Dear editor:

On Feb. 5, Mr. Nick Ruller issued a statement on the NOTL municipal webpage wherein he highlighted concerns linking media coverage/commentary to the creation of an unsafe and disrespectful workplace that seemingly in his mind encourages abuse, the erosion of public trust, negatively affecting employee well-being, professional reputation and negatively affecting workplace morale. 

According to some, the definition of a safe working environment is one where employees feel physically, emotionally, and psychologically secure, free from hazards, discrimination, and harassment.

He has worrisome justifiable concerns, but his statements have innuendos and suppositions where actual instances of unsafe workplace incidents are not identified. If they had occurred legal action, inhouse terminations, the Human Rights Commission and the ombudsman would have been involved. So what is the purpose of his statement?

Any media that contains criticism of our municipal decision-makers and supporting staff could lead to any of the things that Mr. Ruller has mentioned. But these criticisms could also inspire our municipal government to alter their decision-making trajectory, take more notice of the existing public discontent with town council’s decision-making, and incorporate resident’s concerns/suggestions/recommendations into their approvals.

From that perspective criticisms and resident contributions would generate a very positive result, if they were received in a positive perspective.

He has a concern with the media identifying staff because they are not public figures, nor decision makers. What Mr. Ruller seems to be saying is that town staff should not be criticized by name because they are not public figures.

I think for the majority of people in Canada, it doesn’t really matter whether you are a public figure or not, abusive behavior should never be tolerated or accepted in the workplace. So, what’s Mr. Ruller’s trying to say?

I really don’t understand why town staff should not be questioned or criticized for such things such as the perceived (real or not) lack of due diligence or risk analysis.

I don’t understand how criticism, questionings or requests for public documents can encourage abuse, and create an unsafe and disrespectful workplace. Perhaps Mr. Ruller can clarify this for everyone, because it doesn’t appear to be clear in his statement?

Mr. Ruller has used the words “encourages abuse.” Abuse is generally defined as a situation where one uses something to bad effect/purpose, or is the cruel and violent treatment of a person.

Can Mr. Ruller specifically point out how media coverage encourages “the cruel and violent treatment of a person” or how it is used for a bad purpose? Please clarify this Mr. Ruller. Otherwise, in the interest of free speech, perhaps you should consider retracting your statement.

As far as erosion of public trust is concerned, there appears to be a number of residents that would like to replace the existing council based on events that have transpired and are transpiring — that to me seems like there already exists concerns about the existing council’s decision and has resulted in the formation of the NOTL Residents Association.

Media attention to this has been in the public eye for years. Why is Mr. Ruller concerned with this now?

I give credit to Coun. Maria Mavridis who has publicly responded about being locked out of the Residents 4 a Better NOTL website that prevented her from clarifying what she believed to be inaccurate and/or inappropriate commentary.

I think Coun. Mavradis rightly criticized the situation which denied her the ability to present her side of the story. That’s the democratic and free society we should be living in. A chance to defend oneself/decision/etc.

Mr. Ruller, town council, etc., should consider making the same rebuttals and clarifications that he feels necessary to correct the “record.” Isn’t part of his job to ensure misconceptions don’t happen and the public understand the correct facts that support municipal decision-making?

You have to wonder why Mr. Ruller, town council, or his predecessors haven’t tried to correct the potentially hundreds of articles that have appeared in the media over a number of years that might have contained inaccurate information or opinions. Maybe there weren’t any, or it was felt that they didn’t need to defend their decision-making.

This is an odd time to try and “correct” historical misconceptions or misinformation. Perhaps this is a prelude to forthcoming municipal elections, or everyone’s campaign?

Strangely, Mr. Ruller feels the town has spent significant public resources and tax dollars responding to opinion-based inquiries that are not rooted in verifiable facts and do not meaningfully advance transparency or accountability.

His statement is an oxymoron. There has been very little town council response in the media related to issues described in the media. So, can Mr. Ruller provide what amount of money has been spent on what he calls “opinion-based inquiries”?

Fiscal responsibility is another topic, with the forgiveness of a Parliament Oak fee coming to mind. Opinions on what constitutes fiscal responsibility resound.

Questions to town staff and council aren’t normally based in verifiable facts as Mr. Ruller has stated. They are fact-finding inquiries designed to advance transparency, accountability and confirm facts or deficiencies related to such things as infrastructure designs, consulting reports, etc.

These requested items have been paid for by taxpayer and we should have unfettered timely access to this information. It appears that he has recently restricted information flows to the same taxpayers that have paid for the town’s informational databanks. How does this make sense?

Elected officials and their employees, I believe, have an obligation to provide specific answers to inquiries, verified by specific facts within their historical informational databanks that they took into account (and which taxpayers have paid for) when recommendations or decisions were made. In my opinion it’s their job — it’s what they were elected to do and are being paid to do it: a societal democratic contract. 

Unlike the provincial and federal “theatre” of political intrigue, there is no opposition party in municipal politics to hold the “party in power” to account.

The electorate are in a sense, therefore, the unelected opposition party that is needed to question whether the trajectory of our municipal government is in keeping with their individual electoral promises and the well being of the community.

To take this democratic aspect away, is in my opinion, an anathema to the democratic process. We need satire and criticism; we need the opinions and satire of people like Garth Turner. He reflects a lot of our views. He is the Jimmy Kimmel of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Too bad if you’re a Republican.

Gienek Ksiazkiewicz
NOTL