WILL COUNCIL ADDRESS WOOLWICH'S VACANT SEAT THIS TUESDAY?

Well both the Waterloo Region Record (Tuesday) and the Woolwich Observer (today) have carried articles about the resignation from Woolwich Council by Scott Hahn. I am unaware of any other councillor ever having resigned from Woolwich Council allegedly due to "time constraints". I am aware of councillors outside Woolwich either having died on the job or resigning due to personal sickness or family tragedies. That said I will admit surprise a few years back that Mr. Hahn was running for Council after I learned that he had a full time job AND a very young family. He had every right to run under those circumstances nevertheless this may serve as a warning to future very young individuals who already have extremely tight family commitments.

The Observer have an Editorial today titled "Put public first in filling vacant council seat". It has several good points to make regarding the public interest and asking candidates to be public and community-minded. Their Editorial however makes it clear that they are not impressed with either the majority of the current crop on Council nor with the bureaucrats to whom they too often defer.

Scott Hahn has not done Woolwich Council any favours by resigning now. His actions may well be interpreted as immature somewhat in line with a citizen's Comment in the Observer's on-line version after their story on Scott's resignation. Others may somehow see Scott's last minute resignation as a shot at his former fellow councillors. Scott has now set up Council to fail. Thousands of votes other than for Scott and Pat Merlihan were cast in Ward 1 in 2014 and those voters obviously would like their candidate appointed. At the same time Council understandably would prefer to have a "fellow travellor" on Council with them for the rest of this term and then take their chances during the October election.

I would like Council to carefully look at both what is most appropriate as well as to which appointee will be most defensible and hence most likely not to provoke a strong backlash. This Council have been on the receiving end of serious public criticism over the last three years and heading into an election is not the time to remind the public of past errors on their part.

SCRUTINY OF LOCAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD LONG OVERDUE

Well I find myself choking each time I now hear Waterloo Regional Police Services Board Chair Tom Galloway talk about wanting more women and more diversity on that old boys club. Jim Wideman who resigned opening the door for Rosita Tse is an example of the old boys club. Far too many long time regional councillors, past or present, have taken up space and not much else on that Board. Mr. Galloway is just the opening shot of those who should be either resigning or given the boot. As Chairman he's been in the driver's seat and that Board hasn't been doing a good job. What it has accomplished is an entrenchment and continuance of the status quo and that is exactly what the regional police hierarchy and politicians have wanted including the regional chairman who also is a member of that Board.

Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried the following story titled "Regional Councillor calls for more women on police board". I agree with just about everything she (Jane Mitchell) says in that article but I've long had a problem with giving her any credibility. Is she just another Tom Galloway jumping on the current "womens' rights" campaign or is she the real deal? She was formerly a school board trustee for ten years and that was at a time when I was paying close attention to the school board. She did not impress. Hence I'm taking her solid support for more women on the Police Services Board with a grain of salt. Could she be angling for that appointment herself? Regardless of whether she would make a good appointee or not the fact is that she is right in that "It's time for change". Our Police Services Board is a disgrace. How much of that can be attributed to recent appointees is debatable. What isn't debatable is that the membership over decades have not promoted transparency or accountability within the Waterloo Region Police Service on many issues including gender equity.

Then there are the very interesting comments by Karen Scian a former City of Waterloo councillor. She is making veiled references to the old guard of established public figures stepping from one appointment or leadership role to another. She compares them to a bag of milk past its' expiry date. For me it's more about their support of the status quo and avoiding change than it is about their age. It's their politician's desire to talk about issues rather than actually deal with them and possibly offend someone important.

The bottom line is that both the Police Services Board and the Regional Police Service are in desperate need of a house cleaning. Unfortunately any housecleaning is likely to be done by the very same people who put these ones in charge in the first place. That would be our regional politicians. An election is coming. Time for citizens to houseclean the pack of them.

IS WOOLWICH COUNCIL DYSFUNCTIONAL - SCOTT HAHN'S SUDDEN DEPARTURE

Scott works as an electrician not as a CEO or in a high powered management job. He certainly had full family support both from his parents and in-laws in his campaign for a councillor's job. This we learned after he was ordered to appear at MECAC (Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee) hearings as they had anonomously and hence illegally paid for his election signs and brochures. Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the story titled "Woolwich councillor quits in last year of term". Heaven forbid if Scott or a close family member had fallen seriously ill. No one would question his commitment to family coming first. However there were three other defeated candidates all who were willing and able to represent Ward 1 in Elmira for the full term. The fourth candidate, Al Poffenroth, passed away in 2015 after a car accident. I'm sure they have to be thinking about the votes candidate Scott received. Those voters have to be disappointed. Fellow Woolwich councillors have to be disappointed. Scott's resignation letter states that he has a new position and "...it has become very apparent that it is no longer practical to continue to serve on Council...". No longer practical to continue to serve on Council... There are only nine months to complete the term of Council for which he was elected.

Scott's decision I believe will effectively eliminate him from any further political opportunities. I mean really who's going to waste their vote in the future if they suspect he's not going to last for a full term? There will be blowback on Council. Whether or not they embraced him fully and cooperated fully and effectively with him on Council, there may be questions raised. Could they have lessened his committee workload? Could they have permitted the occasional absence from Council meetings? Were there any personality conflicts? Does Scott's resignation speak to leadership issues on Council?

Politicians are the first to admit that politics is not fair. It's all about appearances and this does not look good. At this point in time it may be premature to express skepticism regarding Scott's explanation for his resignation. If there is more to it that comes out down the road then things may become less murky. If more does not come out then we will be left to wonder. My final comment is this: Scott did have the decency to apologize to his fellow Council members "...for not being able to finish the rest of the term with you.".
That apology was necessary under the circumstances.

THE ABUSE AND USURPATION OF AUTHORITY

Abusing authority is as old as humanity. Also is usurping authority. Instead of using the proper authority invested in a person or group for either the benefit of the majority or the benefit of the business, additional authority is claimed or assumed to accomplish these or other goals. Usurping authority of course means that the individual is claiming authority that they really do not have. They may be taking someone else's authority expanding upon their already known and understood authority. Usually this usurpation involves deception, manipulation or lying. Sometimes depending upon the circumstances it can also involve breaking the law. Of course abusing authority sometimes also involves law breaking. It could be the Human Rights Act of Ontario, provincial labour laws, health and safety laws etc..

What is the motivation for either abusing or usurping authority? Generally it is a nefarious motive. Perhaps during an emergency one could think of circumstances whereby abusing or usurping authority might be for the purpose of helping society. Possibly the October FLQ crisis (1972?) in Quebec occasioned a usurpation of authority via Pierre Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act. Note I say possibly. The vast majority of abuse of and usurpation of authority is all about greed, cowardice, aggrandizement, personal power and authority. it's about putting others down to make yourself feel bigger and better. It is little men desperately needing an ego boost by demonstrating what they can get away with.

Recent price fixing by Weston's is an abuse of authority. It's also illegal. Senators taking advantage of loose expense rules is also an abuse of authority. It turned out however not to be illegal albeit it was close. Woolwich Township's shenanigans including illegally holding closed Council meetings was an abuse of authority. Also their game playing both by individual councillors as well as by the Clerk was an abuse of authority. Permitting contrary to law, elected by acclamation, councillors to avoid submitting election Financial Statements was an abuse of authority. I personally believe that Woolwich Township also indulge in usurpation of authority. If it's not nailed down as regional, provincial or federal jurisdiction and it suits them, they simply go ahead and claim it as under their authority.

Then we have our Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS). Anonymous phone calls occasioning middle of the night rousting of families out of their beds and homes is an abuse of authority. Individual officers demanding identification ("carding") from pedestrians minding their own business is an abuse of authority. "Driving while black" pullovers by police are abuses of authority. Coordinated suppression of complainants asking that their human rights be respected within the work force are an abuse of authority. Filing either Police Service Act or inappropriate criminal charges against their employees are both abuses of authority and illegal. Harassment and discrimination based upon race or gender within the workplace is also illegal in the province of Ontario. These are supposed to be the guardians of citizens rights yet they apparently routinely are the violators of citizens' rights.

Non-union workplaces in Ontario run the gamut from hellholes to heaven on earth for employees. Astoundingly (at least for me) so do some unionized workplaces. I would like to believe that the majority of unionized workplaces make for better workplaces but I know that that isn't always the case. If you read Kelly Donovan's book about Ontario policing or the class action lawsuit and accompanying Affidavits laid against the WRPS, you will be hard pressed to have confidence in unions. At least for all their faults the various teachers' unions represent ALL their members to the best of my knowledge.

Abuse of authority is all about personal aggrandizement by little people at the expense of those around them with less influence and power. It is the behaviour of cowards.

JAMES BENNETT OF MADORIN SNYDER IS GETTING HIS KNUCKLES WRAPPED

Interesting! Very interesting! There are however exceptions to every rule. Usually all of us can appreciate the innocent until proven guilty aspect of our judicial system. Hence it is unusual for people to stand up and say "whoa there- it's not O.K. for you to publicly deny the allegations of gender inequity, harassment or discrimination filed against the Waterloo Regional Police Service ". Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following story on the front page titled "chief's comments trouble task force". The Sexual Violence Task Force was initiated by the Regional Police less than a year ago in response to a report indicating that the Waterloo Regional Police deem a greater percentage of sexual assaults as "unfounded" than other Ontario forces.

James Bennett of Madorin Snyder did more than simply proclaim his clients (Police Services Board & Police Association (union)) as innocent of allegations; he attacked the complainants by publicly stating that the allegations were "untrue, exaggerated, misleading and defamatory.". He also said that the Police Services Board "vehemently" denies the allegations. This is especially interesting when Police Services Board Chair Tom Galloway now says that the tone of the lawyer's statement was "over the top". He further adds that "There is no question there has been bad behaviour at the service and other police services. It is not unique to this organization", he said. "Nobody is sweeping this under the carpet and saying the allegations are untrue.". Holy crap! Really! Well your lawyer said it was untrue as in he vehemently said it! So while credit and kudos to Mr. Tom Galloway for saying this, where exactly have you been Mr. Galloway, Chair of the Police Services Board, for the last couple of decades on these matters?

This morning I sent a copy of my July 22,2015 Elmira Advocate post to both the Waterloo Region Record and to CKCO-TV Kitchener. The title is "Former mayor's lawyer is blackmailing me ???". The lawyer in the title is none other than James Bennett. His motive for blackmailing?/intimidating me was to keep me from testifying against his client, Sandy Shantz, in Superior court in Kitchener. This Advocate posting can be accessed through the Blog Archives section on the right side of my Elmira Advocate Blog (ie. not this one).

I am more than 4/5 of the way through the recently released Affidavits of four persons in support of the civil lawsuit filed by three former regional Police officers. The alleged language and behaviour of multiple named male police officers is way beyond disgusting. if those shits (alleged) weren't armed cops with almost the blind support of the courts behind them, they would have had their heads kicked in by brothers, husbands, fathers and friends (including females) decades ago. Perhaps some day we will look into the cases of those imprisoned for defending the rights of family and friends abused by others while the courts piously proclaim that we should not take the law into our own hands. If and when our courts and legal system ever gets within a mile of perfection then there would probably be no need to take the law into our own hands.

WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE - THEIR MORAL AUTHORITY IS GONE

HOLLYWOOD NORTH?




This posting is about the utter failure in leadership and decency within our police service. It is about more than the treatment of women by we pray a minority of males with authority within the service. It is about the institutional failure from middle management right up to the Police Chief over a period of decades and how it has intentionally turned a blind eye to the treatment of their female employees by ignorant and abusive males.

The irresponsibility and blame rises further up the political food chain than just multiple Chiefs of Police. Here in Ontario and Canada we are supposed to have civilian oversight of our police forces. That oversight is exercised through the Waterloo Regional Police Service Board. They can be Googled to find out who exactly the seven members are. I will advise that three of them are on Regional Council namely Ken Seiling, Tom Galloway and Karl Kiefer. Three of them are appointees of the province of Ontario. The last is a civilian appointee determined by Regional Council. It is my opinion that the local members, at least, are all good old boys and sometimes good old girls. They can be depended upon not to rock the boat of which the proof is in the pudding. Female police officers have gone to them in the past for help including Kelly Donovan with her "Fit4Duty - The Ethical Standard" campaign. In other words our police force reports both to the province and most importantly to our local senior level of government, the Region of Waterloo.

I am in the process of reading the Affidavits of three female and one male police officers, namely Shelly Heinrich, Vera McKenzie, Karin Eder and Barry Zehr. Their Affidavits go far beyond merely being powerful. They are a damning indictment of human (mostly male) stupidity, arrogance, cowardice and abusive behaviour. They are a damning indictment of written policies, laws and regulations that are totally and completely ignored by those in positions of authority to enforce them.

I have a link to the Cambridge Advocate run by Debbie Vitez on my other Blog, the Elmira Advocate. Once again Debbie has courageously stepped up and posted about this issue involving all of Waterloo Region and hence Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the Townships. I believe that she has links to these Affidavits and more in her posting of last evening.

One other point for those of us with pro union and or left wing slants. Just like the abysmal behaviour of the union at the City of Waterloo twenty years ago regarding female discrimination in their public works department of which I was involved; the police union have only added to the problems according to these and other Affidavits. The union, known as the Waterloo Regional Police Association, have consistently refused to protect and assist all their members. They too have the bizarre idea that dues paying female police officers aren't real members and or worthy of equal treatment.

MUNICIPAL COUNCILS NEED LESS LEEWAY NOT MORE

Back on January 10/18 the Waterloo Region Record carried the following story titled "Changes allow more closed-door meetings". The problem is, somewhat misusing a military term:, "mission creep". Give many municipal councils an inch and they'll take a mile. Here in Woolwich Township it took myself back in 2015 making a formal complaint to the Ontario Ombudsman in order to rein in Woolwich Council. They routinely hid under the legal exceptions to open, public meetings to discuss things that either were embarassing to themselves politically or that simply they did not want out for public consumption or discussion. They were unaccountable and they knew it. I fully expect that they are still playing games as they always have albeit just a little more carefully.

The Ontario government changed municipal law at the start of this month to allow municipalities to discuss in private things like trade, financial and technical secrets, negotiations and information from senior governments. Really? Exactly what do our towns and cities have to do with trade, financial and technical secrets? Universities I could understand. Private or government "think tanks" perhaps, but municipal governments? As far as negotiations go certainly labour negotiations with their unionized staff is appropriate in private. Negotiations with suppliers I'm a little more concerned about. While the final deals and purchases need to be public information; accountability of buyers and purchasing agents is important to maintain public confidence in the integrity and honesty of the process. Lastly information from senior governments is also problematic. What we absolutely don't need is new rules, regulations or interpretations from the senior levels of government (regional, provincial, federal) either being ignored by some municipalities or intentionally misinterpreted or even simply kept secret from the public.

This new legislation has a funny odour to it. Is this our Liberal provincial government once more handing out goodies in hopes of getting last minute support prior to the upcoming provincial election this year?