Published: September 02, 2008 7:00 PM
For anyone who ever sat through a political science class, lessons about democracy always got back to a basic point — that rank-and-file citizens have a right to have their voices heard by elected officials. But I'm getting the feeling that the powers-that-be in Coldstream failed the course completely.
Resident John Hegler is concerned about the district's recent decision to dismiss volunteer fire chief Leo Lecavalier, so he decided the best way to express his views would be to appear before council Sept. 8. As the process dictates, Hegler wrote district staff asking to be added to the agenda as a delegation.
Late last week, though, Hegler received word that his request was denied because the district didn't like the subject matter.
"That's not right, that's not democratic," he said.
"I have a right as a taxpayer to ask how they voted (on firing Lecavalier)."
Wendy Kay, chief administrative officer, confirms that Hegler's request to make a presentation, as well as that from the Coldstream Ratepayers Association, has been turned down.
"It's an employment issue," she said of Lecavalier being removed from his position.
"Council is bound by different legislation and they can't discuss it in an open meeting."
Kay goes on to say that, "If people wish to provide letters, council will discuss them in-camera."
But that, quite frankly, isn't good enough when it comes to an issue that saw a veteran community volunteer shown the door.
And to say that residents can't appear before council because of provincial in-camera legislation is a complete joke. The rules only prevent council members from not openly discussing the matter. Nothing precludes them from sitting there and listening to residents provide their input. Of course they would be forced to stay quiet, and politicians being politicians, that could prove difficult for some.
Ultimately, council is telling residents that their views are unimportant and decisions can be made in isolation from those who put them there. Talk about top-down government.
As I indicated a few weeks ago, if council truly believes that firing Lecavalier was the right decision for the community, and it can be defended legally, then what is there to hide?
Why can't residents at least know which members of council voted to dismiss Lecavalier and who didn't?
We should also keep in mind that there are serious ramifications from the entire issue.
Who has the right to select the chief — council or the volunteer members of the fire department? Who has the right to determine who actually belongs to the department — district administration or the firefighters? If the volunteers get fed up with interference and walk, will the council have to hire full-time firefighters at a huge cost to taxpayers? If there is an interruption in service, will property and lives be put at risk?
I don't believe council and administration seriously considered all of the implications when the decision was made to let Lecavalier go.
But the most serious breech of judgement is telling voters that they can be seen but not heard. And that's especially true when you consider who pays their salary.
"I am their employer," said Hegler.
If democracy continues to be cast aside in Coldstream, I suspect the employers will be handing out pink slips to a few of their employees during November's civic election.
For anyone who ever sat through a political science class, lessons about democracy always got back to a basic point — that rank-and-file citizens have a right to have their voices heard by elected officials. But I'm getting the feeling that the powers-that-be in Coldstream failed the course completely.
Resident John Hegler is concerned about the district's recent decision to dismiss volunteer fire chief Leo Lecavalier, so he decided the best way to express his views would be to appear before council Sept. 8. As the process dictates, Hegler wrote district staff asking to be added to the agenda as a delegation.
Late last week, though, Hegler received word that his request was denied because the district didn't like the subject matter.
"That's not right, that's not democratic," he said.
"I have a right as a taxpayer to ask how they voted (on firing Lecavalier)."
Wendy Kay, chief administrative officer, confirms that Hegler's request to make a presentation, as well as that from the Coldstream Ratepayers Association, has been turned down.
"It's an employment issue," she said of Lecavalier being removed from his position.
"Council is bound by different legislation and they can't discuss it in an open meeting."
Kay goes on to say that, "If people wish to provide letters, council will discuss them in-camera."
But that, quite frankly, isn't good enough when it comes to an issue that saw a veteran community volunteer shown the door.
And to say that residents can't appear before council because of provincial in-camera legislation is a complete joke. The rules only prevent council members from not openly discussing the matter. Nothing precludes them from sitting there and listening to residents provide their input. Of course they would be forced to stay quiet, and politicians being politicians, that could prove difficult for some.
Ultimately, council is telling residents that their views are unimportant and decisions can be made in isolation from those who put them there. Talk about top-down government.
As I indicated a few weeks ago, if council truly believes that firing Lecavalier was the right decision for the community, and it can be defended legally, then what is there to hide?
Why can't residents at least know which members of council voted to dismiss Lecavalier and who didn't?
We should also keep in mind that there are serious ramifications from the entire issue.
Who has the right to select the chief — council or the volunteer members of the fire department? Who has the right to determine who actually belongs to the department — district administration or the firefighters? If the volunteers get fed up with interference and walk, will the council have to hire full-time firefighters at a huge cost to taxpayers? If there is an interruption in service, will property and lives be put at risk?
I don't believe council and administration seriously considered all of the implications when the decision was made to let Lecavalier go.
But the most serious breech of judgement is telling voters that they can be seen but not heard. And that's especially true when you consider who pays their salary.
"I am their employer," said Hegler.
If democracy continues to be cast aside in Coldstream, I suspect the employers will be handing out pink slips to a few of their employees during November's civic election.
****************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment