Dear Editor,
Regarding Warden Toller’s letter last week (https://theequity.ca/treat-other-people-the-way-you-want-to-be-treated/), by appointing a member of staff as chair of a committee created by the governing body through her, the warden crossed the line between governance and administration and placed the employee in a position of conflict of interest. The committee that she was chairing was dealing with matters that could directly affect her workload as Waste Management Coordinator, leaving her objectivity as chair questionable.
The employee was the subject of critique not in her job performance but as chair of a governance committee, and as such, subject to critique. Warden Toller bears the responsibility for placing the employee in the hot seat. MRC employees should participate only in the capacity of advisors to provide information or report to MRC committees.
Under what authority does the warden create her own committees absent of any resolution or oversight by the Council of Mayors and engage the costly services of MRC staff in the process, and then dismiss the committee at her discretion? Why do the mayors in council give so much latitude and authority to the warden who is supposed to answer to council?
As for breaches of plenary session, if the information pertains to a public matter, how can it be a breach of confidentiality. Open plenary sessions for public matters with a closed session for confidential matters should be mandatory. Closed committee meetings and rubber stamping at regular meetings the decisions drafted in plenary is governance closed to the people and contrary to the principle of participatory democracy enshrined in our country’s constitution.
Linda Lafortune, Otter Lake
