Editor:
Re: Mayor rebuked over staff criticism, Jan. 12.
I am becoming increasingly disgusted with the antics and personal agendas of our city council, elected and paid by the taxpayers.
Why is so much time – not to mention squandered monies – being spent on such infantile finger-pointing at Mayor Catherine Ferguson?
The mayor questions the removal of photographs, expresses her displeasure – on behalf of the citizens and past mayors – and for this, she is under attack.
In her position as mayor of White Rock, questioning the whereabouts of her predecessor’s photographs and the history they represent is an act of responsible mayor, not someone to be rebuked.
My grandfather’s cousin was Harry Douglass, a former mayor who greatly influenced the direction of our beautiful city, and I applaud Ferguson for ensuring his likeness wasn’t relegated to a storage bin.
The fact that the residents of White Rock will have to pick up the tab for an investigation instigated by council members is the ‘ethical behaviour’ we should be examining, not the mayor’s.
It is time council moved on and started spending their time doing what they were elected to do, work as a cohesive team to help build and maintain a strong fiscal city.
The only one I see focusing on the future of White Rock right now is Ferguson.
M.A. Collings, White Rock
• • •
I see nothing has changed at White Rock city hall; the bureaucrats still rule council.
Kudos to Mayor Catherine Ferguson for exercising her power. As for the city staff member resigning because the mayor dared to criticize her work, good riddance she’s gone.
As for Coun. Doug McLean instigating this mess and getting inexperienced Coun. Grant Meyer to help his bidding, very clever.
As for the rest of the councillors to follow shows how gullible they all are. I see the old boys’ club already working on the upcoming election.
Is McLean running for mayor?
It will be very interesting watching the old boys weave their web.
Mary Mikelson, Surrey
• • •
Re: Public debate unbecoming, Jan. 14 letters.
While unbecoming, the public debate between the mayor and council – resulting in the mayor reading a statement of official condemnation regarding her own behaviour – is fundamental to democracy.
The meaning of democracy includes the essential “of the people.” In a truly free society, the mayor and council – being both beholden and accountable to the public – must at times, even in the face of embarrassment, face potential public ridicule.
That is the nature of politics.
To suggest that certain matters involving staff are beyond the pale of public accountability is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of democracy.
While regrettable that this occurred, it perhaps could have been avoided if the mayor had agreed to the council committee doing its work in assessing the propriety of the mayor’s actions.
When she deemed it below her stature to do so, and hired a lawyer instead, she essentially threw down the gauntlet, and made it a matter to which there was no other way, making the public debacle which ensued somewhat unavoidable.
The real lesson is not one of our council shutting their mouths on staff issues; rather, it is that our publicly elected officials have to find a better way to follow the rules of staff engagement, or face the consequences. We are no longer in the times of things being done behind closed doors; the modern age is perhaps messy, but democracy would not have it any other way.
Government is not, nor should it ever be, beyond the pale of transparency.
Steven Faraher Amidon, Surrey