The Eisenberger "tapegate" investigation and the corresponding investigation into the conduct of Councilor Clark, have cost the taxpayers of Hamilton $128,603.08.
Both investigations were completely unnecessary had both gentlemen abided by the code of coduct.
Both made a very serious and costly mistake. While intent has been offered as a defense in both cases, these defenses aren't compelling. Moreover, it's the impact that counts.
$128,603.08, could have bought a lot of food for those who are on ODSP, Ontario Works or the working poor.
While I thought the reprimands resulting from these investigations were rather "light", the impacts as described above, should weigh heavily.
On balance, I continue to respect Mayor Eisenberger and Councilor Clark. Their respective lapses in judgment however, have not served us well. That balance is fragile.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Union and Corporate Election Donations
I support the move to ban corporate and union election donations. While I accept Councilor Ferguson’s assertion that councilors will not sell their souls for a $750.00 corporate or union donation, it is less about actualities and more about, as the Mayor correctly stated , perceptions.
Having said that, we should not exclude the possibility, as distasteful as it may be, that a $750.00 donation may "buy" impact; particularly when it becomes $750.00 multiplied by the number of companies or unions willing to contribute.
I do not find the argument that these corporate and union donations serve as an essential means to allow companies and unions to convey their values, compelling. There are other ways of doing so and if for a moment, we accept the premise, notwithstanding perceptions, that a $750 maximum donation is inconsequential to any sense of influence, it follows that the cessation of that measure is inconsequential or of marginal impact to companies or unions.
Mayor Eisenberger’s campaign demonstrated that it is possible to win an election without the need for union or corporate contributions. Sure one can argue that there were other factors at play and that the successful election bid did not hinge solely on the presence or absence of these types of contributions, but that can be said of any election. In the end, the direction the Mayor has charted allows an opportunity to rid the process of a factor that , rightly or wrongly, may be perceived as a contaminant.
It’s the right thing to do and my parting advice to council is to stay the course and not flip flop on the issue.
Having said that, we should not exclude the possibility, as distasteful as it may be, that a $750.00 donation may "buy" impact; particularly when it becomes $750.00 multiplied by the number of companies or unions willing to contribute.
I do not find the argument that these corporate and union donations serve as an essential means to allow companies and unions to convey their values, compelling. There are other ways of doing so and if for a moment, we accept the premise, notwithstanding perceptions, that a $750 maximum donation is inconsequential to any sense of influence, it follows that the cessation of that measure is inconsequential or of marginal impact to companies or unions.
Mayor Eisenberger’s campaign demonstrated that it is possible to win an election without the need for union or corporate contributions. Sure one can argue that there were other factors at play and that the successful election bid did not hinge solely on the presence or absence of these types of contributions, but that can be said of any election. In the end, the direction the Mayor has charted allows an opportunity to rid the process of a factor that , rightly or wrongly, may be perceived as a contaminant.
It’s the right thing to do and my parting advice to council is to stay the course and not flip flop on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)