Why King Needs A Slush Fund

 

He is not the only one.  Councillors  aggregately should have the final say as to how funds are spent in their communities. They are subject to council....not the bureaucrats.  While councillors can then put money where the votes are instead of where the need is ( pandering) they are ultimately accountable for their actions. Will King be held accountable?

Hint: probably not

For example the recent sidewalk debate in manor park.  He advocated knowing full well he would lose the main vote at council...but comes out like he is fighting for his neighbors.

Council overruled this idea. The council view? Sidewalks are better, maybe not now but yes, over the half century to come.

All over Ottawa there are well-developed facilities and investments in wealthier neighborhoods. That is where the votes are!

The majority of council ( including King)rejected the recommendations of the auditor general against their keeping slush funds with no accountability,”.

lta Vista Coun. Marty Carr was among the minority who voted to side with the auditor general, calling the cash-in-lieu accounts "slush funds." (Michel Aspirot/provides flexibility for councillors to respond to community needs.

Slush Funds go to the heart of what councillors do.. being ward advocate means managing slush in order to get votes. Its one main reason why incumbents always win.

While councillors should have a role in the spending  process, individual councillors don’t make the final decision about garbage collection days or bus routes in their wards, and parks shouldn’t be any different.  Instead, city sets policy.

What do you think? Is pandering a good thing? SHOULD the squeaking wheel get the grease? 

My view is that the city needs overall priorities. Slush funds are a ruse to pander and get votes.

If elected, I will not run for re election. Clean up the slush.

No pandering!