I write about a letter from Mr. F. Wright (Jan. 30, 2016) and a response from Mr. N. Harley (Feb. 03, 2016). Mr. Wright comments on council bickering. He thinks there is a nameless group of sore losers from the last election always criticizing city council. He thinks three councillors, Sheena Hughes, Cam MacKay and Bob Russell don’t act constructively at meetings and that their behaviours are counter-productive. He clarifies his self-interest as the father-in-law of Coun. Tim Osbourne but states it hasn’t influenced his opinion of council’s behaviour. His forthrightness is noteworthy. Mr. Harley disputes this, implying the mayor and other councillors are a sort of “gang,” and infers there is no anonymous group criticizing council. He quotes Mr. Wright’s advice to council naysayers to “…get over it.” and says he should adhere to it himself. He says he supports the fiscal-management approach of the three councillors in question and that the mayor and other three councillors have wasted “…tens of millions…” on useless projects. First, Mr. Harley quotes a “gang of four” that Mr. Wright never mentioned. I presume that’s Mr. Harley’s perception of alignments in city council. It’s very important to note, though, that Mr. Wright’s letter was not focused on council alignments but rather on the personal behaviour and performance of the councillors he critiqued. About anonymous council critics Mr. Harley writes “…if it is a secret society, how does he know about it?” It’s a glib response. I also think it’s wrong. That’s evidenced by the nasty personal comments on the St. Albert Gazette website in response to Mr. Wright’s letter. Only three of 10 commenters used identifiable names and posted reasonable comments. The rest sling mud using aliases – the behaviour of Internet trolls. In this regard kudos to both Messrs. Wright and Harley for standing personally behind their opinions. I think Mr. Harley takes Mr. Wright’s comments about electing people and then accepting their actions until re-election out of context. Those comments refer to anonymous complainers. Neither Messrs, Wright nor Harley were commenting anonymously. Mr. Harley’s admonishment for Mr. Wright to follow his own advice is misplaced and incorrect. Mr. Harley purports council has spent “…tens of millions of tax dollars wasted on useless projects presently supported by ‘the gang of four.’” I don’t think the city budget has a line object titled “Wasted Money.” It certainly has no signing authority titled “The Gang of Four.” He’s entitled to his opinion but gives no concrete examples of real waste or what its relative extent might be to the overall city budget. His opinion of the relative worth of city expenditures would be more useful if stated as such and supported by examples. Mr. Harley’s last comment of “…display of anger toward the three councillors that seem to consistently vote in opposition to his son-in-law” is a backhanded swipe at Mr. Wright implying he wrote wholly or in part to support councillor Osborne’s positions on issues facing council. Mr. Wright’s letter was focused on poor behaviour, not the opinions of any councillor on any issue. Mr. Harley’s comment reminds me of Coun. Russell’s comments on both the city CAO and the mayor in his letter to the editor of Dec. 23, 2015. Backhanders are nasty innuendos usually stated when someone has no facts to back things up. They don’t improve either behaviour or intelligent debate. They do, though, seem to be a favoured form of critique used by any council critics who support Hughes, MacKay and Russell.
I agree overall with Mr. Wright’s comments in his January letter. I think the three councillors he critiques should start behaving more collegially and quit harping on the past. This seems hard for them as evidenced by councillor Hughes’ letter to the editor of Jan. 30, 2016 about her long-past opposition to spend money in support of a lawsuit by the city CAO. It’s much in the same vein as councillor Russell’s Dec. 2015 letter – a re-hash of old news with overall tones of being a sore loser. Rearview commentary, nitpicking, council-chamber rambling, and unthoughtful public criticism by council members are divisive, counter-productive and achieve nothing. It shows an inability to use politeness, co-operation and compromise to reach amicable, reasoned and good solutions to any issue facing council. I think councillors using these techniques are acting irresponsibly and selfishly rather than in the overall best interests of the city, its businesses and residents. Last, I’ll say I’m not “aligned” with anyone on council. I don’t personally know any of them. I am, though, a concerned long-time resident who wants to see consistent, responsible and effective civil behavior used by our elected civic government.
David Merritt, St. Albert
