Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:
Opening comments: More at the end.
To the Public Question Period Index page.
Comments by others to this web-page 7.
Mississauga News - Aug 11, 2009 - Letter by Nando Iannicca, Councillor, Ward 7Rules of engagement Dear Editor:
At our last City Council meeting a self-admitted New Democratic Party official with a position based entirely on hypocrisy wanted to tell us how to run our city.
I was not going to let him get away with it and this led The News to call for my resignation.
I take this opportunity to tell you what really happened at City Council.
The News lambasted me for going after this innocent young speaker they claimed was a “private citizen,” characterizing him as a simple “resident who had a query” … and who only in passing happens to have an “affiliation with a registered political association … ”
The fact is Mr. Hamilton-Smith was registered as a deputant who “will address Council on behalf of the Mississauga South NDP.” His simple “query” was a two-page position paper submitted on Mississauga South NDP letterhead signed by members of their political executive. It concluded by stating it was presented “On behalf of the Mississauga South New Democrats.”
When I brought this fundamental distinction to The News, the editor quipped, “That is completely irrelevant and amounts to a red herring.”
Really? On what planet?
It appears that in the bizarro world of The Mississauga News that my career should end because I made the fatal mistake of believing this deputant was exactly who he presented himself to be.
As a political partisan who entered the fray, Mr. Hamilton-Smith is responsible for knowing the rules of engagement, as should a newspaper. They are the reasons why he encountered such hostile cross-fire, not only from me but other members of Council. No other deputants who shared similar sentiments encountered a similar fate. He broke the unwritten rule that states you never go before a separate level of government’s sacred chamber and tell them how to run the place.
The reason why what he did on behalf of the NDP is unprecedented and so ill-advised is because the players who understand and respect the game know you quickly go from offence to defence, a dreadful escalation ensues, some ugly history is relived, and voters think worse of all of us.
Were all of the above not enough, what actually bothered me the most was the sheer hypocrisy the NDP speaker demonstrated. A re-occurring theme of the debate was how the provincial and federal government do not have a public question period, as well as the overwhelming majority of Ontario municipalities.
So when Mr. Hamilton-Smith came to the podium the mayor immediately questioned him on this inconsistency. She asked if we might soon see a change in NDP policy at the upper levels to address this glaring contradiction.
His response is a matter of record: “This has nothing to do with the federal or provincial government.”
The galling arrogance it must take for him to stand before us and preach from the NDP sermon book of “Do as we say, not as we do, or choose not to do” was more than I could take. I was the next speaker.
Now that you have the facts, this is fairly simple for me.
I will be damned if I’m going to let the NDP, out to score cheap political points, dictate how we are going to run this city. And to the editor of The Mississauga News, who put your opinion ahead of that of the ballot box?
If you want to be judge, jury and executioner, you should actually be in the courthouse. To say nothing of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime.
And shame on you for clearly letting a political agenda get ahead of the fundamental principles of a fair, balanced, objective and ethical press.
I stand by all that was said at council on behalf of my Ward 7 constituents and, now that they have the facts, I will accept whatever judgment they have of me and my best intentions on their behalf.
Comments by others, 7, to this web-page;
Think About It Aug 12, 2009 9:20 PM Hogwash
The author behind this dribble has ommitted the fact that both charges against Antonio Baptista and Don Barber were trumped up and tossed out of court. Clearly hiding behind the KNOBS. Without Public Question Period perhaps a Mr Iannca would like to permit a boxing match where the contestants wear boxing gloves of not less than one hundred and forty grams each in mass, or any boxing contest held with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board or commission or similar body established by or under the authority of the legislature of a province for the control of sport within the province, shall be deemed not to be a prize fight subsiquent to penal codes section 83. (2)
* Agree 1
The Mississauga Muse Aug 12, 2009 4:13 AM
FLASHBACK TO NOVEMBER 2007 AND THIS EVIL EMPIRE QUOTE: “crass politics, hypocrisy and cowardice” QUOTE.
From MissyNews, Torstar Network Nov 08, 2007 - 7:53 AM "Hypocrisy and cowardice' led to resignations, councillors say. In a statement released yesterday, Councillors Nando Iannicca, Carmen Corbasson and Sue McFadden said they had no choice but to resign, accusing fellow councillors of “crass politics, hypocrisy and cowardice” for cutting their pay." And Iannicca describes the evil empire's inner sanctum as "government’s sacred chamber". HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH.* SNORK*. As for "I stand by all that was said at council on behalf of my Ward 7 constituents and, now that they have the facts…" A good thing for Iannicca et al is that Mississaugans don't base their votes on facts! As Councillor Iannicca knows full-well, votes are cast based on (Iannicca’s words here) "enlightened self-interest" aka “WALLET”. Ensure that people don't find out how much money the City p***es away annually and a SOCK PUPPET can be Councillor –even a Mayor, for LIFE.
The Mississauga Muse Aug 12, 2009 3:25 AM
Uatu, wrote, "Councillor Iannicca isn't interested in your FOIs, nor is anyone else on Council...to look into Corporate Security." Oh cripes, I knew that long ago already!
Corporate Security is arrogant, callous and abusive because Mayor and Councillors are! Former Councillor Larry Taylor nailed it when he wrote, "As Council gradually established its pay scale as the highest in Canada, it found that staying under the radar, meant there was less chance voters would care or become agitated about what was going on at Council." Highest pay scale of City Staff in Canada too --as well zero accountability, no matter how corrupt, incompetent and/or abusive. Keep Staff happy and they’re your most motivated campaign workers as well as your guaranteed voters. Protect your Staff’s 3% raise, bestow Corporate Grants to your sycophants while cutting services to the bone --but never the bones of those 23% who actually vote… sigh*… sadly, I’ve concluded that most Mississaugans would tolerate the bedside manner of the Third Reich as long as it doesn’t affect their pocketbooks…
Uatu Aug 12, 2009 2:05 AM
Muse: They're incumbents for life, that's why they can show contempt for your FOIs
Dear The (Wanna see my Freedom of Information on your KNOB know-nothings “of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime”) Muse, Councillor Iannicca isn't interested in your FOIs, nor is anyone else on Council. You've already written more than enough to get any Councillors who are really interested (ha ha! I used the pulral, I'm so funny) to look into Corporate Security and either none of them has bothered, or any of them who has doesn't care. Councillor Iannicca made another smug remark during the PQP deputations when he pontificated that anyone who wants to enter into debates at Council should simply run for office. Right, because anyone who runs gets elected. I mention this because it illustrates their arrogance. They aren't interested in looking at their dirty laundry because they know they can't be defeated. That's why Iannicca can "accept whatever judgment they have of me".
The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2009 11:21 PM
HIGHLY CONVENIENT to NOT REPORT. How many times has "Mississauga" said that MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE?
First, I LIKE Councillor Nando Iannicca. With that out of the way, what a HYPOCRITE! Iannicca wrote, "Were all of the above not enough, what actually bothered me the most was the sheer hypocrisy the NDP speaker demonstrated. A re-occurring theme of the debate was how the provincial and federal government do not have a public question period, as well as the overwhelming majority of Ontario municipalities." Psst! Nando! OK, (now I admit that I can't remember a time when it's actually been you sayin’ it…) but how many times both inside your evil empire Council Chambers and Peel Regional Council has a mayor or councillor sniffed all prissy-and-pride-like about how IT'S THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT --THE LOCAL ONE, "THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE"?! And I'm pretty sure I could scour my hard drives and find video of Iannicca noddin' his head up and down in agreement at every one of the (I can't count the times) Hazel McCallion warbled that line.
The Mississauga Muse Aug 11, 2009 11:19 PM
Yooo hooo, Councillor Iannicca! about your "To say nothing of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime”
Oh! And you writing, “If you want to be judge, jury and executioner, you should actually be in the courthouse. To say nothing of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime” that reminds me. Freedom of Information confirms that that’s how your KNOB City of Mississauga Corporate Security KNOBS operate! Worse, actually. Those knobs aren’t just “judge, jury and executioner” but also the knob “investigator”! And speaking of knowing “nothing of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime” may I disrespectfully suggest that “nothing of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime” should be emblazoned along the bottom of the quarter panels of your City of Mississauga Corporate Security Response KNOB UNITS! Both sides! Signed, The (Wanna see my Freedom of Information on your KNOB know-nothings “of the concept that the punishment should fit the crime”
Uatu Aug 11, 2009 10:55 PM
Councillor Iannicca: Have you even read your own Council Procedural By-law?
I don't think you have. You were clearly in violation of it. Nowhere does it exempt you if the deputant represents a political party, nor is there an exemption allowing insulting language to be used on deputants you believe to be hypocritical. Hypocisy is the term used when, say, a Council claims to be open and welcoming and yet allows a Councillor to insult a deputant. Perhaps you are the one who should go home and get an education.
* Agree 1
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]
|