Comment 107717

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted January 09, 2015 at 10:59:23 in reply to Comment 107698

His constituents don't vote for him to be "objective", per se. He's there to represent them at council, and his vote is tied to what they see as their interests in the matter.

I think this is a narrow, parochial interpretation of what it is to be a city counselor. These people are in council to be leaders, and sometimes that means telling your constituents that what they want is not right for them or for the city. You have to be willing, as a leader, to say "No, you don't understand the issue and what you want is not right."

Furthermore, its actually not his job to transmute the interests of his constituents to council. Being voted on to council means that for at least the rest of the term, you have the trust of your constituents to vote on any issue in the way that you think is best. If this isn't true, how did Bob Bratina stay mayor for a whole term after running on a pro-LRT platform?

I'm not saying he shouldn't vote because I don't agree with him; what I'm saying is that he should recognize that his position on the issue is not valid, and he should vouluntarily abstain from voting. Don't you think that's what his constituents would want if he held an unreasonable position that was contrary to their wishes?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools