The staff takes good care of Council, so the Council takes good care of the staff, so the staff takes good care of Council, so ...
In November last year, I wrote a short article on Self Regulation. It was published in the chapter newsletter and on the website. The article included the phrase
The whole concept of a democracy where your
vote means something is lost. While recycling our waste materials
is good for the environment, the all too common practice of
recycling our past PEO councillors is not.
Everything was fine for a couple of months until
the election period began. The sitting PEO councillor, Thomas Chong
who is running for re-election suddenly got offended. There was
some backroom politicking in PEO. Thomas Chong then wrote again to
PEO's lawyer. Exactly one
minute later, the lawyer wrote back demanding the article be
removed from the website.PEO's lawyer, considers that because a PEO councillor is offended, that is sufficient reason for you not to know about PEO's long standing practice of recycling councillors, even though none of the election rules published on the PEO web site were broken. He has since refused to answer questions because he has no time to deal with this issue any further even though he is the Chief Election Officer.
PEO's staff is technically under the financial control of PEO Councillors; therefore how can a PEO lawyer be unbiased in an election matter? Because PEO's lawyer is also the "Chief Election Officer", it means that he fulfills the functions of a prosecutor, judge and jury. So, how fair can this process be to "an outsider" when the sitting councillor has such a cozy relationship with prosecutor, judge and jury?
