The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

We, although we won‘t often admit to it, are all replaceable and Backroom pacts should not occur. Regardless of years of serâ€" vice, a city bureaucrat‘s position is not a job for life and should never convey and attitude of arrogance, uncaring or unhelpfulness at any I believe, to a high degree, that it can be assumed that our former mayor, although admittedly a part of several bad decisions, and who albeit to her credit did try to right some wrongs but was sandbagged often by the backroom dealings of city pontiffs and certain councillors, and this is exactly the situation that needs to be changed. ayor Lynne Woolstencroft Mhas been given an unkind kick in the recent election. I believe the citizens of Waterloo can be thankful to have had her over the past three years. She had the mayor‘s job at â€" no doubt â€" the worst three years in the city‘s history. This citizen is upset and justifiâ€" ably so. One should never underesâ€" timate the power and manipulative persuasion of a city bureaucrat or their personal agenda. The comments were not limited to any particular department, but were broad based. uring the recent municipal Delections going door to door, there were very distinct, numerous and unsettling comâ€" ments about highâ€"ranking city staff. What a nightmare she came upon soon after she took office. Some would have walked away from the problem. Mayor Woolstencroft, however, attended meeting upon meeting:; she was the sole elected representaâ€" tion of the city who reâ€"negotiated Woolstencroft was given an unkind kick she was the sole elected representaâ€" _ Could show with the RIM Park misâ€" Jerry and Christa Fischer tion of the city who reâ€"negotiated _ takes. Waterloo e Council should govern; not be governed You said it QUESTION SHOULD SMOKING BE BANNED IN THE WORKâ€" PLACE? M al d h Inasmuch, our new mayor has advocated several times throughout his campaign that certain changes of staff are essential in redirecting If, in turn, this means giving the golden handshake or simply bidâ€" ding adieu to a handful of people who have forgotten their mandate (as a civic employee) of care, conâ€" cern and service, then so be it. They have the same or more energy and ability, without the snobby attitude or ego. Also, during her term as mayor, she used negotiation instead of costly Ontario Municipal Board Hearings on land zoning disputes. there are many wonderful resources of staff and talent at city hall in the secondary level (and within the ranks) that have been passed over for many years and could well do a superior job. the RIM Park deal from its original cost of $225.7 million to $145.7 milâ€" lion, which represents a total savâ€" ings of $82 million. She worked to fire the CAO, who was given a sweet contract by previâ€" ous administrations without much help from her council. But she had the courage to lead. The voters booted her out as their only avenue of repulsion they could show with the RIM Park misâ€" takes. "One should never underestimate the power and manipulative persuasion of a city bureaucrat." "No. Being as I‘m a smoker, we had to suffer enough times with being banned in bars. We respected that but I disagree with banning it elseâ€" where." "Yes. You can smoke outside if you want, so there‘s really no point in smoking inside." THE CHRONICL] Paula Costa COMMENT Sam Smith At the citizens‘ concern and request and for the first time in many years, it is now time for our council to govern instead of being Our new councillors, unfamiliar with the ‘inside political system,‘ must take their lead from Mayor Epp and trust his intuition on this issue. He has focus and knowledge. It would be folly to think that if our previous council was easily marionetted by staff, then with five fresh faces largely in a spin, to quote a popular songwriter, "Baby, you ain‘t seen nothin‘ yet." The only potential danger lies within the fact that five novice councillors, already deeply embedâ€" ded in quick study and a large learning curve, could well be schmoozed and influenced by the immediate and massive attention and lose somewhat of the focus on staff that helped to create this dilemma. this city‘s future and 1 agree with him 100 per cent. We wish Mayor Lynne Woolstenâ€" croft well and trust that the mayorâ€" elect Herb Epp will lead and serve our City of Waterloo with the same compassion and accountability. Yes, she did vote for RIM Park like everyone else on council, based on the information given to them from highly paid senior staff, whose job it was to check the figures. The new mayor will hire a new CAO. No doubt an easier job comâ€" pared to firing someone with an ironclad contract. "I would say out of consideration for other people‘s health, it definitely should be banned." "Yes, because it affects people‘s health and I don‘t think nonâ€" smokers should have to put up with it." Daniel Cunningham Carolyn Kostynuk 1 asked Armour whether the Alliance really wanted to gain votes at the expense of a persecuted minority, even if this camâ€" paign was effective in doing so. "Firstly, I reject the premise of your question," he replied. "Secondly, we view this issue as a question of social policy and not one of minority rights." Sure, Jim; whatever you say. And I suppose the U.S. Civil War was really about protecting states rights and had nothing to do with about abolishing slavery. Armour contended that the party was not opposed to "the idea of registered domestic partnerships or sameâ€"sex civil unions. The Canadian Alliance simply believes that the tradiâ€" tional definition of marriage should be upheld. That opinion does not come at the expense of any group in Canadian sociâ€" ety." But, the Alliance / Reform has voted en masse against every single piece of gay rights legislation â€" from amending the Canadian Human Rights Act, to expanding hate crimes legâ€" islation, to the recognition of same sex civil unions (when that was on the table in 1999). The party that allegedly believes in free votes is always unanimous when it comes to denying the rights of its gay constituents. I asked Arinour why the Alliance thought that this issue would be likely to lead people to switch their votes, given that supporters of his party are already overwhelmingly opposed to sameâ€"sex marriage, whereas supporters of every other party are in favour (albeit by a smaller margin, with the exception of the NDP). He responded by suggesting that "the jury is still out on whether sameâ€"sex marriage will he a voteâ€"switcher; the fact that the pool of traditional marriage supporters is far higher than those who â€" according to polisters â€" currently support the Canadian Alliance means there‘s an opportunity to pick up some votes. "If that‘s the case, why has the Alliance not gained at all in the polls since the summer, when it began to put this issue front and centre? In fact, all that‘s happened in that time is that support for sameâ€"sex marriage has gone up. Either opposing sameâ€"sex marriage is an electoral dead end. or the Alliance must be doing a pretty pathetic job of making its case. Over the past week, I‘ve exchanged a series of eâ€"mails on this issue with f Jim Armour, director of communicaâ€" tions in Stephen Harper‘s office. 1 * ®. noted that a majority of Progressive ‘ â€" $# Conservative supporters (57 per cent, which represents a larger majority | * than Canadians as a whole) support | }â€" N C ) the right of same sex couples to | No marry), and asked why would the “ SCOTT Alliance want to drive a wedge | PIATKOWSKI between the parties at the very time |[___ _ that they are trying to convince the Tories to merge with them. Armour dismissed the polling numbers that I cited and argued that "the Alliance opinion is not at odds with the overwhelming majority opinion of the PC Caucus so I don‘t see it as a wedge at all". But, many Tories that I talk to (and I do talk to Tories), are genuinely worried that any merged party will be dominated by a narrowâ€"minded social conservatism, particularly if it is led by Stephen Harper. This mailing, at this time, will hardly do anything to relieve those concerns. Members of Parliament are entitled to do this kind of mailâ€" ing and further entitled to pool that right with other MPs in their caucus (which is what allows the Alliance to blanket households in Liberalâ€"held ridings, for example). So, the question then /s becomes: Is this the kind of mailing | NTHE | that the Alliance really wants to be | ANOTHER | sending to voters in the five ridings | VIEW | that received it? I think not. I | We are assured that "the Canadian Alliance, led by Stephen Harper, is the only federal party that supports the traditional definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Unlike the Liberals, we intend to keep our promise." Of course, recipients are given the opporâ€" tunity to express their opinions on the issue, particularly if they "want to help". The party wants to know whether we "agree that the Federal government should maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the excluâ€" sion of all others" and whether "Stephen Harper‘s Canadian Alliance is on the right track". For a litany of reasons, they are clearly not on the right track (unless theyire trying to evoke an image of being tied to the track as a speeding train approachâ€" es). You‘re off the right track Households in Kitchenerâ€"Waterloo and Kitchener Centre ridings were recently among the lucky recipients of a Canadian Alliance mailing concerning "the future of marriage in Canaâ€" da" (the publiclyâ€"funded fiyers â€" 250,000 pieces of them â€" were also sent to ridings in London, Hamilton and Etobicoke}. According to the flyer, "the Liberals betrayed Canadian voters" by "refusing to stand by their word" to defend marriage. | ANOTHER uy E AJ [ @#G>~ M 1 N :;l }. | stfolise |