To the Editor,
Some six months ago, city bureaucrats and council decided that it would be nice to create another bureaucracy – a communications director.
The duty of this new office would be to communicate – to taxpayers – information that city staff and council wanted taxpayers to know. And, how much they should know.
When this flight of fancy first appeared, there was a significant interest and objection with letters to the editor, street-side interviews, unofficial polls and discussions.
In spite of objection, those in authority made no attempt to discuss the matter with the taxpayer and became very quiet.
One letter writer suggested two courses for the city: Abandon this expensive toy or go behind closed doors and proceed, only letting the taxpayers know when the matter had been culminated.
The latter course was council’s choice.
Of interest is the budget for the venture. At $140,000 – with almost $100,000 as a salary for the PR person, the $40,000 will not go far in paying the benefits, holiday pay, bonuses, office expenses and other associated costs.
Some councillors did not support the original idea but, for some reason, recanted.
One councillor is noted as commenting that it cost us more money, but we probably need one. How is “probably” a vote of confidence in the appointment?
One other councillor stated “It’s not to make up stories, it’s not to spin anything.”
Is this a rebuttal even before an accusation?
D. F. Connors