RE: “North Bay turns it back on people in need.” Nugget (April 30, 2008)

The people of Kashechewan have been evacuated due to flooding again.

Maurice Switzer has accused North Bay of turning its back on those people in need. By implication, he is saying that our city does not have a compassionate or generous spirit.

If North Bay lacks neighborly compassion due to the fact that we have not accepted any evacuees, by extension, every community that has not taken in evacuees is also lacking in compassion.

According to Switzer, the following communities have taken in evacuees:  Timmins, Sudbury, Cochrane, Stratford, Perth and St. Mary’s.

That list is interesting for the total lack of native communities on it.

I am shocked and appalled that not one native reserve in Ontario could find it in their hearts to take in one of the 1800 Kashechewan evacuees.

Maurice Switzer is the Director of Communications for the Union of Ontario Indians. He is also a hypocrite who owes North Bay an apology.

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

Maureen Boldt has inadvertently provided this community with some interesting fodder for debate.

Due to recent legal entanglements which have been known to the public since well in advance of the last election, Ms. Boldt will require city council to approve a request for a short leave of absence in order to retain her seat. 

The decision will be based on either political or on ethical considerations.

If the vote is based on politics, then the only thing we will learn is how many allies Ms. Boldt has on council.

For that reason it would be far more interesting if each councilor made his or her decision based on the ethical considerations. One of those ethical considerations would be, should council even have the power to make such a decision?

Should the reasons that a councilor asks for a leave be considered when deciding whether to grant it? The question is a little more complicated than it initially sounds, because in one instance a councilor could ask for a leave due to a medical condition that prevents attendance at meetings, and in another, a legal entanglement could prevent the councilor from being at meetings. If, in the instance of a medical condition, the leave of absence is granted, and not in the instance of legal entanglement, city council has in effect sat in judgment, and dismissed a democratically elected official in favour of someone who has not been elected.

In the case of Ms. Boldt, city council would be piling punishment on top of what has already been handed down by the courts. Is it appropriate for city council to engage in such forms of extra-judicial punishment?

Any governing body has to be very careful when subverting the will of the electorate in such a drastic way as this. These issues were well known to the public for years leading up to the last election. What, in the public mind, has changed since she was elected?

Some people regard Ms. Boldt’s conduct as an important form of social activism. It is very possible that some people might have voted for her specifically because of this conduct, and if the votes of those people are nullified in mid-term, it could be seen as a violation of democratic principles.

If the decision could be separated from the politics that might influence it, for example, if it were made according to a clear set of rules rather than at the discretion of politicians, we don’t have anything worth debating. If the rule that calls for a councilor’s seat to be vacated after a certain number of missed meetings could not be superceded by a vote by other councilors, then by extension, a situation in which the will of the electorate can be superceded by a council vote would also be avoided.

It will be very interesting to see how city council handles this issue, and hopefully some meaningful public discourse emerges from this process.