Ward 6Apr 15, 2012 11:25 AM
I agree. Councillors treat this as a career and not public service. Noone can tell me that most of the multi term councillors still are fresh and relevant, with the exception of McHattie, who I think is the only one worthy it. Thats just my opinion.
Sweet Jaysus.
Where do I begin?
First off, where does this romantic notion (one that's tragically flawed) come from that frames 'public service' in a way that suggests all elected officials should be working because of some collective community spirit that drives them...and should ideally be doing so, for free?
More to the point, what the Hell is wrong with someone looking at public service as a career? If serving one's community is the most honourable pursuit, then why should making a career or it be 'wrong'?
But for the moment, let's move on to the notion of 'freshness' and of 'relevancy'. I had a dear friend whose family going back some generations were teachers, believed that no teacher could teach effectively and relevantly for more than about seven years. Then a sabbatical was called for. To regain 'freshness'.
Now, being a councillor ain't the same as being a teacher, but I get the concern. It's easy to become stale. To lose your vim and vigour. To become detached from being inquisitive, from being inventive, to lose your connection to passion. And we absolutely, positively need the brightest and best at City Hall. So we can't afford to have anyone 'coasting'. Biding their time. As Bill Kelly wrote just this week, '...career politicians who suckle from the tite (sic) of taxpayers year after year...'
But who's responsible for determining if this has happened? In whose job description is this function listed? On whose watch is this exercise supposed to be taking place?
The employer.
That is, the voter at the ballot box. The resident during the campaign.
Us.
We have 60% of people not casting ballots...two-thirds of those who do, casting them as a result of 'name-recognition'...so is it any surprise that we don't have 'employers' having much facility when it comes to discerning their councillor's performance? That they lack acumen in determining whether the incumbent is still the best choice...or whether they should be considering a newcomer...aside from the notion of bringing in 'new blood', or 'a fresh face'?
Damn, but we need some protracted dialogue on this subject, if only to set some facts straight.
M Adrian Brassington
