POLITICIANS ARE COWARDLY WORDSMITHS

That is what politicians do. They haven't even got the courage to pass a Motion that aligns with their verbal statements. They gussy up their blunt actions in trying to censor and ban Delegates from speaking at Council on Chemtura matters. Mayor Shantz at the last Council meeting (Comm. of the Whole) on March 22; blurted out that it wasn't only "technical" discussions that were banned but ALL discussions dealing with Chemtura, contaminated groundwater and the Canagagigue Creek. Do they put that ridiculous and asinine statement into their Motion? Oh no, then it becomes "Delegations that are specific to any of our sub-committees go to the sub-committee first". They totally change it and broaden it to include all "sub-committees" so as to camoflage their bias against criticism of Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Firstly RAC and TAG are not "sub-committees" of Council. Similarily all the other committees of council are just that: committees not sub-committees. I don't know if this is simply an error or yet another backdoor attempt by Council to have their undemocratic way.

Then there is the issue of Councillor Mark Bauman's Memo included under the Delegation section of Tuesday's Agenda. Mark is a slimy snake in the grass who constantly speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Witness his multiple turnarounds on the Breslau parkland issue. I view Mark's amended Motion as being a red herring at best and a backdoor change to the Procedural By-Laws at worst. All Council have to do is refuse to ratify Committee of the Whole's March 22/16 Motion/Recommendation. They have absolutely no need to amend their Proccedural By-Laws.

So is Mark's red herring amendment simply to make himself look good? Delegates already have the option of going to Committees of Council, no matter how Byzantine and awkward their Delegation process may be, and then going to Council directly. His amendment is meaningless.

Or is Mark really being sneaky? There are two physically separate paragraphs in his amendment. The first says that Delegates should be encouraged firstly "to contact the sub-committee or department where the concern can be best addressed ...". Then the second paragraph states that if "the delegate still wish to address Council, that staff is directed to list them on the next appropriate Council agenda.". So if Mark's amendment passed how difficult would it be for Council at a later date to simply drop the second paragraph from Mark's amendment? Could they bury this minor change in the middle of a three hundred page Council package with no one noticing? Most likely.

Council's Motion has been severely criticized in the Woolwich Observer, the K-W Record and on 570 Talk Radio. It is censorship and nothing more than a veiled attempt to insulate and hide Chemtura/M.O.E. from being in the public eye. Woolwich Council are shameless.