Posts
The following email was received from Neil Garbe, CAO of the Town of Aurora Monday June 1. It is posted unedited in its entirety. This is the second request -- the original was sent May 29.
Please post the following:I note that as of June 1, 2009 5:00 p.m. the comment of an individual under the pseudonym “New_Man_In_Town” is still posted on this site that alleges criminal wrong-doing on the part of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora. I am reiterating my request that the moderator of the Aurora Citizen immediately remove the comment, apologize for its inclusion on the site and contact “New_Man_in_Town” and solicit a retraction and apology from that individual. I feel it is a reasonable expectation to fulfill this request by 5:00 p.m. on June 2, 2009.
Thank you,
Neil Garbe
Chief Administrative Officer
The Corporation of the Town of Aurora
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
20 comments:
Who is the moderator?
I don't understand how you can request that an anonymous comment be retracted. I mean, sure, you can request it - but who's to say that New_Man_in_Town actually reads this stuff on a regular basis to comply with the request?
Are there different rules governing the internet? New Man could be sitting around town gabbing in a pub about what he thinks. Does the fact that he posted it here anonymously make it any worse? Any better?
The 'nickname' was just typed in - anyone could post as the same nickname (which is one of the benefits of registering a name if you intend to use one) at any time.
What kind of 'all actions that may be required to identify the individuals involved' can be taken to out someone who's anonymous? Please don't scare off all the Anonymous commenters - some of them have some really good stuff to add to the discussion here.
From a blog owner - there is NO way for the average Joe to find out who made an anonymous comment.
" I feel it is a reasonable expectation to fulfill this request by 5:00 p.m. on June 2, 2009."
Or what? You're going to ask him again? Can't people say what they think around here?
Oh, one more thing I just realized....even if *I* comment anonymously, or by filling in the Name/URL box, I cannot erase it after the fact.
So N_M_i_T won't be able to either.
Mr. Garbe has not been authorised by council to enter into political dialogue on a blog as Chief Administrator of the Town of Aurora.
It follows therefore his communication has no official status.
I cannot attach my employer's name to anything if I speak out politically. That's part of our employee code of conduct.
How does that work when you work for a corporation that DOES include politics? If Garbe is doing this of his own accord - can he get in trouble for it.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Garbe has elected (pun indented) to politicize The Corporation of the Town of Aurora . Or, perhaps I should say, to openly politicize.
I have read the two comments the N_M_I_T made with reference to the minutes of the May 12 Council meeting. He makes no mention of the Town. He does state that he thinks the Mayor’s actions are “criminal”.
Mr. Garbe states in his first letter that his responsibility is to “protect the Town and those for whom it is responsible”, and I would agree with that.
However, unless the Mayor is an employee of the Town of Aurora, I fail to see the validity of his actions. And, if the Mayor is considered an employee, why would the rest of the council also not fall into this category? As the old saying goes, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So, if Mr. Garbe is truly interested in protecting the Town and those for whom it is responsible, why did he not:
1) Intervene when a member of the public was carrying on against an elected official at the May 12th council meeting?
2) Intervene when the vote to suspend the rules of procedure was not properly carried?
3) Offer to review the minutes of the May 12 meeting when their integrity was called into question?
Some think that point 2 is merely a technicality (and it is a technicality, which is of course the whole point of having these rules).
Well, if Mr. Garbe insists on going down this slippery slope, and attempt to follow through on these threats, presumably through the courts, technicalities will reign supreme – and the legal bills will rain supreme. And, this will grind on and nothing will come of it.
Mr. Garbe - cut your losses now before you seriously and permanently damage your reputation.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Garbe has elected (pun indented) to politicize The Corporation of the Town of Aurora . Or, perhaps I should say, to openly politicize.
I have read the two comments the N_M_I_T made with reference to the minutes of the May 12 Council meeting. He makes no mention of the Town. He does state that he thinks the Mayor’s actions are “criminal”.
Mr. Garbe states in his first letter that his responsibility is to “protect the Town and those for whom it is responsible”, and I would agree with that.
However, unless the Mayor is an employee of the Town of Aurora, I fail to see the validity of his actions. And, if the Mayor is considered an employee, why would the rest of the council also not fall into this category? As the old saying goes, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So, if Mr. Garbe is truly interested in protecting the Town and those for whom it is responsible, why did he not:
1) Intervene when a member of the public was carrying on against an elected official at the May 12th council meeting?
2) Intervene when the vote to suspend the rules of procedure was not properly carried?
3) Offer to review the minutes of the May 12 meeting when their integrity was called into question?
Some think that point 2 is merely a technicality (and it is a technicality, which is of course the whole point of having these rules).
Well, if Mr. Garbe insists on going down this slippery slope, and attempt to follow through on these threats, presumably through the courts, technicalities will reign supreme – and the legal bills will rain supreme. And, this will grind on and nothing will come of it.
Mr. Garbe - cut your losses now before you seriously and permanently damage your reputation.
I think that the taxpayers of Aurora would be happier if Mr Garbe would ask council to correct the minutes of the meeting where MS St Kitts blasted a Town Councillor.
I know he has a tough job but it would be better to correct something that is wrong rather than an anonymous post.
Who is to say that "New Man In Town" is not Mr. Garbe in the first place? Afterall, he is a new man in town.
The internet's blogs are that anonymous. He could be posting to stir the pot and cause unrest in the blog.
I'll go put my tin-foil hat back on now...
Fuimus
Why doesn't the moderator delete the comment, as requested?
Hasn't the CAO of the Corporation got something better to do on the behalf of the taxpayers? Mr. Garbe, please get on with the business of this Town.
Mr. Garbe is not entering into a political dialogue on a blog.
When my friends and family are disturbed by nasty comments about me on this blog.I comfort them with the thought that comforts me.The degree of vindictiveness says more about the writer than the target.
Now I would ask you, who have seen it for yourselves, to contemplate how it must be for employees. who have no recourse, to be subject to the same level of virulence.
They can't fight back. There is only one option. And if you have kids and a mortgage it isn't.
"The allegations are unsubstantiated and unproven".
This applies to the comment under review.
Why doesn't the moderator remove the comment if that is the stated policy?
Mr Garbe enter the dialogue when he commented with a letter on this site. If that is not getting involved with this site, then neither are my comments now or yours before me. Write and ye shall receive!
Mr. Garbe,
Bill Hogg said what the council did was 'illegal', on page 8 of today's Auroran. You may want to send out the search dogs.
Mr. Garbe is asking that an unfair comment be deleted.
That is not entering into a political dialogue.
There is a huge difference!
Evelyn Buck says, "The degree of vindictiveness says more about the writer than the target."
Does this then not apply to the targets of Evelyn's vindictive writing.
Some say vindictiveness begets vindictiveness.
No one benefits and there is far reaching collateral damage.
I understand that the town's legal council has an obligation to protect our town council in legal matters when requested to do so (which I trust is the case here), but I'm not so sure that Mr. Garbe can protect our council from itself, no matter how many legal threats he may make or imply.
As well meaning as they may be, the level of back stabbing, self serving and incompetent manipulation appears to me to be about as bad now as it has ever been on council and that is definitely not good thing. The only new twist to our local government is the new litigious nature that our Mayor has apparently imposed on council and those that dare to challenge her ethics or competence. Quite clearly the little people of Aurora should not dare to question the people behind the curtain in our wonderful town of OZ for fear of being ignored, insulted, manipulated or any number of other potential negative outcomes including the latest threat of being sued by your own town. It may make for good small town entertainment on one level but the ongoing drama that our Mayor and council continue to subject us to sure does not make for good government if you ask me, but then again, what do I know ? In the fall of 2006 I honestly thought that this was going to be a new and improved, more well informed, more constructive, softer and more gentle government, but I have unfortunately come to think not. Here's hoping that we can collectively get it right the next time.
Post a Comment