A while ago I responded to the City of London’s advertisements for citizens to bring themselves forward for filling vacant positions on the 12 advisory committees that, in theory, supply valued information into the decision making processes of Council.
The last time members of council embarked upon a candidate selection process for committees, much embarrassment was caused when Stephen Orser attempted to exact what appeared as a spite filled revenge on Barry Wells, an engaged citizen of good standing who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
With behaviour like that it should come as no surprise that a ‘striking committee’ separate from council was thought necessary so an impartial assessment of candidates could be offered to council for consideration.
The striking committee did its job and provided recommendations.
Generally speaking it is at the point of council’s consideration of matters where entertainment value is to be found via the delicate and not so delicate politicking displayed around the horse shoe.
Stephen Orser, thrust onto the municipal political stage possibly as a practical joke that’s gone horribly wrong, was again seen to be making attempts to knock off a candidate or two, merit be damned.
Sandy White, another political knife sharpener and bearer of grudges, appeared keen to point out how important it was for her that those who would seat themselves at committee table had better be careful on what is said about council and councillors.
The inference was clear.
If any volunteer committee member steps out of line, council will ‘get’ the offending party one way or another…which hardly sounds like ‘Welcome aboard! How can we help you?’
In order to emphasize the point of ‘who the bosses are’ council kindly provided by mail an introductory letter to candidates dated June 13th 2012.
Signed by Cathy Saunders, the City Clerk, it reads in part:
“Congratulations on your appointment to XXXXX by London City Council.
As you are no doubt aware, your appointment is at the pleasure of City Council and Council has asked all appointees to acknowledge this fact by executing the attached forms and returning them to the City Clerk’s Office…”
With heavy forelock-tugging established as pre-condition of ‘membership’, a re-emphasis of that point, along with a procedure for disposing of candidates not deemed sufficiently obsequious for the job, was laid out in another document enclosed:
“3. I understand that my appointment is at the pleasure of the City Council, and I will offer my resignation from the Body to which I have been appointed provided that the following conditions precedent have been satisfied:
a.) You shall notify me in writing of your intention to accept my offer to resign and to remove me as a member of the Body, together with the reasons for your proposed action.
b.) You shall afford me a two week period to respond to the notice mentioned in subclause (a).
c.) The Council shall vote in favour of accepting my offer of resignation.
4. Upon the above three criteria being fulfilled, I will resign and remove myself from the Body to which I have been appointed.”
It’s abundantly clear, then, that volunteering to give of ones time to this City Council with a thought of hoping to contribute to the benefit of wider community, is not for the faint of heart.
In the future, perhaps the corporate communications department of city hall would be good enough to warn any potential committee volunteers about the role of committees and what appears as the favoured interview process and after care program preferred by some on municipal council:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRx90mOXS7Q
It remains to be seen how many volunteers decide to amend the ‘contracts’ as supplied in order to make it less easy for council to dismiss those with whom they choose to take offence and disagree.
Next up: The Salvation Army and The Bethesda Centre…an untold story.
Living London Ontario 