Posts
The general rule is that Councillors confine their questions to the subject of the delegation. However, last night Councillor MacEachern didn’t feel compelled to adhere to the rules of civility that didn’t work in her favour. And Mayor Morris wasn’t willing or able to stop her.
Historically Council members confine their questions of any delegate to the subject of their delegation. However last night at Council Meeting after Bill Hogg made a presentation in Open Forum Councillor MacEachern challenged him on his relationship with this blog and further charged that this blog is not balanced. (Video here time 23:15 - 27:00)
Mr Hogg took the opportunity to remind Councillor MacEachern that she and any member of Council was welcome to participate -- but they have chosen not to as a named contributor.
You can drawn your own conclusions about whether they participate anonymously based on the comments your read.
Mr Hogg also pointed out that the balance of this and any blog was driven by the participants who chose to make comments versus the moderator who merely starts the thread.
So if you don't like what others have to say, make your own points. Just please make sure your facts are correct and not opinions stated as facts. Such as who owns and moderates this blog.
If the balance is off on this blog -- possibly it is because of the disappointment in the activities of Council. Welcome to the online world of blogs, twitter, facebook, etc. For the first time people have a powerful forum to communicate their perspectives -- good and bad. Wishing it wasn't so won't make it so.
Possibly, Councillor MacEachern should demonstrate some leadership about the balance she wants from this blog at the Council table. Maybe she's not familiar with the concept of "the pot calling the kettle black" ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
I really cannot understand why certain members have their knickers in a twist about blogs. It is an excellent forum for expressing opinions, sparking debate and learning and sharing information. I think those on council who are so paranoid about blogging should move into the 21st century at last and realize that blogs are for everyone and if they are not prepared to get with it, they should stop being critical of those who do....but then perhaps they are not even sure of how to turn on a computer or other electronic devices. God knows that the mayor has the greatest trouble of all with turning on her microphone... although she likes to criticize others about it.
If you get an opportunity to watch the replay as they say, watch MS Evilina's hands as she questions Mr Hogg about his involvement on this forum. She was visibly very perturbed and her hands were shaking hard. She should also be taken to task for the hypocracy during her long winded presentation where she defended the actions of the GOS in going after Ms. Buck "for the staff" she repeated often enough I almost gagged. I was personally in the audience several years ago when she belittled and questioned the abilities of the Director of Corporate Services about the Vote Counting Machines.(a 10K boondoggle that the taxpayers ate).Dick Illingsworth was beside himself in anger at the spectacle.I too felt embarrassed having to witness this public humiliation by a councillor of a senior Staff Member. Perhaps Evilina suffers from Kurt Waldheim's disease.Her actions that day were a disgrace and make Ms Buck's so called crime a pittance if in fact she committed a crime against staff.To say she has the staff's back in this action against Ms. Buck is downright disgusting.
I did watch and I was annoyed that she asked Mr. Hogg if he was the moderator here. Council is curious, as we all are, but what purpose could be served by that information becoming public? I'm sure the mayor has already directed her taxpayer funded legal eagles to dissect this blog and if they had any legal grounds to demand it be shut down they would have do so long before now. Would knowing the identity of the AC negate the terrible disservice this GOS has done to Aurora? Anyone tuning in for the first time last night to listen to their impassioned speaches might be tempted to believe that the GOS have only the best interests of Aurora taxpayers in their hearts and minds, but the rest of us that have been witness to this debacle from the beginning know better. By all means, Aurora Citizen, remain anonymous, you are providing a great service to this town in offering a forum for constructive debate and discussion. My biggest wish is that after the next election, we will no longer have need of you.
The hypocrisy of this site, and its censorship are MOST revealing.
Councillor MacEachern is fussed suggesting that this blog is not balanced. Oh my! Do you think she looses sleep over this? Watch the meeting and come to your own conclusion. I think she should spend her time thinking about providing some balance on council.
I think asking Bill Hogg if he was the moderator was a fair question.
If he is the moderator, he may have an interest in how this council is perceived; hence, his control of the blog may be biased.
In the end, if it is his blog he can steer it in direction he believes is fit; but I think full disclosure is warranted.
I watched the meeting online last night. The part that got me is how the GOS keeps insisting they're not the Gang of Six. Granger prattled on about it for quite a long time. If they're not in 'collusion' - how is it that they all ended up appearing with their award accepting speeches at the same time?
And...if the Mayor cannot say more about the IC because of the letter "sent only to me, JUST me", and if the issue is so important then why didn't someone else talk about it ?
To quote (sort of) what Bill Hogg said about respecting the office held by the Mayor & Councillors...the GOS are each an insult to the office they hold.
Good on you Bill for speaking out and requesting legal fees paid. My fear is that if Evelyn was not permitted to have that information, we the 'mere public' will not likely ever see it either.
I was pleased that MacEachern asked the question, and allowed Bill Hogg to give a public response.
For me it is an issue that this blog represents, and encourages cowardly comments, and is loathe to allow freedom of speech for all for all points of view.
Hey sports fans! I'm sure we've all shared our opinions with family and friends as well as this blog but try this next time you're out and about. Ask people you DON’T know what they think. No need to accost strangers on the street but when you chat with a client, a teacher, a store clerk or anyone that might be a casual acquaintance make a harmless statement like "Geez, seems to be a bit of kerfuffle on town council". Wanna bet that you'll get a blank look and a shrug? Chances are they’ll have no idea what you’re on about; one person I spoke with didn’t even know the mayor’s name. Go ahead and try it because outside of a very tiny group of us - NOBODY CARES!
And my point?
The GOS knows it too which is why they roll merrily along catering to their core supporters.
"For me it is an issue that this blog represents, and encourages cowardly comments, and is loathe to allow freedom of speech for all for all points of view."
Way to make a point, Anonymous! You stand by your principles, Non-Identified One!
(Oh, your comment was published...right, so your point of view was expressed...okay...isn't this "freedom of speech" thing great?!)
"If he is the moderator, he may have an interest in how this council is perceived; hence, his control of the blog may be biased.
In the end, if it is his blog he can steer it in direction he believes is fit; but I think full disclosure is warranted."
I think Bill was spot on in saying that the 'bent' of any medium comes from the writers. Yes, in this case the moderator probably provides the topics at hand (although I have suggested topics, some show up and others don't) - but the discussion is really here in the comments.
Any time you put more than 1 person in a room you're risking having more than one opinion present - but the fact that we can share our various opinions here is what it's all about.
I honestly don't think it matters WHO is moderating... from what I see all the moderator is doing is just that, moderating. Kudos to the moderator!
Hey Voltaire, one comment was published.
We don't know how many were not.
I know from my own experience that all comments are not published.
I now deduce that it is set up to ensure there is no balance.
Perhaps it's censored so that only a few comments that differ from the moderator's are allowed.
In fact the one published today is very like mine that was not published.
And why would anyone use a real name on a site that is moderated by an anonymous person?
It is about top down leadership.
It does make this blog repetitive, and ensures no meaningful dialogue can develop.
I had hoped it would evolve but now I must agree with friends who wonder why I waste my time on it.
I find it amazing that the handle Votaire is considered different than using Anonymous.
The reality is that Voltaire is every bit as anonymous as I am.
"If you put more than 1 person in a room you run the risk of more than one opinion". Not at the Aurora Council table. There you are sure to find most of them with the same answer and if you have one different then they will try to tar and feather you. Maybe they should invite the 3 who choose to vote differently to the council meeting they have before they have a council meeting and maybe they will all come with the same answer. NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
There seems to be a disconnect between the statement made that every voice has a place here, and the reality that minority views are censored.
I personally challenged comments made by Bill Hogg to Council.
The criticism was, not published, in effect censored.
I contrast that with comments that ridicule certain members of Council and their friends regularly published here.
Seemingly certain people are "fair game" but others are not.
Good that Councillor MacEachern dealt with the issue publicly.
Whoa, wait a minute, it this serious? This is absolutely, appallingly ridiculous. What Ms. MacEachern says to Mr. Hogg on their own time is their own business. But using town council time to ask if he writes a blog? What next, asking a resident that happens to be at council if it was their dog that pooped on her lawn?? For goodness sake people - - GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE TOWN AND STOP BEING TODDLERS!! Can't we find some sort of test for professionalism before people are allowed to run for council?
I'd love to see Evelina or the Lone Granger start a Blog ! Can you imagine the potential content ? But then again why would they go to any such effort when they can already post anonymously on Aurora Citizen ? (assuming of course their postings are not edited, which it looks to me like they likely arn't).
I see both sides represented on this site, even if one side seems to me to be a bit more rational than the other.
Evelina, could you please make a posting with your name attached, so we all know exactly where you really stand on a few important questions ?
Please clarify how many times you and members of the G6 have already posted comments on this site anonymously. Even a ball park figure would be fine if you have lost count.
An honest and open posting would be a great opportunity for you to provide factual examples to back up your claim that this site is biased and maybe while you are at it you could also provide those people interested in such things, with an explanation as to why the council minutes don’t match with what was said at the now notorious council meeting in the early stages of this seemingly never ending drama.
It is unfortunate that a law suit might get in the way of you explaining what specifically Councilor Buck is supposed to apologize for and if you have offered an apology for making inappropriate comments to any number of people, while copying “all council” in some instance. The e-mail to Councilor Buck Evelyn in around 3:40 am on Halloween a couple of years back in which you advised her to check with her doctor in order see if she had mad cow disease springs to mind. Given that the Mayor was copied on that e-mail as well as others like it, I have to wonder if she has ever advised you to behave more civilly or do you suspect even remotely that there may actually be a double standard being applied, as some of us seem to think ?
I think these questions deserve to be answered openly and honestly given that you are making certain general allegations of others while trying to set the moral standard along side of our Mayor.
The Mayor could also answer a few similar questions about some inconsistencies in her statements and actions but in the interest of time and space I will wait for your timely response before delivering a list of simple questions to the Mayor.
"I had hoped it would evolve but now I must agree with friends who wonder why I waste my time on it.
I find it amazing that the handle Votaire is considered different than using Anonymous.
The reality is that Voltaire is every bit as anonymous as I am."
Thanks for the chuckle. If you really don't like The Aurora Citizen, then my question is why are you wasting your time? Go be wherever makes you happy. Take your toys and go home. I don't understand the point of your post. I don't do things I don't like (well, except the manditory stuff).
"Voltaire" is no less anonymous than you are, the difference is that I can say "Hey, remember when Voltaire said ...." Using a nickname just makes the back and forth easier to follow.
And, people keep saying "Bill Hogg is the moderator". If you read the posts discussing this.... yes, there's proof out there that Bill created the blog. Same as how I created the layout/format/etc for Evelyn's blog. That doesn't mean he is the moderator. That doesn't mean he's not either. And it doesn't mean nobody else is involved (although I think I can surmise that Cllr MacEachern isn't involved)
:o)
Cheers!
"I find it amazing that the handle Votaire is considered different than using Anonymous.
The reality is that Voltaire is every bit as anonymous as I am."
Perhaps, but rather more imaginative.
The serious local issue is there is not a fair process to allow a citizen to file a formal complaint against a Councilor or Mayor
The current process I am told is to contact the CAO which I would guess no one would feel as a safe process .
What does a citizen do if bullied by a Councilor or Mayor .
The answer is continue to tell the truth to as many who will listen because bullies rely on you being quiet and submissive to the force they believe they have .
Might is never right unless we are talking boxing or wrestling and thats a topic for debate and folks this is a council with a few bullies .
When someone who is supposed to be a leader shakes with emotion when speaking and appears angry on camera ,imagine what they could be like behind closed doors or in public without witness .
Imagine someone who bullies an ice cream vendor in a park .
Just because you have the position of power does not give you the right to forget respect .
I can only imagine the content of the comments that have been rejected on this blog.
Listening to Evilina spew her venom publicly is disgusting... Just think of what she is capable of anonymously.
Amen to Stephanie Allen!
And I'm lovin' Council Cop. I too remember the Mad Cow email as forwarded by Evelina to her pals. And some of those pals sent it on to other not-so-pally-pals. Evelina should be more careful in her selection of friends.
The fact that some comments here support Evilina's line of questioning,Mr. Hogg's involvement with this forum,ironically only serves to further illustrate why this version of council is a disaster.At the beginning of council Ms Buck complained about the placement of the General Committee items related to the IC report in the agenda. Quickly Al Wilson and the Mayor expressed indignation that Ms Buck would pose such a question because past practice and protocol was being followed. Fair enough. Lets now fast forward to open forum and Mr. Hogg's statement to council. Since past practice and protocol is the rule, in open forum a councillor can only rebut the statement(s) made by only referring to what was said. Thus Ms. MacEachern was out of order asking her question of Mr Hogg's involvement with this forum. The rules MUST BE APPLIED EVENLY/CONSISTENTLY. I can understand Al Wilson not chiming in on Evilina...being the political lightweight he is, but where was our leader Ms. Morris. How can she hide behind past practice and protol when it comes to Ms. Buck but ignore it when it comes to Evilina? I guess this is why there is so much outrage about Ms Morris and this council.
Anonymous 5:04 wrote
"When someone who is supposed to be a leader shakes with emotion when speaking and appears angry on camera ,imagine what they could be like behind closed doors or in public without witness .
Imagine someone who bullies an ice cream vendor in a park .
Just because you have the position of power does not give you the right to forget respect .
Excellent points. Just ask Grace Marsh!
I actually posted this comment last night on the "Changing Priorities" post but I am not sure that anyone is reading or contributing to that any longer. Hence I am reposting my comment here:
I watched the council meeting last night.There were so many ironies and hypocrisies I thought:
Councillor Buck has been accused of leaking information, breaching confidentiality etc. yet it was Gaertner who couldn't keep her trap shut last night and bled confidentiality all over the chamber about the departures of staff. She and her little group wouldn't know the principles of or rights to confidentiality if they smacked them in the face.
Councillor Buck has been accused of being disrespectful and not observing decorum yet the sneering and smirking observed and the condescending, patronizing tone heard among Gaertner, Morris, MacEachern, Granger, Gallo and Wilson is hardly what I define as being respectful and observing decorum.
Councillor Buck has been accused of harrassing and making false accusations about staff yet you only have to watch council meetings during the last 3 years to witness MacEachern and Gaertner regularly accusing staff of not providing reports, many other misdemeanors and generally making disparaging comments to stafgf in public. Of course that was to the many now departed senior staff members. They now have their "dream team" (as the mayor put it) whom they handpicked and hired so the tone now is more congenial.
In conclusion, to say the least, there is a blatant double standard in this council and there is certainly more than 1 councillor against whom a complaint under the code of conduct could be levelled if they felt that the complaint against Councillor Buck was justified.
Why not offer the moderator's position to Evalina or Phyllis or Steve or anyone else.
Do it on a rotating basis. For a month at a time.
The moderator will be known for their period of time and they can be evaluated on their fairness or balance.
In fairness to all future moderator's the past and present moderators must identify themselves. As it is this moderator(s) that has set the current benchmark for all other's to be measured against. Perhaps it will stand or perhaps there will be higher bench marks set.
In the end the quality of the moderation should improve or at least those responsible for allowing it to deteriorate will be known.
Just a thought.
To Anonymous Sept 17: 8:55 PM
Why are you so obsessed with the moderator of this blog? Your comments have a consistent flavor.
Get over it. Who really cares? If you don't enjoy participating, start your own blog.And
To Anonymous Sept 17: 1:27PM
You say it's good that MacEachern DEALT WITH Bill Hogg. That's too funny! Watch the video...she was shaking like a leaf, and she dealt with nothing. It was personal and didn't belong in a council meeting. Nice plug for the blog though.
To Anonymous September 17, 2009 10:32 PM
"Why are you so obsessed with the moderator of this blog? Your comments have a consistent flavor."
I'm not obsessed with anything. It's a commuinity blog. Why not not pass the gavel around?
If it's Bill Hogg's blog and he needs it to serve a purpose so be it. I have no problem with that. But if you're going to automatically discount what others say, out of hand, then the blog may just be as biased as some claim. Not an open exchange of ideas.
"I'm not obsessed with anything. It's a commuinity blog. Why not not pass the gavel around?"
why not make your own blog???
its not that hard...
but i guess you might be like phyllis....someone else does all the work then you come in and want credit for it and take over...
just a thought
We have repeatedly invited participation. How could we possibly pass the gavel, when those insisting that we are biased and should pass the gavel refuse to identify themselves so we can invite them to play a larger role?
If you want to play a larger role in influencing the direction of this blog -- send us a note and we will talk.
September 18, 2009 9:28 AM
"Aurora Citizen said...
We have repeatedly invited participation. How could we possibly pass the gavel, when those insisting that we are biased and should pass the gavel refuse to identify themselves so we can invite them to play a larger role?"
With all due respect, those that are moderators / contributors of the AC aren't identifying themselves. Perhaps even denying involvement, and now it's the fault of the bloggers who participate in the blog that "the gavel isn't passed around".
"send us a note and we will talk."
If any one was so inclined who do they send the note to?
You reap what you sow.
"In Dictator Wars you can arrest dissident bloggers"
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/10/dictator-wars-social.html
anyone wonder if MorMac plays this game?
Thank you White Knight for reminding everyone that the staff around the table now are not the same group that the Gang previously spent a couple of years harrassing, degrading, frustrating, manipulating etc. I guess it's easy to proclaim your loyalty and admiration to the second wave, particularly when you hand choose most of them. I'd love to hear whether Rogers, Seibert, Panizza, Gutteridge, Grellette, Ewart, Pohjola, Jackson, Atkinson, even King feel like they were as protected as Morris would like us to believe now. I think NOT.
Post a Comment