Commotion about promotion, on Tuesday September 21 I raised the issue of elected representatives participating in promoting private ventures.
The following is what I presented to council:
To eliminate the possibility, perceived or real of members of municipal council, being seen as endorsing a private corporation, development, public offering, raising of funds for a private project, or any other non-governmental process.
Motion
"Henceforth no member of council shall be permitted to endorse any project, appear in any promotional video, pamphlet, or publication of any type, or attend shareholders meetings, without first presenting to council the reasons for such involvement and receiving its approval".
This motion in no way intends to limit a councilor’s ability to do the following:
Volunteer at a function, or an event put on by a private group.
Attend a shareholders meeting as a private citizen, or investor.
Appear in various types of marketing, or promotional material that promotes the community itself.
I believe politicians cross a line when they are seen or even perceived to be seen as promoting a private enterprise. Promote the community absolutely but not a business. This may come back to bite us in the rear end. Council directed administration to bring back a policy for this issue to our next council meeting.
Where this came from is the Mayor's appearance in the bridgegate video.
4 comments:
Why do you not show us the video and allow us to make up our own mind
Jack
Its not about a video or a speech at a investor meeting.Its about conflict of interest.If you are supporting a venture in any way you must exclude yourself from any official voting on that matter.The good Doctor was unlikely to be promoting anyone without an agenda.Maybe he was a investor, maybe he was paid a kickback or maybe he did all this for the good of the CNP.However he did not have council give him this direction, therefore the conflict of interest, in my opinion.
With the inevitable lawsuits to come out over this issue, is it possible the municipality could get sued for misrepresentation, considering the leader of the municipality (mayor) was promoting a project that was very questionable at best?
Apparantly, tens of millins of dollars have allegedly vanished. Could be very costly for those sued.
Residents of CNP, who have been affected by the environmental carnage left by the BBoys, must be wondering why the good Mayor would be the only dissenting vote against a Security Deposit for developers. Hmmmmmmmm . . .
Post a Comment