Comment 50605

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2010 at 10:48:14

Regarding a 'shadow cabinet'...

I'm loath to see a solution applied to a problem that is handicapped by its adherence to the constructs already in place.

Why have an intermediary element between those governing and those being governed?

Why would we want to in effect produce another layer through which communication, dialogue and discourse would have to be filtered?

What's the essential problem here, what we're trying to overcome? Isn't it that people have been frustrated by Councillors, by not being heard, by them not being available, etc?

Look; if I have a problem with a business owner, I should be talking to them, not some intermediary. (Yes, I realize this analogy is flawed.)

Clearly I have to address this at length on my own blog, otherwise I'm co-opting RTH, but in a nutshell: I'm not interested in trying to fix a flawed design, I'm interested in addressing something much more fundamental, something that is part of a value-system shift. I believe that some of the best and brightest candidates from this election should be involved in trying to make things better, but not in the way that's been suggested; I'd like to see them applying their efforts to increasing the relationship of engagement on the parts of residents with their Councillors, something that may indeed seem more fuzzy...but to my mind, the successful attainment of which would prove far more beneficial to our city than a group of people attempting to keep our Council in check.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds