'The old chestnut... just doesn’t cut water'.

Well said.

Thanks for your Opinion , something is wrong with the picture.

Basically what you are saying Ben is that our councillors should forsake all other community involvement once they get on council for those other involvements will very likely bring them into confilct by your definition. I for one want people who are active and involved in the community to sit on my municipal council. I want people who have been in the trenches and are still active and involved and thus have a close knowledge of the issues. Conflict of interest should relate to personal financial gain. What would the personal financial gain be for council members sitting on the feasibility committee?

I disagree with you, Skabowl, because I happen to think that Ben is right. We can't help but think that an alderman is biased if they vote on an issue they are close to. It is just common sense, one cannot be seen to have an unbiased opinion about one's pet project, or about the future of an organization or movement to which they are attached. To use the latest trendy terminology; "it's all about the optics, people" It is not about personal gain, I am sure that our aldermen or mayor would never use their influence to feather their own nest, aren't you?
metalman.

When one sits on a Board, or on Council, or any direction and decision making body that deals with the bigger picture, one ought to be careful when one votes one way or another to make sure that the greater good is being served rather than special interests.

To think that people do not have favourite causes they champion is simply unrealistic. In fact, those running for council do so in a large part on the types of things they will champion, albeit that the good ones will weasel out of definitively supporting this or that. Even the bridge issue in the last election was ill-defined and could have been taken one way by one voter and another by another voter.

However, when it comes to actually sitting on Council, decisions have to be made. A pro law and order candidate will tend to vote one way. A business advocate will tend to vote another way. A social worker will vote differently again. A sport supporter will tend to support sports facilities and groups.

Are these people all guilty of a conflict of interest? The voters have selected their “jury”. They have had their chance to call such things to question when they were put to the test at election time. You now have to go with the “jury” you have selected, for good or for bad.

The real conflict is not whether a Councillor typically supports one thing or another. The real conflict is whether one gains through tangible favours such as money. That is an easily measurable indicator. I think everything else is not measurable but rather based on one opinion over another.

So let us say that a Councillor lived in the neighbourhood which opposes the facility being built there. Would that Councillor have to remove him/herself? Do the local MLA’s remove themselves from decisions in the Legislature if their community stands to benefit? If not, what size does the “community of interest” have to be before it is considered to be a conflict? The country? The province? The city? The riding? The ward (in those systems which have wards)? The neighbourhood community? The multiculturalism community? The community of artists? The community of athletes? The community of golfers?

I suggest the entire social system would come to a standstill if we had to remove ourselves form each decision making body because we may be perceived to make a decision based on the bias of which side of the bed we got up form that morning or which coffee we drink or who we pal around with or which organization we support by giving money to it.

In this case, there are many competing interests at least. The interest of the local neighbourhood, the interest of the community of homeless individuals, the interests of the province is building the facility, the interests of the community of workers who will support the facility and its occupants, the interest of the larger community of PG, even the interests of the DBIA and other areas which, should the facility not be built where it is currently proposed, could be the alternate site.

The community of interests are many, almost limitless. Every single Councillor, has their foot and even heart in at least one of those communities and they will have to deal with many competing interests when making a decision not only on this matter, but many others that come before them.

The final decision will have to centre around whether this is the best location. My typical test to that answer would have to be a very simple one. Where are the other locations that have been explored? If others have been explored, why were they rejected? How did they stand up to this one? What are the measures of a “good” location?

To my mind, from what little I can actually observe from this process without having to go to an FOI request, there has been insufficient exploration of the matter. This appears to be, simply put, an expedient solution. Is it one of the better solutions? Who knows? If someone does, please let me know.

So, my question is not whether Councillors are biased by having a special interest community or group at heart, but have they done their due diligence in this matter, or have they dug in their heels and become defensive about it? The vote and the discussion around it may tell, although we can watch for political posturing rather than a direct, clearly explained rationale for their position.

Doesn't seem like due diligence to me owl!
It seems more like arrogance because someone from the peanut gallery had the nerve to question their motives?
Especially Kinsley and Krause!

The city hasn't been run very well by the present crew (and for a long time) so I for one don't expect much any more.

If one doesn't expect much one doesn't feel too much disappointment...

Cheers!

Wherever the truth lies, well spoken, OWL.
metalman.

It looks like a whole can of worms has been opened, GOOD LUCK to the peanuts. The whole thing should be scraped and start again and make everyone happy. This is getting scary.

Well said owl,...as usual!
I can't help but wonder if city council understands that they have turned this into an election issue?
Seldom do we see such animosity and mistrust over a project!
Or do they care,and if they don't,why not?
No matter how I look at this,I do see conflict!