Posts
What do you have to say about the email MacEachern sent to the opposing side in a lawsuit. It's been made public. I think it's a common business practice that when someone is suing you, you should NOT send them information to help them. Let's not elect someone who clearly DOES NOT act in the Town's best interests. Does anyone know the decision in that case anyway?
This raises the question of whether your own beliefs take precedence over the citizens you have been elected to represent?
If you have clearly spelled out your position on a specific issue, then elected officials should follow their commitments.
However, if the issue has not been clearly spelled out as one of your campaign principles, then how should you act? Should you act to the detriment of the community, or hold your tongue. Interesting?
How does this type of conduct align with the Code of Ethics? How does this align with acting as a united Council once a decision has been reached.
It would appear that Councillor MacEachern has acted on her own -- contrary to the best interest of the community, against the position of Council on behalf of the community and possible contrary to the Code of Ethics.
Readers should be interested in understanding what this issue was about and how it has resolved itself. Both the lawsuit against the Town and Councillor MacEachern's conduct.
Readers should also be interested to know what steps Council took in response to Councillor MacEachern's conduct. After all, Council/Councillors should work for the community as our representative, not their own special interests.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
42 comments:
What about Buck and her e-mails? Her expense for lawyers? Her wanting to conduct town business behind the scenes? Your bias is, as usual, showing!
Isn't it interesting that a post about "Who Do Councillors work for?" brings a comment that just asks more questions. Is this anonymous trying to take the focus off themselves and put it on to someone else? Find out what happened to Councillor McEachern, what happened to the court case? Did council address this situation or did it just go away? Sorry questions just led to more questions.
This was NOT a lawsuit. This was an application to the Court for a judicial review. The applicant claimed the Town improperly and unfairly considered irrelevant collateral issues in reaching a decision. No doubt triggered by Councillor Buck's allegations.
The three Judges through the judicial review found in favour of the Town. I quote from the decision, Court File No 499/07 Date 20090330 that,
"The brief statement by Councillor MacEachern was more of an attempt to talk to the residents than reasons for decision, given as they were, just prior to the General Committee vote.
She confirmed the intent of the Property as open space. She confirmed the potential need in the future to have access to the Property. She also confirmed the potential need in the future to have access to the Property. She also confirmed that this was a difficult and uncomfortable issue, as two sets of residents had strongly held views on the matter. There was no unfairness to the applicants in the process. Their views were considered, and they were treated with respect. Councillor MacEachern states "And I apologize to the residents that want the fencing... I feel for you"."
The decision goes on to say,
"The discretionary decision of the Town to refuse the appilcants' request to build fences was reasonable and amply supported by the record. There was no prcedural or institutional unfairness to the applicants. For these reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed."
The panel of three judges found in the Town's favour.
Do a google search and read the decision on-line.
Councillor MacEachern's honesty and integrity helped the Town and served the residents well, contrary to what you and Councillor Buck would have us believe.
How is the average tax-paying citizen supposed to get answers to the questions posed?
If we had actual un-biased journalism in this town maybe we'd get those answers.
This too will go into the ether and no-one will remember come election time.
To Anonymous 4/12 @ 1:32 am;
Possibly you would provide the online link for people to view.
Just another example of the mission of this site: undermine our council and town.
Just another reason "they" choose to remain anonymous.
Where's the accountability?
Shouting out distortions repeatedly is destructive to all who live in Aurora.
Buck and this site seem proud of their opportunity to subvert democracy.
Who does council work for?
An interesting question and multiple answers.
Council is "hired" by the voting public. However, with our low voter turnout, they are clearly elected by a minority of the public. Once elected however, their responsibility shifts to the entire population. Not only to those that elected them, but to those that voted (but not for them), those that choose not to vote and those not eligible to vote.
This does not mean that the will of the public outweighs the needs of the municipality as a whole. They ultimatly work for the town/city/region and are entrusted to see that the needs of it are best served. That means that special interest groups, while they may have a valid cause, are secondary to the needs of the town.
The council is elected to make sure that the interests of the corporation are handled as best as they can. That does not mean that they micro-manage staff to a point that they cannot do their jobs effectivly (or resign in frustration). They need to oversee that the tax payers receive value for their money and that tax dollars are not spent foolishly. They need to listen to the public to determine what their needs are but in the grand scheme of things, provide the best services or products for the majority.
As a member of the tax paying public of Aurora, I want the council members that are elected to understand that I expect them to conduct themselves in a professional manner (understanding that political debates can become emotional and non-professional) and that they understand their boundaries of responsibility. The one thing that makes me angry is when councils decide to take on causes that are clearly outside of their areas of responsibility and influence.
I also expect council to conduct town business (ie. debates) in council sessions. While I freely acknowledge the right to free speech, using the local media to distort positions or debate council decisions via Letters to the Editor is not only in bad taste, it is unprofessional. I do however encourage all members of council to inform the public of what is going on at the Town using the media outlets that are available, including this one.
I expect all council members to provide the public with a unified position after debates are over. While someone may have voted against a motion in council session and lost, they must accept the decision of council and show the public that they support that decision.
Finally, we must all agree that being a council member, in this or any municipality, is a thankless pursuit. There will always be someone that disagrees with you and you will never be able to please everyone at the same time. I expect that being on council for some is a stepping stone to bigger and better political goals. They must remember who they are working for in the present, the resume will fill in itself.
I encourage the current councillors and mayor to take a hard look at the responses in this blog. We are almost in the last 18 months of this council. Some will try to get re-elected. Some may be successful. Others have shown that they do not have the "stuff" to be on council. They lack independent thinking and common sense to see who they really work for. They seem to think that they work for the Mayor.
In the ongoing absence of any authentic journalism in this town, and since the Aurora Citizen's customary hyperventilation persists unabated, those burdened with these questions might consider a novel approach: Go directly to the source, be it Buck and her e-mails or MacEachern and her non-lawsuit, and ask them for the answers. Then ask more questions based on the answers. Then report back. It's called citizen journalism. It is not a new notion.
My guess, however, is that those who frequent this blog would prefer to continue whining to the choir and sniping at their foes from afar. That, from the beginning, has always seemed to to serve their purposes. But it does get rather tedious.
And to the person who seemed upset that "questions just led to more questions," well, haven't you noticed that real life usually works that way?
I shall sit back now and await the usual self-righteous diatribes. They always provide mild amusement.
“I also expect council to conduct town business (ie. debates) in council sessions. While I freely acknowledge the right to free speech, using the local media to distort positions or debate council decisions via Letters to the Editor is not only in bad taste, it is unprofessional. I do however encourage all members of council to inform the public of what is going on at the Town using the media outlets that are available, including this one."
This is quite a contradictory statement, Robert The Bruce. “Use the local media, and don’t use the local media”.
I understand you feel it’s important NOT to distort positions or debate the council’s decisions – BUT…how can one person give their interpretation of what transpires in council and expect it not to be biased, even just a little bit?
“I expect all council members to provide the public with a unified position after debates are over. While someone may have voted against a motion in council session and lost, they must accept the decision of council and show the public that they support that decision.”
I think this is one of the rules for councillors…that they have to go along with the final decision of council, but I’m not confident that they have to ‘show the public that they support the decision.’
Support the decision making abilities of council, yes, but maybe someone with some council experience can clarify. Do you have to show the public that you support the decision? What if you don’t? That would be a tough spot to be in, especially if someone asks how you feel about the issue.
“Finally, we must all agree that being a council member, in this or any municipality, is a thankless pursuit. There will always be someone that disagrees with you and you will never be able to please everyone at the same time."
The satisfaction of knowing you’ve been elected in hopes of making a difference? That’s got to be worth something. And, the salary is worth something as well, no?
re anonymous posting April 12th 1:32 am
With all due respect, I have no doubt you are cherry picking the comments in the judgement. If you are not, then why not provide the link to the judgment so we can all read it ourselves?
And speaking of the excerpted comments - they seem to be speaking to comments made by Ms.MacEachern - NOT about any email of Councillor Buck. So, Ms.MacEachern's comments were raised as a concern by the folks suing the Town? in ADDITION to the concerns raised by her sending an email to them? why have we not heard about this before?
But anonymous April 12th, you seem to think that because the outcome was good - the Town won - that all should be forgiven? That Ms. MacEachern showed, "integrity"?? How so?
Intent and outcome are separate issues.
There was no logical reason for Ms. MacEachern to forward that email to the lawyers representing persons who are going to court against the Town. One can only surmise it was to do harm. To the Town or to Ms. Buck, is unclear and irrelevant.
Simply because the Town won, does not erase what Ms. MacEachern did as you presume. If you follow your logic, if someone say robs a bank, but doesn't get any money, then no harm no foul, no charges should be laid. Do you think that would fly in court? Do you really think that charges would not be laid? Again, intent and outcome are separate issues.
At its most basic level, in forwarding that email, Ms. MacEachern failed to uphold her duty to the residents of this Town.
She should step down.
I hope that fact is not lost through the haze of smoke you are billowing about.
Re Robert The Bruce's comments:
Majority rule is the principle of democracy.Winston Churchill has been credited with the quote - Democracy is the worst system there is, except for all the rest.
Parliamentary rules enforce the principle. Once decided by the majority a question cannot be rehashed time and time again in the hopes of obtaining a different result. Council time cannot be wasted that way.(HA!)
There is no requirement, ethical, professional, written or otherwise that a person voting in a minority is compelled to surrender conviction.
That's Fascism.
A councillor does not lose rights by virtue of having been elected.
The idea is preposterous.
A councillor speaks not just for themselves but for whoever cast a ballot in their favour. At least for the term she holds office.
Web sites and Blogs are new in politics. They are here to stay.
Get used to it.
Formely, politicians depended on external media for communication of their ideas. I was seldom badly served. But the new way is better.
I am Woman. Hear me roar.
Heather, you should look up the Aurora Council's Code of Ethics.
It connects with some ideas Robert the Bruce wrote about.
Negative engagement, Buck style, turns people away from participating.
Democracy suffers when the majority are fed a steady diet of attack politics.
That's my difficulty with Evelyn Buck.
She churns out a constant stream of attacks, criticisms, contrariness.
She undermines the democratic process that needs all of us to risk full participation.
That's a sad state of affairs Aurora Citizen.
Councillor Buck is always being attacked for giving you the FACTS? She is the one with most the History. She has served this town faithfully. She has the knowledge. Since when is it such a bad thing to have knowledge? When she asks questions it is made very apparent that she should not! When she states facts they to are not welcomed. She is continually shut down by her colleges. They and others do not want to share in the wealth of knowledge that Councillor Buck has. Is that Buck's fault? I think that if they listen with open ears and minds then everyone could learn a thing or two.
This past post was asking the question "Who do Councillors work for?" They ALL work for you, they ALL have a voice. They are free to express and communicate their thoughts and concerns in which ever way they choose. So as Evelyn says "get used to it"!
To Anonymous April 11 6:49
Is there some place I can go to find FACTS to back you up on your questions. You are asking some pretty strong questions and unlike Councillor Buck You DO NOT back yourself up with facts. I am bias. I do like to have food for thought so that I can make my own decisions and you are not giving me any. You are just making me ask the question What the Hell are you talking about?.
For whom do councillors work?
So, it turns out that Evelyn Buck gives us her take on the question.
She uses the words "preposterous"and "fascist" to respond to someone who, I assume, is a prospective voter, someone wanting to "dialogue" with her.
I think April 14, 7:01 PM nailed it.
Evelyn Buck, elected to office, prides herself on roaring, like a lion in a jungle: the antithesis of what nourishes a vibrant, effective democracy.
Seemingly, her ideas rule; others are, dare I reiterate, "fascist".
While others are busily trying to engage the electorate, Buck, wants supremacy: the rule of the jungle!
Yes she does make clear where she stands: seemingly a position in which her views are facts, her opinions are golden.
Every other idea or opinion is food for the hungry lion, queen of the jungle.
I think sometimes people get too uptight about the words that Evelyn Buck uses, instead of the intent behind them. That's my take, anyway. She can roar all she wants, as long as she makes good solid decisions, I'm okay with it.
"While others are busily trying to engage the electorate"
Is that what happened when they disregarded the stated, overwhelming majority (90% approx.) to hold a by-election to fill Grace Marsh's vacated seat?
Is that how the 'others' nourish "a vibrant, effective democracy"? No, that was a nakedly political move to avoid a possibly non-compliant "wild card" filling the vacancy. Much better to appoint a grateful, vetted rookie, beholden only to "the ruling elite", than to have an independent person not following their agenda. Not to mention, running the risk of an old foe re-entering the fray with so much of the term yet to be served.
Well, what to do? How do they subvert the documented support for a by-election? How do they subjugate their natural instinct to 'pander' to the wishes of a vocal faction of residents, now that it doesn't suit their purposes?
Well, they introduce the canard that a by-election would mean a lengthy process. Time is of the essence here and, oh, did we mention the cost? Speaking of which, let's add to the exhorbitant legal services budget and get an outside lawyer to 'ride shotgun' during the council meeting when we ram this through with bluster and bafflegab. A 'suit' spouting legalese is bound to bolster our cause. I doubt if anyone was questioning the legality of an appointment, only that it wasn't the preferred option. Legal, yes - "the right thing to do", NO.
So, to continue the jungle analogy, let's hope that the electorate is like the elephant and never forgets. That come election time, they don't forget that the mayor and the "Morris Minors" put their political agenda ahead of the documented desire for a by-election.
Now, that would've been engaging the electorate to nourish a vibrant, effective democracy. Not too much to ask, I would've thought.
Remember, Aurorans...
Anonymous 9:05am -
I think Evelyn was responding to Heather's question about whether a councillor has to support a council decision in public that s/he doesn't agree with.
I figured that s/he can still say what s/he thinks - this is a democracy after all.
People go on and on about Evelyn. Yet no one mentions the others good or bad. They don't seem to exists. I don't know but good or bad Evelyn is the only one people are talking about. Be careful what you wish for people. Evelyn never ceases to amazes.
Buck's tone, her comments, her simple-minded decisions that demonstrate a lack of ability to entertain the complexity of today's issues, bog down the work of council.
Buck's eccentricities subvert the serious work this town needs to do.
I can't believe the nonsense she engaged in during yesterday's council meeting.
Evelyn Buck wastes everyone's time, by forcing them to set the record straight.
She chooses to misrepresent information; that's her tactic.
What good decisions has she made?
What contributions has she made to community building?
I agree with Anonymous, April 15, 2009 11:13 AM about people being uptight with the words that Councillor Buck sometimes uses in her writings.
I've learned that when I read her missives to first take a grain of salt, then read, take a big breath, and then re-read.
Usually on the re-read I find a nugget of info that intrigues or concerns me.
Buck Shot, indeed.
I find value in the way she uses the "new" media to bring attention to an issue I probably otherwise wouldn't know about.
It spurs me to research on my own and not just take her word for it.
Councillor Buck is at least true to herself and the electorate knows this and continues to elect her to council.
Last election I threw my vote for some "new blood", and I wish to heaven I hadn't in some cases.
I still wouldn't have voted for Ev (haven't done so since the 80s), but I wouldn't feel so stupid having cast my vote for the likes of some councillors that just seem to fall into step.
I don't know where they stand on an issue - except as far out of Mayor Morris' firing line as possible.
I agree with Sid Brittain.
After sitting beside Councillor Buck for a full term I always appreciated her grasp of the issues.
Some may suggest that she is missing a step -- I assure you she is not. You may disagree with her position -- I often did -- but she knows her facts and presents them passionately. Better that than luke warm spit.
I also agree that you must take her comments with a grain of salt. But that is her style and I respect her for it. I am sure many folks didn't appreciate my style either.
The real issue is whether one has an open mind to points other than your own.
Sift through the rhetoric and listen for the nuggets that will inform your own decision-making. When you do that, sometimes the person you disagree with the most has the most to offer.
Enough about Evelyn Buck. Maybe we should 'obsess' about another councillor for a while. I watched the council meeting and listened to Granger saying SOMETHING to the man from the Region who spoke about the hospital..... I've never met anyone who can say so many words but not convey a point.
Where did he come from? What kind of platform did he present at election time? I know he's one of the 'Morris Minions' but how did he get there? Anyone know?
I am a little disappointed with this topic as it always looks as if people always want to concentrate on Morris, Buck and now McEachren. To me they are all to blame for this poor council showing. The worst is Morris as she has done a Stephen Harper and muzzled the rest of the councillors. Buck will always speak her mind but by now anyone who has lived in Aurora for any length of time should know Buck's tactics on wearing down any councillors who care. McEachren has changed, as she used to care about Aurora and actually added to council meetings. Now, she and Morris seem to have a script ready before the meetings to make sure that none of the followers do not step out of line. Grainger, Wilson and Gaertner are all a waste of a council chair.None of them really have an intelligent thought or if they do, the mayors won't allow them to say anything. The three of them have added nothing to this term other than doing what Morris and McEachren tells them. Gallo was a great choice by the mayors as he also has said nothing so he will not upset them. He will need their votes if he runs again.
It is too bad that they continue the act that they love the mayors. Oh wait, they do.
To you people who think that Evelyn is the one who holds up council meetings you might like to get a copy of a meeting and watch. You will find that Evelyn is usually the one questioning what the others are doing. You will find that one Councillor in particular likes to throw mud and plenty of it when allowed. Which is often. You will also find that many matters are continually referred back to Department Heads with no other reason except that the council did not like that answer. They will not be happy until the answer is the one they want. Much of the towns business is put on hold NOT because of Councillor Buck. This is your money they are spending here. Are you really sure that this Bunch is spending it in your best interest? I am not!
Heather....
I guess you are of the impression that using local media to distort reality, prop up your opinions or show "sour grapes" that you lost a vote is the same thing as writing a letter to keep the public informed about a community event or a new town service? It's all in the content. There is no condradiction there, they are quite different uses in my opinion.
To be honest, I don't think that a council member should even write about their "interpretation" of a council debate. That will only show their bias and is counter to a productive council.
As far as "going along" with a council decision. I am not naive enough to think that all councillors will be happy with all decisions. What I do not like to see is a councillor write a letter to the editor a week after the debate/vote/whatever and the content of the letter is simply that "... the council did not listen to me and they voted the wrong way...." or "I am right and they are wrong". It is not a productive use of media in my opinion. I know Evelyn will take exception with my statements, but that's to be expected.
As I said, I expect all members of council to accept decisions that are made in council and present them to public. Accepting a decision does not mean that they like the decision. Again, it's not productive to me for them to rant on about it after the barn door has been closed.
How many of the current members of council are actually "making a difference"? They might have gone into this with open eyes and great expectations, but I am afraid that the stipend that is paid to them is small compensation. I am afraid that all of the members of the current council will go down in local history however as the most ineffectual council in the modern history of Aurora.
Evelyn,
I have never asked a council member to "surrender conviction". However, as stated above, there is no value in harping over a decision that has been made. Take the vote, count them and move on. if you don't like the decision, suck it up.
I also never asked councillors to give up any rights. I think that "common sense" in regards to media use is the best way that I can say it.
I guess I can only sum up my "wish list" of a council member would be one that uses "common sense" and has what I call "customer service skills". You do not want a councillor that thinks that once elected they are above those that elected him/her. You want someone that is responsive to the needs of those that they serve. You want someone that can work with others around the table (even if they don't like them).
Fuimus
What's sad is that everyone is on an Eveylyn tirade and is losing sight of the REAL issue, which is how does Aurora support one of its own councillors forwarding emails to the person suing the Town. The contents of the email matters not, its the fact that it was sent that is mind-boggling. The fact that no one cares to dicuss that issue is even more concerning.
My dear it is the focus of this site that is of concern.
It is unabashedly interested in dumping the mayor and those who seem to support her.
As such it is of no interest to any ordinary person who lives in Aurora looking for positive community.
Those in the past who had no use for Buck now champion her because her sole purpose is to bring down the mayor and her support system.
It's the kind of politics that keeps low voter turnout, the kind that polarizes residents, setting one part of town against another, one person against another, one idea against another.
What it does not do is respectfully encourage all Aurora citizens to participate, or even feel pride in their community.
It is why citizens have contempt for politics and politicians.
It is why democracy is threatened, all in the name of freedom of speech.
A small group has chosen to sully the concept of an Aurora Citizen for their own political gain.
The fact that the focus of this site is to openly run an election campaign this early by attacking those holding office, as opposed to offering progressive constructive ideas for building a distinct, healthy community... appalls me.
It does let me know what is going on behind the scenes.
That I appreciate.
We now know the reason those who run this site chose/choose to remain anonymous.
Their names will be known during the traditional campaign period, when they run for office or prop up someone to represent their brand.
Robert the Bruce....
First of all….let me tell you how much I appreciate the fact that you are open to discussing all this stuff! There’s nothing so frustrating as to say what I think and just get ‘neener neener’ in response.
I agree with you – it is all in the content, and the context. That being said… I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with ‘propping up your opinions’. If I firmly believe something, what’s to stop me from telling everyone that’s what I believe? I do see your point, however. My opinion could very well be distorted reality in your opinion, or vice versa. But, everyone’s got an opinion.
I found that at the beginning of this term the ‘debate’ during council was a lot better than it is at this point. That was a large part of what drew me in. It was very interesting to hear both sides of the point at hand. That doesn’t happen very often now, unfortunately.
About a councillor writing a letter to the Auroran after a meeting - I’m okay to just agree to disagree on that one. Provided the letter isn’t malicious, I think it’s perfectly acceptable.
I can’t speak to this council being the most ineffectual in modern history – but I certainly do miss the ‘back and forth’ nature of the debate. Maybe that’s why I enjoy this blog and the letters to the editor so much – because although it doesn’t offer up both sides…it is informative.
If I were asked to attribute my repeated elections to Aurora Council,my answer would be my willingness to put down in writing for all to read, my position on issues which had to be decided by the town.
There is no political imperative to change my view of a matter after a council vote.
I recognise no obligation to support a decision which I consider to be bad for the town. because it was made by the majority.We do not have a majority on this Council. We have a gelatinous mass.
I have no power to change or undermine a majority decision.Nor would I waste time trying.
If Robert the Bruce believes I have distorted facts in letters to the editor. he has a moral obligation to support that accusation with evidence.
I take strong exception to being accused of distorting facts.I have lost elections by steadfast refusal at any cost to distort my understanding of facts.
I have written letters to the Editor for fifty years.I spend precious time without financial compensations putting forth my conviction for all to read.
The response I receive is all I need to convince me the effort is worthwhile.
I don't write for people who hate the fact that what I have to say might have an influence.
I don't write for the patronising, condescending, superior chauvinists, who with-hold all credit when they cite "at least Evelyn Buck"
I write for people who trust me. have done so for almost half a century and look forward to reading what I have to write.
The editor of The Auroran is generous in the space he allows me.
I know he would allow equal space to anyone who might wish to prove where and when I have distorted facts. All he needs from a letter-writer is a signature.
I revel in the privilege we all enjoy of exercising freedom of expression. I make no apology for that.
Those who find themselves skewered by their own words and actions when they are quoted in letters. blogs and comments to the Citizen, can squeal and squawk all they like. Until they understand their utterances as elected officials are in the public domain, my efforts will be to continue to repeat them.
They lost no time making it clear where the power lay in this council. They made certain from the beginning, I would have no role to play.
They were wrong.
"We now know the reason those who run this site chose/choose to remain anonymous.
Their names will be known during the traditional campaign period, when they run for office or prop up someone to represent their brand."
Oh for the love of Pete! Anybody can add content to the site - send an email to the moderator if you've got a new topic to discuss.
Someone somewhere commented about restaurants in Aurora and which ones they like etc, and the very next comment was an angry one; "I don't want to talk about fish and chips on Wellington"...etc.
As a collaborative place - I don't think it's the moderator who's 'uncooperative' or not allowing participation. Check out the mission statement.
I think Councillor McEachern is the best councillor I have ever seen in my 30 years of tuning in to Aurora council.
She is always knowledgeable, well prepared, organized, thoughtful, with a vision of the town that takes into account that a town needs a heart.
She cares about the environment, safety, and the needs of all residents.
I support her fully.
Too bad MacEachern has a potty mouth and no respect for people.
You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone
To my mind, Councillor MacEachern is the most destructive force this Town Council has seen in decades (well the past 17 years that I have been here.) She is, to use someone else's term, simply "toxic"."
She adds nothing to the debate - except for endless questions and rude one liners to staff.
Speaking the most doesn't mean you have the most - if anything - to say. That salient point seems lost on her.
Ms. MacEachern cares about herself and her favoured few. To say she cares about the Town (!) or the environment (!!) is frankly ridiculous. Aside from a convoluted and utterly ridiculous motion about the gas powered plant, she's not done or said a peep for the environment. Just presiding over a committee is not evidence of "working for the environment".
I will agree that in the previous Council when she was a Councillor, she did make a more positive contribution - at least occasionally.
But this time around, she brings the whole council down with her disgraceful behaviour. I mean seriously, have you watched a council meeting?
This blog is filled with comments about the Mayor. Some I agree with, some I don't. But what doesn't seem to get said is, that it is, for the most part, Ms. MacEachern that is the worst of that Council. Without her there, I think things would go along a lot better.
I definitely think the Mayor would be far more effective if she wasn't bogged down with having to deal with the temperamental, rude and overbearing MacEachern. She has to appease her - or else...
Re: Anonymous 11:53 AM
I once took my young son to hear An
Aurora Council requested speaker. After her presentation all councillors with the exception of Ms Mceachern thanked her for her presentation. Ms Mceachern sat there with her mad on because she did hear what she wanted to hear. The look of disgust on her face still resonates with my son who wonders if that sourpuss is still on council.Sadly this classless know it all is and the above writer considers her Aurora's best councillor. What a joke.
Anyone else ever wonder why Buck wasn't re-elected as mayor and how she felt about it?
What a laugh! A group of us regularly watch the council meetings together for the sheer entertainment factor.
Evelyn Buck is negative about everything, then crosses her arms and stares into space.
Frequently she seems to be there for the sole purpose of raining on someone's parade: residents or other councillors.
She seems to always find something to criticize.
What positives has she initiated or promoted?
We'd love to hear about those.
"Anyone else ever wonder why Buck wasn't re-elected as mayor and how she felt about it?"
What exactly are you fishing for? She wasn't re-elected because she didn't earn enough votes. Only Buck can speak for how she felt, but I bet she wasn't happy about it.
Get a life.
Why is it that everyone here trash talks?
Is that an expectation?
"Anyone else ever wonder why Buck wasn't re-elected as mayor and how she felt about it?"
Seemed like a reasonable question to me.
I looked back to read some history.
Didn't expect: "What exactly are you fishing for?"
" Get a life."
It seems that people are very angry.
I'm new to this town and am trying to learn about it.
I guess there is a shadow side to all towns.
I don't think I'll return here. It made me feel afraid, the more I read.
I didn't hear about this sort of stuff before I moved here. I thought it would be a friendly place.
My neighbors are nice. Thank goodness.
"It made me feel afraid, the more I read."
Don't be afraid. If everyone who posted made up a pseudonym though, it would help with the tracking.
Post a Comment