Banff Mayor Karen Sorensen and Councillor Leslie Taylor hit the nail on the head last week when it comes to how the public approaches council for a say in matters being dealt with.
While the issue of how members of the public request a delegation slot during a council meeting is still in the discussion stage, it’s clear that what’s needed is access by voters to those they elect.
While council may want to have staffers make initial contact with members of the public requesting delegation time, in the end, an elected councillor, or the mayor, should make the final decision.
After all, nobody votes for administration staff and citizens have no control over staff or their direction, hiring or the accomplishing of goals as directed by members of council.
Local politicians, though, do have to answer to the voters that elect them, and can be ousted by those voters if dissatisfied. Hence, it is critical that elected council members make final decisions on who may approach as a delegation.
After all, nobody wants a Banff council, or any council for that matter, to reflect the British sitcom Yes Minister, where a professional civil servant really runs things from behind the elected member he serves.
And, as anyone who sits in on any number of Banff council meetings will realize – delegations by members of the public are not a primary focus in agenda packages. Generally, council is not caused undue stress by having to lend an ear to its citizens in delegation form.
As the Outlook has pointed out in the past, citizens’ ability to interact with their chosen representatives at the local level is what sets municipal politics apart. Yes, provincial and federal representatives are also elected, but how often does anyone head for Edmonton or Ottawa to air their complaints or have a say on a specific issue?
Other than stepping into a voting booth, appearing as a delegation, along with speaking at public forums and open houses, are the only way citizens’ can feel their voice is being heard.
More justice in justice system needed
In denying former Canmorite Susan Preece the ability to recover the costs of her lengthy assault trial, it’s difficult to picture justice as being completely served.
Preece was found not guilty of assaulting children in her care from 2010 as owner of a Canmore daycare, but, being that the judge who found her not guilty also roundly condemned those who testified against her as working in collusion to have her removed so they could run the business, the fact she can’t get her legal fees back is wrong.
The conduct of those who testified against Preece, said the judge, “was shameful. I find the conduct of these individuals to be vindictive, abhorrent and egregious.”
Based on that “vindictive, abhorrent and egregious” statement and, based on the fact Preece and her husband felt they had to sell their business and leave town, likely to never return, to avoid public condemnation, would suggest that some kind of remuneration should be available.
If, as the judge pointed out, charges against Preece were orchestrated by witnesses who lied on the stand, it seems to us that a citizen shouldn’t have to shoulder the financial burden in the end.
