WOMEN IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY

O.K. firstly I'm going to fess up. The above title is a bit of a misnomer (I hope). My experience is that people of either gender... oops I believe that's no longer politically correct...ahem people of all genders... generally react poorly on a personal basis if given any authority at all. Whether the electorate prefer their face, voice, public persona or a simple 15 second sound bite on television; being elected to office is not some kind of pronouncement from on high that you are a good candidate much less the best available. Sorry to burst a few balloons there folks. Secondly once elected or appointed to a position of authority over anyone or anything, then these people tend to appoint others beneath them on the same or similar basis. In other words rarely is the best, most intelligent, most qualified and most dedicated ever appointed to any position. Those you appoint beneath you need to know their place (below you) and always be prepared to support you on all matters that you espouse. Again sorry for bursting a few balloons there folks.

The first time I learned that Pat Mclean was a typical, unethical politician was when we were discussing privately with Susan Bryant an upcoming CPAC matter, possibly a Certificate of Approval from the M.O.E.. Up to this time I viewed the Chair of UPAC/CPAC as simply being an onerous, secretarial type position. Certainly nothing of any status and it seemed appropriate that Pat having the absolute least amount of technical or historical knowledge regarding Uniroyal Chemical should with her political experience conduct meetings and organize Agendas and followup meetings. Well! Pat felt, I learned in 2006 or early 2007, that she was in charge and in control of CPAC. Excuse me but I was there with an Independent vote on all matters as an equal member and I deferred to no one while at the same time was always very careful to never publicly undermine or speak critically of my other fellow citizen appointees to UPAC then CPAC. I later learned there was a backroom deal between Pat, Sandy and Susan. I was asked to attend a private meeting with some Woolwich Council members and David Brenneman in early 2008. This I did only to find Sandy stickhandling around my very clear and straightforward question as to whether or not she had ever seen or heard me undermine or criticize any CPAC member at the public meetings. She sat beside me as Council's CPAC representative for the previous two years yet she clearly did not want to state that fact. At that point I first began to realize that the two bitches (Pat & Susan) had set me up. Being naive politically as well as fully trusting Susan's ethics I hadn't seen it coming, making me an easy target.

I believed that Sandy was not necessarily corrupt but merely easily swayed by smooth talkers like Susan and Pat. From time to time since, seeing Sandy's asinine decisions and positions I have often felt otherwise. Perhaps knowing her own weaknesses on many matters she has sought out and accepted very poor advice. This would certainly include from the likes of Mark Bauman and David Brenneman so clearly it's not a gender thing with her. She simply is vulnerable to glib advice and counsel and there are far too many willing to fill her intellectual and knowledge shortage.

Yesterday I was advised by a CPAC member that Sandy probably is far more naive and inexperienced than she is corrupt. It's easier going along with advice from people near her than to spend the time on her own actually learning the facts. Clearly those in power above her have long felt that she has the right stuff for their purposes. In the case of the distressed school board appointing her Chair of the Board (Tustees) was a no brainer. She talked nicely and looked good and her complete lack of political skills and experience seemed an advantage. She did not disappoint. Similarly our American friend Susan has had honours bestowed upon her by grateful local authorities such as the Region of Waterloo and the GRCA. Exactly why they are grateful is a very good question. Her breakfast time coffee meetings with Ken Seiling in her home in the very early 90s may have set the stage. Were private agreements made for cooperation now for consideration later? Similarly it's obvious that Pat and Susan had a private agreement with Chemtura for lifetime access to chats regarding local environmental matters. The ACC or APT Chemtura Committee which ran from early 2011 until 2015 is a testament to that. Privately held, ongoing meetings outside the CPAC scope while Chemtura were simultaneously meeting with the Council appointed reps (CPAC) was bizarre at the least. Poor Pat and Susan were enraged when the Todd Cowan council refused to appoint them to CPAC. Poor babies. Turnaround is fair play don't you think?

So back to Sandy. She's incompetent, easily led and mostly for show. Yet... she did insist upon warning signs being put along the Canagagigue Creek advising fishermen of the dangers of eating fish they caught. She (with huge assistance) invented RAC and TAG which Councillor Merlihan appropriately called "cringeworthy" in regards to it's supposed public consultation. Clearly Chemtura and the M.O.E. got exactly what they wanted there. Can we thank Mark Bauman and David Brenneman for most of that. Yet... Neither Susan nor Pat were appointed Chair. Not by a long shot. Dr. Richard Jackson was the first and most incredible Chair. Tiffany Svensson is the second Chair. Susan and Pat were given two temporary positions on RAC for one year. Since then it's been rotated with Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach and David Hofbauer representing TAG at RAC meetings.

Sandy and Council screwed up royally with the fiasco in Breslau regarding selling part of the park to the Catholic School Board. Who was pushing Sandy's buttons on that one? A past lame duck Council screwed up by approving the Jigs Hollow gravel pit for above water table extraction. My guess is that this one will approve the below water table extraction that is currently before them. On the matter of methane gas in and around the Bolender Park landfill both staff and various Council members have lied like dogs to the public. The rest of Council are too lazy and or stupid to read the CRA reports. Shame on the pack of them. So what do you think; Is Sandy naive/stupid or is she corrupt? One definition of corrupt is "riddled with errors" so I guess she could be both simultaneously.