Comment 76639

By CouldaWouldaShoulda (anonymous) | Posted May 08, 2012 at 13:39:14 in reply to Comment 76624

"And the voters who continue to vote for said concillors despite decades of evidence their approach hasn't worked."

But who actually shines the light on performance, and by what metrics is it being considered? Does the average resident have the comprehension to be able to appreciate the evidence? (I'd be interested in someone/something studying Councillor Morelli's contributions over the life of his career at City Hall. And I say this with no rancour or suspicion at all)

"Is Ward 3 better today than it was 20 years ago?"

Great question! I suspect that the answer would be both 'No'...and 'Yes'. Maybe Ryan could interview someone like Ward 3 neighbourhood association veteran Gerry Polmanter. Or Councillor Morelli. : )

"The same councillor has represented us for that long?"

Has it actually been twenty years?!?

"Is it Bernie's fault he wants to keep his job, is it his fault he has enough survival instinct to realise pandering to who he does has kept him his job for that long?"

The second part is loaded...but I don't think it's anyone's 'fault' to want to keep their gig. Especially if they keep getting re-hired.

"Or is it the fault of voters for continually being so easily and obviously duped?"

I don't like the word 'duped'. But in the end, if someone with 'questionable' performance abilities keeps getting re-hired, then I'd say it was the 'fault' of the person doing the hiring. The employer. In this case, the voters.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools