Clarington Mayor Jim Abernethy has shown his disdain for the rules multiple times recently, and doesn't seem to understand that they apply to him, not just to others.
The first serious infraction occurred a few months ago when residents questioned the Mayor on why he did not represent his Council (Clarington) resolutions at Regional Council, which according to the new procedural by-law passed by Council in December 2007 is not a 'choice', but a requirement for the mayor. Local Councillors then took up the cause, which was a good thing since the Mayor ignored residents as he has been doing for many months. He came up with a convoluted excuse, citing the Municipal Act, but was incorrect in his interpretation of it, showing his lack of understanding of rules and regulations when they pertain to him. He still does not represent his residents at local or regional council, and that is a sore spot with many. As a matter of fact, it is growing daily into a huge wound.
The mayor seems to have no comprehension of what "conflict of interest" means, as more than once he has declared a conflict and then spoken to the very issue he had declared a conflict on.
It is a shame that the Clarington Green Living Community Advisory Committee has become a joke, rather than the valuable committee it could have and should have become. All credibility has been lost with the Mayor first of all lobbying for the position of Chair even before the first meeting was held, in direct contravention of the Community Advisory Committee Protocol. Did he not know what the rules were (he should have), or did he just not care? Did the majority of committee members not care about following the rules set out by the municipality? If that is the case, why should we have any confidence in their judgement on anything else? Are they 'above the rules' along with their Mayor? How does that behaviour reflect on the other Community Advisory Committees? Why was this Green Living Committee, the pet committee of the mayor, given a budget of $16,500.00 without some of the committee members even knowing about it, or voting on how it was to be spent - all in one shot for a package of 45 or 50 commercials on one TV station? How much more could have been done with that kind of money? Or it could have been shared with some of the other important and non-politicized Clarington community committees. Oh yeah, that's right. Those are non-politicized, not run by politicians and staff and that is the difference. (I am not speaking of the Conservation Authority Boards or Veridian or other non "community advisory committees")
Does the mayor realize that a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has the mandate to ADVISE Council on specific matters? How can a community group advise Council when the committee is headed and agenda driven by the mayor and councillors and their staff? It defeats the entire purpose. Yet there are some who ask why that rule is there in the first place, and now STAFF is recommending that the rules be changed so that the Mayor CAN sit as Chair and will no longer be breaking rules. Can he change the Municipal Act too, or will he simply continue to break those rules? We know the answer to that one.
How about this Council muzzling the public, or attempting to? Their new procedural by-law limits delegations to 5 minutes instead of the typical 10 they used to have. It appears to give the Mayor carte blanche to muzzle any delegation that disagrees with him, or when he doesn't like what is being said. A case in point is Mr. Jim Richards, who was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award recently, and Mayor Abernethy gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week which had brought the resident to tears (a tactic not at all unusual for Mr. Anderson to use), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement.
The Mayor on that same night reprimanded 2 other delegations for their comments, none of which were abusive in any way. Another delegation has been told he cannot speak at Council again (like Mr. Richards) until he gives an apology in writing to Council, and this man had even retracted his statements when asked to do so.
It appears our Mayor is terribly thin-skinned. He uses the excuse of keeping 'decorum' in Council Chambers, but there was no loss of decorum. All 3 delegations were quite polite and there was no sign of the 'radicals' the mayor has lamented about in the past. My question is, if the Mayor can call residents who disagree with him "radicals", why can't delegations call Mr. Anderson a bully, or his followers "sheep", or his close friends "cronies"? Why can't a delegation liken our Mayor to King Henry the Eighth if he can call them "radicals"? Yes Mr. Mayor, a very thin skin indeed, along with a double standard. 
Will councillors sit still and allow this travesty to continue? Do they not realize that when you are a public politician, people are allowed to criticize your actions? There was nothing inappropriate, unreasonable or undignified or untrue in the statements made by residents during their delegations. On the contrary, they expressed their opinions; opinions, I might add, which are becoming ever so much more popular with the citizens of Durham Region. Councillors must realize they have a duty to the public to protect their interests and must challenge any violations of procedure and of fairness to the residents of their municipality.
It appears to be the Mayor who is behaving inappropriately and in an undignified manner, although he seems unable to see it as do some on Council. The tide has turned, sir, and it would behoove you all to heed the signs.
On another note, see the new local BLOG: One Environmentalist's Right to Write
Stay tuned.
