Responses to questions raised by L. Dunlop

The following letter to the Editor was published by the Morning Star in the June 21st issue. I appreciate the comments by the writer, L. Dunlop (it really increased the readership of the blog), and below I respond to his “questions” raised in the letter. In responding, I reference sections of the letter and include my answers in red. Once again, my thanks to L. Dunlop for his dedication to my blog.

It appears that a Coldstream councillor's blog goes well beyond that of a personal website with what looks to be the District of Coldstream's approval. All of council's pictures are posted on the councillor's site, stating: Coldstream Council at Your Service! with a direct link to the official Coldstream website.

There is a prominent disclaimer at the top of the blog that reads:

The opinions expressed by "Coldstreamer" are strictly his own and do not represent the opinions of Coldstream Council!

We have to ask the question, does the site, which is run by a Coldstream councillor, his personal website, advance a political agenda and does it reflect the conditions of a private website?

The website is personal but available for anyone to read. Of course, access to the site is not obligatory and anyone who feels offended by it could chose not to access the blog.

For instance, can we, you, post pictures on our, your sites with a direct link to the official Coldstream website, if so; we would be more than happy to have them aboard, along with our political point of view?

You are welcome to link to the official Coldstream website. It was created using public funds for the benefit of taxpayers. Any publicity for the site is welcome.

Again, the site, run by a Coldstream councilor, often carries personal comments of the councillor, and group with what appears to be a distinct political bent. Does Coldstream council subscribe to this site by virtue of the fact they are directly linked to it?

The blog includes personal comments as it is a PERSONAL BLOG. See above disclaimer and comments.

Again and again, the site appears to promote one political point of view with links, comments and ranting, this, all subscribed by your Coldstream council? Further, does this mean everyone linked to the councilor's personal website, the local newspapers, radio stations and other various feeds, which includes yet another link to a councillor's website, subscribe to the councilor's ranting and his political views?

In 70 plus years I earned the right to “rant”. The state of the environment, the state of the economy, the many lies and misdeeds by high ranking leaders of the world provide me ample opportunity to express my disapproval. The writer of the letter may disagree with my views and he/she has every right to do so (as he/she did in his/her letter) but I also have the right to my opinions. What kind of a politicians would I be if I did not have political views? Disagree? Create your own blog and disseminate information the way you see it.

The disclaimer aside, it appears the Coldstream councillor's blog does not represent the average Coldstream citizen and is indeed not a personal website as such but acts as a platform for private political views and advances a personal political agenda using the councilor's moniker with the tacit approval of Coldstream council?

The blog is my property and I never claimed that my views represent “the average Coldstream citizen”, whomever he/she might be. Coldstream Council respects my right to free speech and I respect the confidentiality of my office as per my oath of office. Any information on my blog is available to the public.

Further, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, which gives expression to the high ideals and traditions in the public service clearly states under Political Rights: Public employees have a responsibility to avoid participation in partisan politics that is likely to impair the political neutrality of the public service or the perception of that neutrality.

Under The Public Interest: Public employees should resolve any conflict between their personal or private interests and their official duties in favour of public interest.

Under Service to the Public: Public employees should provide service to the public in a manner which is courteous, equitable, efficient and effective.

Under Public Interest: Public employees should be sensitive to the political process and knowledgeable about the laws and traditions regarding political neutrality that are applicable to their sphere of employment.

The writer of the letter should understand the difference between politicians, who are directly accountable to the taxpayers, and the public servants who are responsible to the politicians through the chain of command. Ultimately they serve the public but only through said chain. Politicians develop policies and legislate, public servants carry out those policies and regulations. Public servants can also express opinions as long as it des not conflict with their office.

We understand that politicians at any level need to have a platform to get information out to the public, to clarify policy and to arouse debate on issues before them. However, promoting personal political views clearly violates the high ideals and tradition of public service and may even leave the councillor open to ramifications.

We believe the council member has gone well beyond what is arguably his duty and is using a forum that is/is not associated with his office?

L. Dunlop

Interestingly, the letter is signed by a single individual, while time and again the “royal we” has been used in the text. I wonder if there were more than one persons involved in the creation of this masterpiece or is it just “nosism” (the use of “we” in speaking of oneself)?

*************************************************