Dave Dale has written in his column: “It is unclear exactly what she’ll be doing, but it can’t be bad for her Nipissing riding. Let’s hope not, anyway. Revenue means taxes, usually, and fees for government services and other nasty devices no longer called taxes.” Combine this statement with the title of his column, and what you get is failed humour at best. At worst, it is a ham-fisted attempt to equate our dislike of paying taxes with our MPP.
Damn that Monique Smith for inventing taxes …
Dale subsequently speculates on Maureen Boldt’s strategy to retain her seat. Apparently, it boils down to playing possum, and begging for mercy. He also professes to know in advance how she and her detractors will argue their cases. And then, he drops a steaming cow paddy of innuendo onto the page: “Others will want to know exactly what Boldt did for the community, other than attend meetings and stir the political pot for the Grits in the hopes of a riding nomination.”
Who are these “others”, and what role do they play in choosing whether or not to unseat a city councilor?
Will Boldt’s fate be determined by other councilor’s attitude toward her performance? Is that the issue? Is it reasonable to consider her political affiliations (real or imagined) when deciding whether to grant her the leave of absence she is expected to request?
When elected officials can remove another elected official from office, we should not forget that the will of the electorate may be subverted in the process. Maureen Boldt was elected by the citizens of North Bay. The conditions under which she is un-elected should be very clear and free from any mechanism of political tampering. For example, if she is removed, it should not be for partisan-political reasons.
If there is a rule in place to unseat a councilor who can’t fulfill his or her duties, and council can create an exception to that rule, there is potential for inappropriate political manipulation.
As Dale points out in his column, Ms. Boldt’s “professional misunderstanding” is at least a decade old. Therefore, people in North Bay made their voting decision knowing that she was embroiled in such a misunderstanding.
Opinions are just opinions, and people are not obligated to support them with rational arguments. Mr. Dale is merely writing opinion and can’t be faulted for having one. However, in my opinion, it is a belly flop into the turtle pool of hypocrisy to suggest that Maureen Boldt is on council to “stir the pot for the Grits in the hope of a riding nomination”, without also noting obvious examples of councilors who have, or are, stirring the political pot for the Tories in hopes of a riding nomination.
Fair is fair, in anyone’s opinion.
BOB KISMET
www.bobkismet.com
