"Your slip is showing" is a euphemistic way of telling a woman that she has lost her modesty or self respect.
This expression came to mind I read the recent Era article on Council Members' expenses. Certainly the Era could have interviewed any of the nine members (and certainly there was no need to interview all nine), but to hone in on the Council member that spent the least in 2012 (or under 10% of the allocated budget) and question her annual spending? That seems a bit biased.
Why didn't the Era question the Regional Councillor who spent 84% of his allocated expense budget? I noticed on his list of items, he too recognized a local championship team and it cost the taxpayers roughly the same dollar amount as the item that the Era reporter had targeted. Could it be that in his case, the $300 was for an advertisement that was paid to the Era, while in the other case, the $300 went towards plaques given to the youth athletes to commemorate the team's victories? In other words, does the politician using his expense account to benefit the Era deserve the free pass?
I don't mind questioning politicians expense accounts, in fact I wish the Town of Newmarket provided us with even greater details. But if we were meant to feel scandalous about someone spending a mere fraction of what her colleagues had spent, then the Era missed the mark.
It should be noted that the YRMG is part of Metroland which in turn is part of the Torstar Corporation. Torstar is renowned for holding "progressive" editorial positions and in recent years, has allowed its Atkinson Principle to govern its perspective of the "news" (you can read more here: http://www.torstar.com/html/social-responsibility/Atkinson_Principles/index.cfm) The Atkinson Principle is in effect at the Toronto Star specifically but I worry that this left-leaning bias is also invading the community papers too, such as the Era. Certainly, Newmarket Council's left wing - Taylor/ Van Bynen and allies - are benefiting from the coverage. For example, it is hard to take the Era seriously when the paper calls Chris Emanuel "Newsmaker of the Year" for Glenway (although what has he he accomplished? Zzilch in my opinion) but ignored the facts in that article that he was convicted of impaired driving in 2011.
Being the only paper in town requires more professionalism from reporters and columnists especially in terms of presenting a balanced story. If the Atkinson Principle applied, then perhaps it would have been reasonable for the Era to question the Councillor spending significantly less than everyone else. But the Atkinson Principle isn't supposed to apply at the community level paper. So why the slant to the left, Era?
Monday 25 March 2013
Saturday 16 March 2013
On Fire Dept Amalgamation, Ward Consolidation and Other Craziness
Finally. After months and months of political wrangling, Newmarket Councillors are finally discussing some substantive issues.
Too bad they have staked out the wrong position on these issues but at least they are talking again.
Fire Dept. Amalgamation
Councillor Chris Emanuel has tweeted about an upcoming motion to explore consolidating all the municipally run fire departments under the umbrella of the York Regional Government.
Its a dumb idea on a number of fronts
1) Each municipality is different. East Gwillimbury and Georgina have composite fire departments (relying on both professionals and volunteers). This suits the needs of their communities and addresses what these municipalities can afford to pay for fire protection. How anxious would their residents be to shut out the volunteers and assume the higher costs associated with the larger cities to the south?
2) Each fire department requires different skills. Newmarket has no highways so our fire dept. doesn't address highway related traffic accidents in the same frequency that Markham and Vaughan would. Newmarket has no lakes so our fire dept. has no experience with drownings or rescuing ice fishers like East Gwillimbury and Georgina would. Newmarket has fewer high rises, less industrial exposures and so on. Simply put, the "one size fits all" York Regional solution really isn't a solution at all because the hazards that each municipality deals with are quite disparate.
3) Left leaning politicians like Councillor Emanuel prefer "Big Government" but our experience with York Region shows that Big Government is failing. Why would we place our lives and the protection in our homes at the level of government that is most in debt? York Region can't afford to maintain a consistent level of services with the items already under its purview If you want a clear example, look at the boondoggle that was the YRT transit strike. What a disaster exacerbated by the fact that York Region has billions in public debt.
4) What is Councillor Emanuel saying about his own effectiveness, where as a member of the CYFS board, he is suggesting that York Region can do it better than he can? Being just 16 square miles, and a community of predominantly single family homes, Newmarket should have the least amount of fire protection challenges of any York Regional community. If Councillor Emanuel doesn't think he and his fellow board members can handle it, how can we have any faith in them when it comes to other essential services, such as sewers, garbage pick up and recreation? (Although keep in mind, it was under his leadership at the CYSF that Newmarket hired 20 extra fire fighters so perhaps he can't handle the responsibility after all).
All in all, there is nothing in this idea that benefits the residents of Newmarket.
Newmarket Ward Re-Alignment
Councillor Jane Twinney is tweeting that she is in favour of reducing the number of wards in Newmarket and thereby reducing the number of politicians but paying the remaining ward councillors a full time wage.
This is also a dumb idea that has zero benefit for ordinary residents.
If you were looking for efficiencies and cost saving measures, it makes much more sense to remove the Regional Councillor position and give the Mayor two votes at the York Council.
Getting rid of the Regional Councillor position serves a number of benefits:
1) It doesn't change the representation each Ward currently enjoys.
2) Although part time, I don't get a sense that Newmarket Councillors are working part time hours, (with the possible exception of one or two Councillors). The majority of the seven councillors are treating their roles like a full time job. They are already working significant hours (including weekends) and there is no evidence that paying more money will deliver any better representation.
3) A Regional Councillor costs Newmarket taxpayers approximately four times the amount of money that one ward councillor costs.
4) In our system of municipal government, the mayor is considered weak in comparison to American mayors because he/she has only one vote on Council and no veto power. By giving the mayors two votes at the Regional Council, we accomplish a number of goals:
And speaking of "crazy"
Has anyone seen the Mayor's new blog on his www.vanbynen.ca web page?
The Mayor writes:
As you and your neighbours have likely heard, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen is a man of the people – and for the people.
and later he writes:
In fact, to Mayor Van Bynen, it is within any person of any age to be able to contribute and in some small way, make a difference in the community
Why is the Mayor referring to himself in the third person? This supposed "man of the people" writes like he is delusional.
Too bad they have staked out the wrong position on these issues but at least they are talking again.
Fire Dept. Amalgamation
Councillor Chris Emanuel has tweeted about an upcoming motion to explore consolidating all the municipally run fire departments under the umbrella of the York Regional Government.
Its a dumb idea on a number of fronts
1) Each municipality is different. East Gwillimbury and Georgina have composite fire departments (relying on both professionals and volunteers). This suits the needs of their communities and addresses what these municipalities can afford to pay for fire protection. How anxious would their residents be to shut out the volunteers and assume the higher costs associated with the larger cities to the south?
2) Each fire department requires different skills. Newmarket has no highways so our fire dept. doesn't address highway related traffic accidents in the same frequency that Markham and Vaughan would. Newmarket has no lakes so our fire dept. has no experience with drownings or rescuing ice fishers like East Gwillimbury and Georgina would. Newmarket has fewer high rises, less industrial exposures and so on. Simply put, the "one size fits all" York Regional solution really isn't a solution at all because the hazards that each municipality deals with are quite disparate.
3) Left leaning politicians like Councillor Emanuel prefer "Big Government" but our experience with York Region shows that Big Government is failing. Why would we place our lives and the protection in our homes at the level of government that is most in debt? York Region can't afford to maintain a consistent level of services with the items already under its purview If you want a clear example, look at the boondoggle that was the YRT transit strike. What a disaster exacerbated by the fact that York Region has billions in public debt.
4) What is Councillor Emanuel saying about his own effectiveness, where as a member of the CYFS board, he is suggesting that York Region can do it better than he can? Being just 16 square miles, and a community of predominantly single family homes, Newmarket should have the least amount of fire protection challenges of any York Regional community. If Councillor Emanuel doesn't think he and his fellow board members can handle it, how can we have any faith in them when it comes to other essential services, such as sewers, garbage pick up and recreation? (Although keep in mind, it was under his leadership at the CYSF that Newmarket hired 20 extra fire fighters so perhaps he can't handle the responsibility after all).
All in all, there is nothing in this idea that benefits the residents of Newmarket.
Newmarket Ward Re-Alignment
Councillor Jane Twinney is tweeting that she is in favour of reducing the number of wards in Newmarket and thereby reducing the number of politicians but paying the remaining ward councillors a full time wage.
This is also a dumb idea that has zero benefit for ordinary residents.
If you were looking for efficiencies and cost saving measures, it makes much more sense to remove the Regional Councillor position and give the Mayor two votes at the York Council.
Getting rid of the Regional Councillor position serves a number of benefits:
1) It doesn't change the representation each Ward currently enjoys.
2) Although part time, I don't get a sense that Newmarket Councillors are working part time hours, (with the possible exception of one or two Councillors). The majority of the seven councillors are treating their roles like a full time job. They are already working significant hours (including weekends) and there is no evidence that paying more money will deliver any better representation.
3) A Regional Councillor costs Newmarket taxpayers approximately four times the amount of money that one ward councillor costs.
4) In our system of municipal government, the mayor is considered weak in comparison to American mayors because he/she has only one vote on Council and no veto power. By giving the mayors two votes at the Regional Council, we accomplish a number of goals:
- it gives extra power to the role of the mayor;
- it strikes a balance between towns that have no Regional Councillor presently (like Aurora, Whitchurch Stouffville, East Gwillimbury, and King)
- When the Newmarket Mayor and Regional Councillor attend the York Council, they either have to vote together on every issue or they cancel each other out leaving Newmarket without a voice. Giving the Mayor 2 votes and eliminating the Regional Councillor position ensures that Newmakret always has a voice at York Council.
- York Regional taxpayers would save costs associated with Regional Councillors by eliminating the role for Newmarket and Georgina, as well as reducing a Regional Councillor position in Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill. This is hundreds of thousands in savings by giving the Mayors of each York Regional municipality two votes on York Council.
And speaking of "crazy"
Has anyone seen the Mayor's new blog on his www.vanbynen.ca web page?
The Mayor writes:
As you and your neighbours have likely heard, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen is a man of the people – and for the people.
and later he writes:
In fact, to Mayor Van Bynen, it is within any person of any age to be able to contribute and in some small way, make a difference in the community
Why is the Mayor referring to himself in the third person? This supposed "man of the people" writes like he is delusional.
Tuesday 5 March 2013
A tale of two communication strategies
In politics, battles are won and lost on the field of communication. Politicians that can control the message win elections more often than not.
Yesterday, there was a communication battle worthy of a case study - two very different strategies at play.
Here is the scene:
The Newmarket Integrity Commissioner has issued a report that finds Councillor Di Muccio in breach of the Code of Conduct.
Maddie's message:
Intuitively, you might think this is a "can't win" situation for Maddie because her integrity is being called into question, but I think that's wrong. I believe it is a "can't lose" situation for her.
She can't lose because even if her communication strategy falls flat, she can't fall any lower than the Integrity Commissioner's message. She knows where rock bottom is and is aware that any success in communication will be deemed a great win for her.
Fortunately, I think she scored herself a big win.
Maddie's communication day started with cheekily tweeting the theme song to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. She set the table by framing the impending confrontation as an old fashioned gun fight between the white-hat lone drifter against the evil cattle rancher/ colonel and his gang of ne'er-do-wells. The imagery was perfect. (Not to mention that the movie referenced is one of the coolest ever made).
At the meeting, she made the right decision to speak and to provoke a reaction from her opponents. Her speech was well prepared and delivered with proper pace and diction. It wasn't so much what she said, (although defining an in camera meeting as a 'secret' meeting thus conjuring up images of some secret society was pure genius), that made the night a success for her, but rather, what she provoked her colleagues into saying.
If I were an advisor for the other Council members, I would have told them to not speak and leave the Integrity Commissioner's words lingering as the final word. I think it was a colossal mistake on their parts to give speeches because by doing so, they handed the victory over to Councillor Di Muccio.
First of all, Councillor Emanuel spoke and by far he turned out to be the biggest loser of the evening. Why?
a) The matter is about integrity, (something that isn't his strong suit, criminal conviction and all). His speaking only served as a prompt for the public to recall his brush with the law. He actually had the utter gall to say words to the effect that integrity was important to him. Really? I couldn't have been the only viewer gobsmacked by that whopper.
b) He came across as a jerk. He started off saying "I wasn't planning on speaking tonight", but then he produced a quote from the minutes of a meeting that took place months ago and they just happened to be the top page on in his notepad? Riiiight.
c) Councillor Di Muccio's biggest complaint has been that he offered support and then changed his mind in a secret meeting. To which he replied that Councillor Di Muccio had voted in favour of the Integrity Commissioner investigation. I don't know what kindergarten he went to, but that excuse "well she did it too" never succeeded with my teacher. Post Script - This afternoon, DiMuccio produced minutes to a meeting that proved him wrong. He should have taken the opportunity to justify his decision to change his mind but instead he went for the cheap "gotcha" moment and fell flat on his face. To sum up his performance, I give him an F-minus.
Regional Councillor Taylor in an effort to look like a leader, gave a confused and meandering explanation of the confidentiality rules that had no context with the matter before council. I was left with the impression that he was simply enjoying the sound of his own voice giving justification for the stereotypical windbag image of a municipal politician. Again, he could have used the opportunity to explain why he chose to flip flop but he I think he believed his clever obfuscation would confuse the viewers into believing he actually had integrity.
Ward 2 Councillor David Kerwin, winding up for a trip down memory lane, was interrupted by the Mayor and asked to stay on topic. Unable to comply, Kerwin cut his comments short. He ended up shouting something nonsensical at Councillor Di Muccio.
The lesson for the day, when a very well spoken Integrity Commissioner does your dirty work for you against an opponent, avoid the temptation to steal defeat from the jaws of victory like Newmarket Council did last night. If the shoe is on the other foot though, follow Councillor Di Muccio's example and assist your opponents in stuffing their own feet into their gaping mouths.
Yesterday, there was a communication battle worthy of a case study - two very different strategies at play.
Here is the scene:
The Newmarket Integrity Commissioner has issued a report that finds Councillor Di Muccio in breach of the Code of Conduct.
Maddie's message:
Intuitively, you might think this is a "can't win" situation for Maddie because her integrity is being called into question, but I think that's wrong. I believe it is a "can't lose" situation for her.
She can't lose because even if her communication strategy falls flat, she can't fall any lower than the Integrity Commissioner's message. She knows where rock bottom is and is aware that any success in communication will be deemed a great win for her.
Fortunately, I think she scored herself a big win.
Maddie's communication day started with cheekily tweeting the theme song to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. She set the table by framing the impending confrontation as an old fashioned gun fight between the white-hat lone drifter against the evil cattle rancher/ colonel and his gang of ne'er-do-wells. The imagery was perfect. (Not to mention that the movie referenced is one of the coolest ever made).
At the meeting, she made the right decision to speak and to provoke a reaction from her opponents. Her speech was well prepared and delivered with proper pace and diction. It wasn't so much what she said, (although defining an in camera meeting as a 'secret' meeting thus conjuring up images of some secret society was pure genius), that made the night a success for her, but rather, what she provoked her colleagues into saying.
If I were an advisor for the other Council members, I would have told them to not speak and leave the Integrity Commissioner's words lingering as the final word. I think it was a colossal mistake on their parts to give speeches because by doing so, they handed the victory over to Councillor Di Muccio.
First of all, Councillor Emanuel spoke and by far he turned out to be the biggest loser of the evening. Why?
a) The matter is about integrity, (something that isn't his strong suit, criminal conviction and all). His speaking only served as a prompt for the public to recall his brush with the law. He actually had the utter gall to say words to the effect that integrity was important to him. Really? I couldn't have been the only viewer gobsmacked by that whopper.
b) He came across as a jerk. He started off saying "I wasn't planning on speaking tonight", but then he produced a quote from the minutes of a meeting that took place months ago and they just happened to be the top page on in his notepad? Riiiight.
c) Councillor Di Muccio's biggest complaint has been that he offered support and then changed his mind in a secret meeting. To which he replied that Councillor Di Muccio had voted in favour of the Integrity Commissioner investigation. I don't know what kindergarten he went to, but that excuse "well she did it too" never succeeded with my teacher. Post Script - This afternoon, DiMuccio produced minutes to a meeting that proved him wrong. He should have taken the opportunity to justify his decision to change his mind but instead he went for the cheap "gotcha" moment and fell flat on his face. To sum up his performance, I give him an F-minus.
Regional Councillor Taylor in an effort to look like a leader, gave a confused and meandering explanation of the confidentiality rules that had no context with the matter before council. I was left with the impression that he was simply enjoying the sound of his own voice giving justification for the stereotypical windbag image of a municipal politician. Again, he could have used the opportunity to explain why he chose to flip flop but he I think he believed his clever obfuscation would confuse the viewers into believing he actually had integrity.
Ward 2 Councillor David Kerwin, winding up for a trip down memory lane, was interrupted by the Mayor and asked to stay on topic. Unable to comply, Kerwin cut his comments short. He ended up shouting something nonsensical at Councillor Di Muccio.
The lesson for the day, when a very well spoken Integrity Commissioner does your dirty work for you against an opponent, avoid the temptation to steal defeat from the jaws of victory like Newmarket Council did last night. If the shoe is on the other foot though, follow Councillor Di Muccio's example and assist your opponents in stuffing their own feet into their gaping mouths.
Friday 1 March 2013
Why is Nwkt Council so Afraid of Twitter, Blogs and Facebook?
I read with quite a bit of dismay in the Era that there are plans to include "social media" in the Council Code of Conduct. I can certainly understand why the Van Bynen/ Taylor two-some would want that. They have been getting their backsides handed to them over the Internet for over two years but rather than "fight back" they would opt to censor instead? Ridiculous.
If it wasn't for Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, Newmarket residents would have no idea what is happening at Newmarket town hall. The Era is too selective in the news it reports and tends to focus on light pieces, (to compete with SNAP, I guess) rather than provide us with hard news. This is why the biggest news stories regarding Newmarket have been reported in social media first.
Want examples?
1) Chris Emanuel's DUI arrest
2) Closed door meetings fiasco
3) Councillors abuse taxpayer money by spending on galas and fancy dress parties
4) Votes against transparency and open government particularly with avoiding posting voting records and spending account information on line
5) Vegh scandals - the c-word and going to work for John Taylor's dad who happens to sit on the Newmarket Tay Hydro board
6) Taylor charity scandal
7) Vegh and Hempen in camera confidentiality breach
8) Taylor in camera confidentiality breach
9) Inclusive policy for street naming
10) That we have a street in Newmarket named after this guy: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1431440-slingerland-charges-grow-to-19/
11) Van Bynen spending well beyond other councillors to attend the same London conference
12) Town of Newmarket/ Newmarket Cares exclusion of @joepsonga
13) Green slush funds abuses
14) Stinky Newmarket water (smells of chlorine)
15) Live streaming meetings to the Internet
16) VIVA/ YRT strike and the flip/flop of Twinney
17) Emanuel "Hero/ Star" status at YR Women's Hallowe'en gala
18) Emanuel speaking to school aged kids, scouts etc. about "Civics" although he is a criminal
And I'm sure this list could even be expanded further. All of these important news items broke first in social media and the majority of these items have never actually been reported in the mainstream media as of yet.
You will often hear our municipal politicians speak about Newmarket being one of the best communities to live in. This is only true if you block out the rotten smell coming from Van Bynen/ Taylor's administration. But for as long as the Era and Rogers continue to ignore the stench from Newmarket Town hall, blogs like mine are way too important to give up.
Regular readers of this blog know that is the only reason why I write this blog - to comment on the news that is being missed by the Era. I've promised the editor of the Era that I would stop once her paper started to report on these things. That's a promise I intend to keep.
Until then, I encourage every elected official to use the freedom of social media to keep your voters informed. Don't just publish drivel because that assumes that the public is a bunch of morons. We're more than capable of understanding the hard issues behind a Glenway and a Slessor Square amongst others. Closed door meetings concerning major development decisions that will alter the face of our community are in themselves immoral and need to stop.
Don't attempt to silence social media Councillors. Celebrate it. We have an engaged community in Newmarket. Don't lock us out.
If it wasn't for Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, Newmarket residents would have no idea what is happening at Newmarket town hall. The Era is too selective in the news it reports and tends to focus on light pieces, (to compete with SNAP, I guess) rather than provide us with hard news. This is why the biggest news stories regarding Newmarket have been reported in social media first.
Want examples?
1) Chris Emanuel's DUI arrest
2) Closed door meetings fiasco
3) Councillors abuse taxpayer money by spending on galas and fancy dress parties
4) Votes against transparency and open government particularly with avoiding posting voting records and spending account information on line
5) Vegh scandals - the c-word and going to work for John Taylor's dad who happens to sit on the Newmarket Tay Hydro board
6) Taylor charity scandal
7) Vegh and Hempen in camera confidentiality breach
8) Taylor in camera confidentiality breach
9) Inclusive policy for street naming
10) That we have a street in Newmarket named after this guy: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1431440-slingerland-charges-grow-to-19/
11) Van Bynen spending well beyond other councillors to attend the same London conference
12) Town of Newmarket/ Newmarket Cares exclusion of @joepsonga
13) Green slush funds abuses
14) Stinky Newmarket water (smells of chlorine)
15) Live streaming meetings to the Internet
16) VIVA/ YRT strike and the flip/flop of Twinney
17) Emanuel "Hero/ Star" status at YR Women's Hallowe'en gala
18) Emanuel speaking to school aged kids, scouts etc. about "Civics" although he is a criminal
And I'm sure this list could even be expanded further. All of these important news items broke first in social media and the majority of these items have never actually been reported in the mainstream media as of yet.
You will often hear our municipal politicians speak about Newmarket being one of the best communities to live in. This is only true if you block out the rotten smell coming from Van Bynen/ Taylor's administration. But for as long as the Era and Rogers continue to ignore the stench from Newmarket Town hall, blogs like mine are way too important to give up.
Regular readers of this blog know that is the only reason why I write this blog - to comment on the news that is being missed by the Era. I've promised the editor of the Era that I would stop once her paper started to report on these things. That's a promise I intend to keep.
Until then, I encourage every elected official to use the freedom of social media to keep your voters informed. Don't just publish drivel because that assumes that the public is a bunch of morons. We're more than capable of understanding the hard issues behind a Glenway and a Slessor Square amongst others. Closed door meetings concerning major development decisions that will alter the face of our community are in themselves immoral and need to stop.
Don't attempt to silence social media Councillors. Celebrate it. We have an engaged community in Newmarket. Don't lock us out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)