Just a quick Sunday post
Manfred Schumann has copied me a letter that he has written to NT.com and I decided to rerun it here as it may not be published because he has already written about the situation and been published. So here it is:
Dear Editor,
Until now, the recent "censure" fiasco at Cobourg Council could have been cast as a minor blemish but that is no longer accurate. It has quickly become something more comparable to an infected pimple, or worse, an abscess, in a sensitive nether-region.
While the debate circles around words implied yet unspoken, questions characterized as accusations, anonymities and revelations, it has yet to be dealt with in an honest and forthright manner, in order to set the records straight and provide, to the public, a factual explanation of the issue. That one issue, as it was, has now erupted into several more. It reminds me of the theorem 'lies beget lies'.
As everyone who has been in attendance is aware, the issue stems from one councillor asking a straight forward and perfectly legitimate question (or two). Instead of a simple answer, the response was framed as an accusation of impropriety and interestingly remains unanswered. Subsequently, compromise turns into betrayal as names are made public by a third but significant party (mayor). Immediately, the original question is yet again characterized by the deputy-mayor, as an outright accusation aimed at those now publicly named, and is further vilified as an attack on staff who have no means of self-defense in the public forum, where they were surprisingly thrust by the third-party's (mayor) highly improper revelation just moments before.
While council accepts without question, such an improper and treacherous betrayal of a confidence in open council and then votes to censure a perfectly legitimate question of process by a councillor, is incredibly valuable material for a study in municipal practices that are close enough to being corrupt that light would not pass through that gap. Such conduct is not often found in isolation, but as an escalation and further deterioration of practices already exhibiting dubious tendencies. Why should this be any different. This is where scandals find their genesis.
To complicate the matter even further, the records show the vote to censure resulted in a 5 - 2 count in favour. However, since then, a purported 'correction' has apparently been noted by the flip-flop councillor to amend the vote to 6 - 1. Rules of order are clear on what must be done to change the record of a vote, and that has not yet been done here. More shenanigans! - just when we thought it was as bad as it could get. Can the 'C' word be far behind?
As we can all see, 'perplexing' is heavily outvoted by 'deplorable' as an appropriate word to describe what has been going on and shows no sign of abating in this council's term. As more such instances occur, as they are likely to, the decline of confidence in this council will gather momentum and the securely entrenched 'old guard' has no one to blame but itself.
Just as the blemish becomes a pimple, the festering underneath creates a full-blown boil, and the only remedy for healing to begin is a lancing to exorcise the underlying infection that characterizes the antagonism, revilement, viciousness, ostracism, distrust, and cronyism that appears to be emerging from this collective we acknowledge as our council. The question is - how?
M. Schumann
Cobourg
905-372-8906
Mar. 13, 2009
Dear Editor,
Until now, the recent "censure" fiasco at Cobourg Council could have been cast as a minor blemish but that is no longer accurate. It has quickly become something more comparable to an infected pimple, or worse, an abscess, in a sensitive nether-region.
While the debate circles around words implied yet unspoken, questions characterized as accusations, anonymities and revelations, it has yet to be dealt with in an honest and forthright manner, in order to set the records straight and provide, to the public, a factual explanation of the issue. That one issue, as it was, has now erupted into several more. It reminds me of the theorem 'lies beget lies'.
As everyone who has been in attendance is aware, the issue stems from one councillor asking a straight forward and perfectly legitimate question (or two). Instead of a simple answer, the response was framed as an accusation of impropriety and interestingly remains unanswered. Subsequently, compromise turns into betrayal as names are made public by a third but significant party (mayor). Immediately, the original question is yet again characterized by the deputy-mayor, as an outright accusation aimed at those now publicly named, and is further vilified as an attack on staff who have no means of self-defense in the public forum, where they were surprisingly thrust by the third-party's (mayor) highly improper revelation just moments before.
While council accepts without question, such an improper and treacherous betrayal of a confidence in open council and then votes to censure a perfectly legitimate question of process by a councillor, is incredibly valuable material for a study in municipal practices that are close enough to being corrupt that light would not pass through that gap. Such conduct is not often found in isolation, but as an escalation and further deterioration of practices already exhibiting dubious tendencies. Why should this be any different. This is where scandals find their genesis.
To complicate the matter even further, the records show the vote to censure resulted in a 5 - 2 count in favour. However, since then, a purported 'correction' has apparently been noted by the flip-flop councillor to amend the vote to 6 - 1. Rules of order are clear on what must be done to change the record of a vote, and that has not yet been done here. More shenanigans! - just when we thought it was as bad as it could get. Can the 'C' word be far behind?
As we can all see, 'perplexing' is heavily outvoted by 'deplorable' as an appropriate word to describe what has been going on and shows no sign of abating in this council's term. As more such instances occur, as they are likely to, the decline of confidence in this council will gather momentum and the securely entrenched 'old guard' has no one to blame but itself.
Just as the blemish becomes a pimple, the festering underneath creates a full-blown boil, and the only remedy for healing to begin is a lancing to exorcise the underlying infection that characterizes the antagonism, revilement, viciousness, ostracism, distrust, and cronyism that appears to be emerging from this collective we acknowledge as our council. The question is - how?
M. Schumann
Cobourg
905-372-8906
Mar. 13, 2009
5 comments:
Manfred, fine bit of insight and analysis. Hope you'll be bearing witnes at the next Council meeting, and someone catches/records the Cogeco video.
Mr. Schumann: with all due respect, could you knock it off with the abscess and all its gory details? This is the second time you have used this theme in a posting, and it really is quite distracting.
Hello there Anonymous, whoever you are. If you'd pay closer attention, I did post a comment using the pimple analogy, because it's so appropriate, but only the one. The second one you must be referencing is actually found in a letter to the Editor which was interestingly enough reproduced here. Ben thinks that perhaps it won't make it into the paper because I've already submitted one letter on the subject and it was published on Friday. I guess he figures its worth running here in case it doesn't run there.
Manfred, it is an effective and most appropoetic metaphor.
Anonymous is NOT a poet -- I AM. By the powers vested in me via poetic licence, the abscess accurately describes the characteristic of the current council (Less the Fem).
To escalate it to a tumour would not be fitting, because a tumor is expansionist, takes over neighbouring tissue. An abscess, while affecting neighbouring tissue, remains a local infection.
Tumours are largely odourless, whereas the debris from a lanced abscess is putrid, which describes precisely the actions of the Town Council.
The most effective cure for an abscess is to lance it (hold an election) and apply antibiotics (vote in fresh councillors who are less vain).
As a poet I can safely pronounce your missive as effective, and the whine from anonymous as debris from an overactive bland gland.
Ugh! Icky! Yech!
Enough aleady.
Post a Comment