Comment 31416

By JonC (registered) | Posted May 30, 2009 at 08:40:23

"Chris Ecklund, whom I do not know, must be a man of character, for he no longer wants to associate himself with an organization which can be so thin in intelligence and tact."

That is in no way what has happened. He is punishing an unrelated party (assuming the donation was actually going to transpire that same day). He cancel all his donations to the subcommittee if he wants, but all his actions have done is draw attention to what I (and I assume most people) never would have thought twice about if he had ignored the matter, or responded to the comment and left it at that.

"If we do not allow people to talk freely - even wealthy and influential people - among themselves, we have lost a freedom." & "trying to gird it with such tight rules, regulations and oversight that not very much can be accomplished"

Anyone is allowed to talk, but councillors give up some of their freedoms when they take a public office and are required to take certain steps to ensure transparency. These rules already exist and the subcommittee is inquiring as to whether they are being followed, which is the purpose of the subcommittee. If the steps aren't clear, as Councillor Whitehead has indicated, then certainly they should be clarified, but in any case, if the councillors are unclear, the onus is on them to seek the clarification.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds