Editor: I am writing in response to the editorials in The Chatham Voice on Oct. 30 (“Lack of vision”) and Nov. 6 (“Remember your code)” regarding three council members who voted against the proposed Chatham-Kent Community Hub project. While the role of an opinion column is to provoke discussion, I must respectfully challenge the assertion that these three councillors’ votes represented incompetence or a failure to uphold an ethical duty.
(Editor’s note: At no time in those editorials did we suggest incompetence. And the latter editorial did not mention a single councillor’s name.)
The core responsibility of an elected official is two-fold: to participate in effective governance for the municipality as a whole and, to represent the specific voice and interest of their constituents.
When these three council members cast their “No” votes against the Chatham-Kent Community Hub, they were not exhibiting a “lack of vision” or “memory loss,” they were performing their fundamental democratic obligation. (Editor’s note: The editorials never questioned their right to vote and in what manner.) They were listening to and acting upon the majority opinion of their residents in their respective areas who were demonstrably opposed to this project. Coun, Bondy, Coun. Storey and Coun. Jubenville, showed political courage by prioritizing the concerns of the people who elected them.
This is the very definition of responsible governance at the local level. Dissent in a democracy is not a defect; it is a feature that ensures all voices are heard and considered, even when the majority decision ultimately moves forward.
Furthermore, referencing past or present integrity commissioner ( IC ) investigations alongside a councillor’s legislative vote attempts to unfairly conflate process with political position. An IC investigation addresses matters of conduct and due process; it does not invalidate a councillor’s right or duty to vote in accordance with their constituents’ wishes on a matter of municipal policy. (Editor’s note: Our editorials did not criticize a councillor’s right to vote.) To imply that engaging in their legislative duty is somehow unethical because of unrelated conduct matters is a misguided linkage that undermines public trust in the democratic process.
We can all agree that the majority must rule and that, once a decision is made, council must move forward. However, the four councillors remain obligated to represent the ongoing concerns of those who are still upset the Hub is proceeding. To condemn them for continuing to advocate for their constituents’ perspective is to condemn the very act of local representation and dismiss democracy – doing away citizenry representation.
(Editor’s note: Again, in the editorial “Remember your code,” where we quote portions of the Code of Conduct for Chatham-Kent councillors, we did not name a single councillor and spoke in generalities.)
We should celebrate-not attack-councillors who take a firm stand on behalf of their voters, especially on significant, high-cost projects such as the Hub. Their resistance was a principled act, and it is vital the actions of these three councillors is recognized as responsible representation.
John Cryderman
Chatham
