I felt I was missing something in Mr. Holota’s column about ‘the truth’ and that before I sat down and put fingers to keyboard to comment on ‘the truth’, I needed to ruminate on the column to see if what it was that was bothering my subconscious would percolate to the surface.
It took a day or two before I recognized that what was bothering me was that Mr. Holota’s column and comments are based on the assumption that his sources and fact checking give/gave him ‘the truth’; that he had in his possession the final and absolute ‘truth’.
Further Mr. Holota’s commentary contained no information which the reader could use to judge the degree or probability to which this assumption is correct and so judge the validity of Mr. Holota’s chastising commentary.
What do I mean by this?
Since these rumours deal with the City of Abbotsford let us assume, for the sake of this example, that Mr. Holota contacted the City to determine ‘the truth’ in these matters. Why is it important that the reader know this in order to for their judgment on the matter? Because the staff and council of the City of Abbotsford have a track record which affects the judgment one forms.
During and after the Plan A debate/referendum staff and council swore up and down as to what had been spent by the City on advertising, until a Freedom of Information request revealed a $100,000 worth of advertising spending that staff and council had put into an account that was not called advertising.
Freedom of Information requests and experience have taught citizens that claims or statements of ‘fact’ as well as ‘guarantees’ made by city council or staff may or may not reflect reality.
Perhaps as a relative newcomer Mr. Holota lacks the experience that causes citizens of longer residence to take any ‘truths’ from the City with several grains of salt.
Although Mr. Holota’s statements make it clear he has been in Abbotsford and in close contact with City Hall long enough to become infected with ‘Abbotsford staff and council think’.
‘Abbotsford staff and council think’ is where rather than addressing the important question of why there is more than one manager at ARC, the issue gets side tracked onto whether the salary is $100,000 or $85,000.
I am not saying that one should not determine an accurate salary figure but that the important determination to be made is why taxpayers are paying for more than one manager. Getting bogged down in an argument as to whether the salary is $100,000 or only $85,000 is poor fiduciary behaviour. The important questions to be asked/answered is why are we paying $255,000 (3 people) and why we are NOT just paying $85,000 (1 person).
Yes, one needs to determine whether it is $85,000 or $100,000. The first step in making that determination is to define what you mean by salary; is it inclusive or exclusive of benefits, perks etc.
What is an Abbotsford councillor’s salary? Is it the $34,700 (44% raise) council voted for themselves?
What about the money that councillors are paid per committee and per meeting? A councillor who moans about being on 20 -25 committees is receiving additional payments totalling close to their ‘salary’.
So is their salary $34,700 or closer to $69,400?
Similarly, does a statement by the City that there are only two facility managers at ARC mean there are only two people responsible for performing the duties and functions of a manager at ARC; does it mean that only two managers work at ARC and that the third manager works out of City Hall; or does it mean that only two managers at ARC have facility references in their job description (ie pool manager or arena manager)?
Hmmm? If I was a Abbotsford City Hall type what title would I use to avoid a third facility manager at ARC? Possibly something along the lines of …say… Manager of Community Recreation?
Interestingly enough there is a Manager of Community Recreation at ARC who performs the management duties for the new facilities added to ARC by Plan A.
So is it the wording of the title or is it the duties performed that are important?
If one wants to pontificate about ‘the truth’ should one not explain what one means by ‘the truth’?
According to the dictionary:
Truth: the true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality; a verified or indisputable fact;
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth; a truth known by actual experience or observation.
If, by definition that truth is a fact and a fact is a truth, exactly what is a fact or a truth?
The circularity (Logic. of or pertaining to reasoning in which the conclusion is ostensibly proved, but in actuality it or its equivalent has been assumed as a premise) of the definitions makes it clear why Oscar Wilde wrote that “the truth is rarely pure and never simple” and why others have stated that “words of truth are always paradoxical” (a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth).
So if one mans truth is another man’s lie (or spin etc.) what is the truth?
That is up to the reader to decide. What I can tell you is that at ARC there is a manager responsible for the pool and weight room; a manager responsible for the ice surfaces/arena at ARC who works out of City Hall; a Manager of Community Recreation who is responsible for management of the new facilities of Plan.
That would seem to add up to 3 (1+1+1) to me.
Just as it would seem to me the obvious and important, but unasked, question is why rumours about City Hall’s behaviour and spending, no matter how outrageous, have such traction. The traction all these claims have would appear to suggest that the majority of Abbotsford’s citizens do not trust council to act wisely and in the best interests of the citizens of Abbotsford.
Which in light of the need for a Freedom of Information request to get information about the true level of advertising spending on Plan A; the guarantees that Plan A would not go over budget – and citizens know what those guarantees were worth; the assurances that the sports and entertainment complex would make money when the reality is that if citizens are lucky they will only have to subsidize the complex by $2.3 million – this year – an amount that will only climb year after year; the evidence that has emerged that council has not and continues to not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the budgeting process, leaving Abbotsford in a financially tenuous position with road, water and sewer capital needs unfunded; the attempt to introduce a gas tax in order to split the needed tax raise to conceal the true magnitude of the tax raise and council’s financial mismanagement; to cite but a few examples of the numerous council behaviours and actions that have made council undeserving of trust.
With City Hall’s track record citizens need full transparency of City financial records in order to be able to ascertain just what the true state of the City is and to determine what actions need to be taken to get Abbotsford back onto a solid financial footing; a solid footing the City was on a short two-and-a-half years ago.
Even should council miraculously begin to behave in a financially astute manner, without total transparency of the City’s records to citizen scrutiny who would believe this?
Council has so undermined citizen’s trust in their statements and actions that without being able to see and verify the veracity of council’s claims and actions through total transparency of their actions, council cannot hope to regain the trust of citizens.
For ‘the truth’, like beauty and contact lenses, lies in the eye of the beholder.
H’mmm