by council - including the mayor. In October, 2007, I had to file a Freedom of Information request to get those costs from the town. The mayor and his supporters desperately wanted to keep them secret, and would not even allow another member of council to see them. But in the end, the Cult of Secrecy could not thwart an FOI request, and in the end I got the figrues and released them.
*** Some would call it being a snitch.
Quote
"We can in this election campaign, members of council can throw stones at each other, or we can get down to the business of doing the business of the Town of Collingwood and leave the campaign rhetoric... (for) when the campaign season opens, instead of feeding stories to members of the press, looking for them to campaign on their behalf."
So what does he then go on to do in the story? That's right: throw those proverbial stones at me. Ironic? Perhaps just a little...
Quote
The mayor has been critical of Chadwick's decision to release the figure to the media, though on Tuesday he did acknowledge council has to be careful about 'playing politics' and seeking the lawyer's opinion on every procedural decision a councillor may or may not agree with.
Ah, so, according to the mayor, releasing figures about publicly-funded legal expenses is campaigning. I suppose that means residents shouldn't be told how council spends their tax dollars*. It's not being open, accountable and transparent - as he promised to be last election - to tell people where their money went. No, it is apparently self-serving. Mea culpa.
I suppose I've never learned to be as secretive as it seems I am expected to be. And I wasn't 'feeding it to the press' - I was responding to a reporter's question about the costs.
Of course, a really open, accountable mayor would have released those figures himself.**
While he's telling the rest of us not to throw stones, he lobs a handful of them himself. Well, it's always been a 'do-as-I-say' administration, not a 'do-as-I-do" one.
I see the mayor doesn't even defend himself over the sloppy process that led to the speed limit fiasco where police had to tear up speeding tickets because the new limits weren't legal. Yet somehow it becomes a victory:
Quote
...in an interview on Wednesday, Carrier says that isn't an apt comparison, since the municipality was ultimately proven right in reducing the speed limit.
What a spin. The municipality WASN'T proven right. We had to toss away the early tickets and stop giving them out until the town got the belated (and somewhat grudgingly given) Ministry of Transport approval for the speed change. Something we should have done at the start, so we wouldn't have to pay those legal cots to bandage the problem later.
People today still complain about the lowered speed limits and how much longer it takes to get through those areas. But since public input wasn't allowed in the debate, why should council listen to it after the act?
Even though he led the speed limit change and controlled the process that got us into that mess, it's my fault for bringing to the public's attention the illegality of those actions. Another mea culpa.
In another of those ironic twists, the mayor defends his own action of leaking information to the media before the last election. He says that was something quite different from what he's accusing me of doing:
Quote
He also defended his decision prior to the 2006 municipal election to release information to the media on initial discussions between the municipality and Zenon on selling partial ownership of the water treatment facility to the company that manufactured the filtration membrane. He noted in that case, it was information that turned up in his council mailbox.
"I didn't ask anyone to get that information," he said. "And there's a big difference between having a meeting that nobody knew about without discussing (whether to sell public infrastructure) at council first."
"I didn't ask anyone to get that information," he said. "And there's a big difference between having a meeting that nobody knew about without discussing (whether to sell public infrastructure) at council first."
Another spin. The letter in question was a request to meet with all of council and the utility services to open a discussion about buying the building for use as a training facility - not taking over the water system or the rest of the infrastructure. It wasn't some nefarious plan to secretly sell public infrastructure under the table, just a potential talking point being floated. Under the previous mayor, it certainly would have led to public meetings and public input. It wasn't the act of a heroic whistle blower to leak confidential information before the rest of council could even discuss it.***
It "turned up" in his mailbox because it turned up in all of council's mailboxes. It was meant for us to collectively read and consider. The then-councillor didn't choose to have that discussion with the rest of council, however. Instead, he ran it to the media where it became a headline story. Just coincidence that it was done during the 2006 election year and got him a lot of media coverage. Nope, that wasn't campaigning.
The result, by the way, was that Zenon felt the publicity wasn't a good sign, and decided against continuing the discussion. Nothing further was said by either party. The town still owns the building and it isn't a privately-owned training centre that draws thousands of technicians, politicians and engineers annually as a showcase and demonstration for their filtration system. What the heck, eh: we didn't need the money, the international exposure or the private-public sector partnership. Right?
Would it have been good or bad for the municipality? No one will ever know because before the democratically-elected council could debate it, one of our members arbitrarily made it into a news item that caused the issue to vanish before we had that opportunity.
That's okay because it wasn't campaigning. It wasn't democracy at work, either, but back then who would have guessed what it presaged for this term? Ah, the benefits of 20-20 hindsight...
~~~~~
* Lest we forget, the mayor led the town in the fight against the educational development charges. We continued to spend money on the fight even after we lost our initial challenge. In the end it cost the town $428,000 in legal fees. The discussions and decisions on spending that money were all conducted in camera. Only the deputy mayor and I refused to participate in those closed-door sessions. Last council capped the expenses in this fight at $50,000. Under this mayor, council allowed them to blossom to more than eight times that amount. All done in secret.
** And let's not forget my fight to reveal the legal costs to repeal the Admiral Collingwood HIA in 2007. My request for a staff report for those costs was voted down by council - including the mayor. In October, 2007, I had to file a Freedom of Information request to get those costs from the town. The mayor and his supporters desperately wanted to keep them secret, and would not even allow another member of council to see them. But in the end, the Cult of Secrecy could not thwart an FOI request, and in the end I got the figrues and released them.
*** Some would call it being a snitch.
