Over the past 2 months of watching The Town of Orangeville Council proceedings, I have seen many things that have shocked me, outraged me, and left me with a puzzled look on my face. I sit in council chambers, quite purposefully, out of camera shot for the very reason that I often wear my heart on my sleeve, and just the same, I wear my reactions on my face. I’m sure that if I did sit in camera shot, the folks at Rogers Cable would be able to make an entire blooper reel just based on my facial expressions at Town Council Meetings.
Even though I sit in Council Chambers, I still PVR the taping on Rogers Cable so that I can fully pay attention during the meeting and re-watch it when I get home to get my quotes, or just to re-watch an area that may have left me confused. I know, I know, I’m a bit of a political nerd…and I am ok with it!!!
There have been multiple points since the December 1st inauguration of council that I have pondered the question “What if elected officials were treated as most employees of any company would be?” And by that, I am referring to things such as the Code of Conduct – again one of those things that left a puzzled and angry face. And most importantly, what if they were held to the same 90-day probationary period that new employees are held to??
I know as a retail manager, I have had to use the 90-day probationary period to terminate new employees to didn’t quite “cut the mustard”. During the interview process, the reference check process and even the initial on boarding phase, they had given me the impression that they would be great employees. That they would live up to the job description as was outlined at the interview. That they would live up to all of my expectations as their manager. The reality is that I am usually a good judge of character and usually I make the right hiring decisions, but sometimes I don’t. So that 90-day probation, protects me as an employer so that I am not “stuck” with a bad decision. I think voters should get that same “get-out-of-jail-free” card! We, as voters, vote for someone that we think (based on their campaign brochures) will do a great job representing us as taxpayers, and sometimes we get it wrong!
Now maybe to be fair, based on the fact that they do only meet a couple of times per month, maybe it would need to be a 6-month probationary period, or even a One-Year evaluation!! In my humble opinion, that little bit of extra accountability may do a whole lot of good!
I would love to hear your thoughts on this one!!
Tabitha says
January 27, 2015 at 12:19 amAgree 100%. The thing we all know about politicians, regardless of whether they’re municipal or federal, is they talk a great game during their elections. It’s their job. Ans as you said, employees can do the same thing in an interview. Some people know the right things to say – but their follow-theough is less than… adequate we’ll say. Sometimes all it takes is a firm reprimand and some coaching to change, other times it’s simply just not possible.
In this council, I think it’s fair to say that they have received several firm reprimands from the public that they have served, and should be able to correct that. However, if they can’t, should a town or city really have to be stuck with people who can talk a great game but can’t play for anything? A probationary period would be a great way to ensure this doesn’t happen.
Doug Roome says
January 27, 2015 at 4:05 amI would suggest that the burden to evaluate the credibility of the candidates lies on the electorate BEFORE they put their little X on the ballet on election day. As you suggested Lisa, as a manager you are pretty efficient at the evaluation of applicants, you take the time to check references, and you ask relevant questions during the interview process. The voters are obliged, IMO, to apply the same due diligence BEFORE they vote. To suggest that they should get an “out” 90 days later takes the onus off of the voter. They have 4 years, and in many cases up to 20 years to evaluate the performance of the sitting council and at least several months to speak with new candidates. The apathy of the voters is in question here. If they made a mistake in their vote, A) we all suffer the consequences and B) hopefully they would take responsibility for their mistake and take their vote more responsibly at the very next opportunity.
mrsposty@outlook.com says
January 27, 2015 at 4:53 amDoug, I absolutely agree with you that voters need be better educated before they cast their ballots. I am hoping that in the future we will see a society that are more engaged and more eager to be better prepared on election day!
I write this as one of those “What if…” statements because as I sit through council meetings, these are the thoughts that run through my head as the shenanigans continue. I am in no way proposing that something like this should be implemented, but I wonder how different the behaviour of council would be if they were held to the same standards that most employees are!
….although, after tonight’s meeting…maybe this probationary period should be looked at a little closer 😉 lol
Doug Roome says
January 27, 2015 at 4:13 amI wrote ballet when I meant ballot. Freudian? It may be true that getting elected has become more of a performance than stating what your true motives are and getting elected based on your values and political philosophy…
mrsposty@outlook.com says
January 27, 2015 at 4:48 amDoug, I quite enjoyed your Freudian slip! ~Lisa
Concerned Citizen says
January 27, 2015 at 4:12 pmI agree Lisa !!
I watched the budget meeting on TV last night….some people do not deserve to be sitting in those chambers. And it’s not because they aren’t good people, I am sure they are. Nor is it because they are not honest, as I am sure they are.
I think it’s because they are either ”in over their heads” or ”out for their own agendas”. This is going to be a long four years…