Taxpayers 'expect councillors to be good stewards of our tax money'

Dear editor,

It’s always easy to see when the facts don’t support someone’s argument, he resorts to attacking the individual and to half-truths.

In his letter (Record, Jan. 23), Mr. Charlton states that my earlier letter that was published in the Jan. 21 edition of the Record was the work of the "Common Sense Party, or whatever form it will take."

As John Adams wrote, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Here are the facts; I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any organization calling itself the Common Sense Party, or any such similar name. As for municipal elections, I have never campaigned for any councillor in any municipality.

I am, however, a taxpayer and I expect councillors to be good stewards of our tax money.

Every one of them ran on a platform of strong leadership and good problem-solving skills. Since the election, some of them have descended into the metaphorical sandbox, where they squabbled over silly, partisan things.

If even half of the $120,000 of legal fees had been spent in co-operation with the contractors who volunteered their resources to bring Maple Pool up to standard, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

That would have been real leadership and it would have demonstrated problem-solving that we could all appreciate.

In the end, we would have had a facility for the residents, run at no further cost to the taxpayer and it would be off the front pages of the paper. Also, the other $60,000 of our taxes could have gone to badly needed patching of potholes in our streets.

I’m sure that the Lins would have even offered councillors the chance for a photo op wearing their obligatory hard hats.

Mr. Charlton also says in his letter that the law states that discussion and votes in camera are not to be discussed. The law makes no such statement.

Again, the facts: Section 12(3)(b) of the act states that the substance of deliberations may be kept confidential. There is no reference to the voting records of elected officials being kept confidential.

It was widely reported that Mayor Jangula obtained a legal opinion that allowed the mayor and council to reveal how they voted and he shared that legal advice with his council. That they are hiding their voting record is cause for suspicion; what are they hiding?

George Finlay,



We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.