ELECTED AUTHORITY VERSUS APPOINTED AUTHORITY

In 2010 Woolwich electors, or perhaps thirty percent of them, elected a bunch of strangers to office namely Herteis, Cowan, Bryant, Poffenroth and Mr. Flip Flop, Mark Bauman. In 2014 it was newcomers Merlihan, Larry Shantz, Scott Hahn along with old timers Sandy Shantz, Murray Martin and Mr. Flip Flop again. Last month we had two newcomers namely Mr. McMillan and Mr. Redekop joining Merlihan, L. Shantz and S. Shantz and Murray Martin. As with all councils we have a disparate group. There are the honest, the intelligent, the unintelligent and the dishonest plus various mixtures. Par for the course. Obviously it would be best for the public interest to have more mixtures of honest and intelligent than say of dishonest and unintelligent.

Then we have appointments to committees of council. Guess who make these appointments? You got it. Elected councillors who are mixtures of honest, dishonest, intelligent and unintelligent. Personal friends, colleagues, campaign supporters etc. are all in the mix of council appointments. A few may have a proven track record of research and commitment to the issue being addressed by the committee. A few may have a proven track record of collaboration of various kinds. Unsurprisingly some of them are honest and intelligent and others are dishonest and or unintelligent. What a way to run a railroad folks.

Going back to the thirty percent of voters who even bother to cast a ballot. Is there any way to test their knowledge of the issues beforehand? There is not. Is there any way to test their knowledge of the candidates standing before them? There is not.Is there any way to test the voters character or their commitment to the public interest? There is not.

There is an old saying that electors get the politicians that they deserve. Wow. I really don't think that Woolwich citizens deserve as bad as they've generally gotten over the last fifty years. That said I actually think that our council today has the potential to be a little bit better than most past councils. Of course I can't be sure because there are two or three of these councillors that I really don't know.

Is there some pearl of wisdom or insight in all of this? Maybe. Firstly be suspicious. Somebody has to be elected. There is absolutely zero guarantee that they are smart or honest. Secondly be suspicious of committees appointed by these same councillors. Again they could be excellent or they could be a direct reflection of a corrupt council although most usually they are somewhere in between.

That said any committee of council had better follow the dictates of those who appointed them. The 2010-2015 CPAC did that and did a great job until the October 2014 council of Sandy Shantz was elected and chose to appease Chemtura Canada by condemning the CPAC who constantly pressured Chemtura for their environmental dishonesty and delay.

Thirdly citizens need to be more involved locally. Read both the Record and the Observer. Neither are perfect but both are very good. Secondly at least once in a long while attend either Council meetings or committee meetings such as RAC and TAG. You will learn so much from both. I don't guarantee you will like what you have learned but you will be in a better position to vote next time around. Why do you think councillors are so confident in mostly doing exactly what they please? It is because practically nobody regularly attends council meetings and too few of us regularly read the newspapers.