Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering each put the question on the ballot at last November's election - something that would have not cost anything for Clarington to do. Those three municipalities voted overwhelmingly to have direct election of the Chair. Clarington chose not to let the public have a voice. They believed, as they apparently do now, that they know better than the great majority of residents. Democracy NOT at it's finest.
On Monday night, rather than endorsing the Ajax resolution, they received for information instead. That basically means they do NOT agree with it. Councillor Foster commented that receiving for information does not mean tacit approval. We know that. We know receiving for information basically means it's put on a shelf and ignored. We also know that endorsement would have meant approval. Receiving for information certainly doesn't mean approval by our Council.
Why was Clarington afraid to put the question to the taxpayers in a non-binding referendum in November? Perhaps because they knew what the answer would be? Why not debate it in public so we can know their reasons for wanting to keep the status quo?
We would really like Councillor Foster to explain his comment that, "the ultimate in
democracy is the lynch mob". That is a very shocking (and bizarre) comment from the Ward 1 Councillor. "Just because it's democratic doesn't mean it's a good idea," said the councillor. "I do not think, for Clarington and the smaller municipalities, that this is a good idea." WHY does he not think it's a good idea for the smaller municipalities? Has he been present at Durham Regional Council meetings over the last 3 years of his term, or since being re-elected this term? Has he attended any of the regional committee meetings? He may not be a regional councillor, but that should not stop him from taking an interest in what is happening at the region, since it affects Clarington, and these meetings are open to the public as well as local councillors. Has he ever seen Chairman Anderson rule the roost, put forward his own opinions very strongly, even against regional staff recommendations? How about Anderson's hard push to remove Clarington (Ward 1, no less) lands from the Provincial Greenbelt?
No one can tell us that an elected Chair would have more power than the presently appointed (annointed) one. Conceivably an elected Chair would have to answer to the people, so might be less powerful than he is right now. Presently he has only Regional Council to answer to, and not the public. Not the taxpayers. He wields as much power and pushes as hard as our previous Mayor did in Clarington. He doesn't have to agree with the experts (staff) or bother to follow their recommendations. He can take the political route and the rest of us be damned.Therefore, please explain to us why democracy isn't a good thing in this case. We've had our voices taken away from us enough during the last term. We did think this term might be different, at least in Clarington.
Councillor Foster should clarify his position and his remarks. The rest of Council and our Mayor should also weigh in specifically on their reasons for not endorsing the Ajax resolution (or Pickering or Oshawa resolutions).
My feelings on this subject are well known as I've written on the topic or made comments numerous times, including "Why can't we vote for Regional Chair?" last April. There are plenty of other posts and other people who outline reasons for electing Regional Chair. You might also want to have a look at the "Elect the Regional Chair Blog". I would also like to invite any or all of our Clarington Council (and anyone else) to comment here on this blog in the comments section.
We deserve better.
Our council doesn't believe in democracy? Well that explains a lot!
ReplyDeleteIt is depressing to realize we elected these people who apparently don't believe in democracy at the most fundamental level - election of the chair. It is incomprehensible to me how they can justify it.
ReplyDeleteThis council should put this back on their agenda and at least discuss it in public. There has been a lot of talk about this over the last year and our council doesn't even want to acknowledge it. Mr. Foster may think he knows better than all the taxpayers but does he ever even go to any of those regional meetings? I'll bet he doesn't. He doesn't see how pushy Mr. Anderson is at the committee meetings. I have seen it. He has so much power now that he would not have more if he was elected. He would even have less because he would have to listen to the public and to his staff for a change!
ReplyDeleteRichard
It looks to me like this council is too quick to dismiss staff recommendations to curry favour with residents, and then on the other hand doesn't even want to hear what residents have to say about direct election of the Durham Chair, or doesn't care. Their minds have already been made up.
ReplyDelete"The ultimate in democracy is the lynch mob". Is that a fact? Does Mr. Foster really believe that? Does the rest of our council believe it too?
ReplyDeleteDictionary result for "ultimate":
a. the final point; final result.
b. a fundamental fact or principle.
c. the best, or greatest, of its kind.
So, 'the final result of democracy is the linch mob'?
Or 'the fundamental fact/principle of democracy is a lynch mob'?
Or 'the best in democracy is a lynch mob'?
This is a disgusting attitude for any elected official in Canada. It should be recanted with an apology.
Mybe we should start a recall in Councillor Fosters case and have someone who trully understands the "Democratic Process"
ReplyDeleteShouldn't someone on council have bring this up to debate it instead of rubber-stamping previous council's stand on it? Remember that we have 4 of 7 new councillors this time around (including the Mayor). And the last council didn't even want to listen to the public's views on it when they refused to add it to the ballot in November. That would have been the fairest poll of residents as those who care do get out and vote. We were denied even that. Why not at least try to rectify that blunder by having an open debate, a public meeting maybe on the subject - but well advertised in advance and in a place and time where most people could attend. What are they afraid of? That they could possibly be wrong?
ReplyDelete