Regarding José Pablo Bustamante's legal gambit: Part Two

Yesterday at City Hall, I spoke with Mr. Bustamante as soon as the 'real' reporters had hied away to their next place of business. To his credit, he stood his ground when I began asking him the questions that I felt deserved to be asked.

Specifically, putting aside the legal issue of whether or not Ms Pearson had committed a transgression of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (because this is a cut-and-dry legal issue, one that must be dealt with in a court of law), I enquired as to whether he really believed that the constituents of Ward 10 would feel her actions were sufficient to effectively throw her out of office. He replied to the affirmative.

When pressed as to how he knew this, Mr. Bustamante unfortunately began using rhetoric that involved a) what is covered in his two-page 'explanation', b) a general sound-bite that had to do with sweeping out the Councillors who were clearly not performing, c) the inequities of the municipal election system as they pertain to incumbents versus new candidates...and a few other choice elements, including being pretty much stoppered when I began to point out the shortfalls of our current societal civics habits, bringing into play the fact that only 37% of eligible voters exercised their rights during the municipal election in question...which then led to a minor segue involving my current examination of an increased 'relationship of engagement' on the part of the citizenry.

During this initial 'quality time interlude' in the shadow of City Hall, I tried to press Mr. Bustamante on his familiarity of 'The Merchant of Venice' line 'The quality of mercy is not strained....'

I asked him in passing if he was aware of the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

I ventured as to him having given sufficient consideration to whether or not his perspective was sound, if he'd been able to apply a reasonable context to the situation.

I got the impression that Mr. Bustamante had either been badly advised in this instance, or simply taken his own bad counsel. In the case of the former, he needs to carefully consider parting ways with these advisors...and in the case of the latter, he needs to find better counsel.

In any case, what's the bottom-line for me here? What's my take on what he's 'created' (and I use this word quite advisedly)?

I believe his decision was extraordinarily badly considered and woefully lacking in either political acumen or common sense.

I believe that this gambit is going bite him on the gluteus maximus. Quite rapaciously, at that. That it will deliver neither the result in court he so indulgently anticipates, nor the groundswell of support from voters. (Other than in the Fruitland Road Community Association. I'm sure that this DiFalco-led group has been dancing in the street since Mr. Bustamante first issued his declaration. Well, maybe not in the street. Too many trucks, donchaknow.)

I believe Mr. Bustamante has grossly misjudged a particular element of 'What is a Canadian?' And in this misjudgement, what I see pushing through the unquestionably well-intentioned, well-informed and articulate aspects of his personality...

...is an inability to 'get it'.

In deciding to bring this 'issue' to the attention of the public, Mr. Bustamante has managed to reveal two salient truths about himself. First, that he's more interested in creating something spectacle-like, drawing attention to himself in this admittedly small-scale display of self-aggrandizement than he is in taking this 'issue' and making the most of it in a single, refined moment, one filled with the kind of grace only allowed those interludes infused with some degree of restraint, with some moiety of discretion. (This harkens back to my statement about misjudging Canadians and Canadian behaviour; to paraphrase John Hurt in 'The Elephant Man', "I am not an American!")

Secondly, he has revealed that he is as arrogant and careless as he accuses Ms Pearson of being; he's decided in his infinite wisdom that a dots can easily be connected, between this accounting/signing-off transgression on her part (one that I can easily analogize as being akin to you not submitting a tax return that is 100% accurate; although there has been 'no harm, no foul' in terms of the government being bilked out of any money whatsoever, would it be appropriate for you to serve jail time, or be subject to whatever the 'maximum sentence' is for this behaviour?) with the fact that she's been on Council for some years, party to managing a budget of '1.1 billion dollars'.

During the 'press conference', Mr. Bustamante was quite adamant in his repetition of this fact, made a point of underlining it, highlighting it, providing figurative neon lights all around it. But here's a tip, Mr. Bustamante: you repeating something over and over again does not improve its credibility, its validity, or your supposed cachet in doing so. This is not America, we do not have 'Republicans' up here, and thank The Lord Above, there is no Canadian Tea Party by whom such rhetorically banal (and intellectually bereft) fodder we would be inflicted.

However, I will say this: if Mr. Bustamante believes that this transgression reveals (putting aside everything else about Ms Pearson's record) that on this basis alone she is unfit to serve the people of Ward 10, the residents of the City of Hamilton, then I'll submit this: this gambit of his reveals (putting aside all indications I was witness to during the hour+ we spent together in substantive, illuminating, engaging dialogue subsequent to our City Hall exchange, indications that compelled me to offer Mr. Bustamante an opportunity to be interviewed/featured here, on My Stoney Creek) that on this basis alone he is unfit to serve the people of Ward 10 and the residents of the City of Hamilton.

To wit, and in summary, as much as I was impressed with almost everything about José Pablo Bustamante, I would not want a person contributing to local governance who believes so fervently in his clearly misguided 'mission'. Such behaviour is, at the very least, the stuff on which jeering such as 'THROW THE BUMS OUT!' is made.

(And all things considered, this makes me infinitely sad.)