Friday, October 30, 2009

The mayoral candidates

I have decided that in lieu of any endorsement that I'm reluctant to make, I'll say one thing each about the mayoral candidates that I most admire and one thing that I do not admire, and you can take that for what it's worth.

Echoing the sentiments of many people, I really think that both these people could perform well as mayor (How's that for a tepid statement?). That is, I think there is equal potential for either of them doing a good job or either of them doing a lousy job, only in different ways, if you get my drift.

So here goes, in alphabetical order:

I think that Donna Holaday is brilliant. She knows facts and figures and can throw them around in an impressive manner. I also think, however, that she is too trusting about what she is told as backup for those facts and figures. In an ideal world, you would not have dept. heads who were trying to deceive when explaining why they needed funding for this project or another - but this is not an ideal world. She needs to be more cynical.

I really admire how James Shanley, when I would write something critical on here about one of his councillors, he would write to me and defend them, but only where he thought defense was in order. That may sound like nothing compared to 'oh, she's brilliant,' but it shows something about his character that I think is just as important in a chief administrator (and yes, I think the mayor is both an administrator and a leader). Conversely, I think he's a little too cynical and thus he often comes off as being dismissive.

I will add (again) that I did not like both of them saying they would not run for mayor if John Moak was running for re-election.

I also think - although I have no proof of this - that something really bad happened to their good relationship. Holaday avoids looking at Shanley, if at all possible, and he looks at her in the same way that a man looks at a woman he's been previously close to but has done something she thinks is unforgivable. I'm not sure he understands why she thinks it was unforgivable, given his expression. Most men don't.

It makes me kind of sad, because in 2007, I witnessed Shanley on election night 2007 practically running through the BluWater Cafe to reach Holaday, who was in the downstairs bar. When he reached her, he was jumping up and down and laughing with joy ... he had run unopposed in Ward 3, so it was her victory he was sharing.

Shanley, like me, has a very expressive face. It's been very interesting, to say the least, to watch his facial expressions during City Council meetings. Oh I have to stop adding extra bits in here.

So that's it. Oh, except for the Current has endorsed Holaday.

I had nothing to do with that decision, by the way, and I only checked to make sure after I had written this complete post, except for the line above this one.


Dan Sweeney said...

"critical on here about one of his councillors"

When did the City Councillors become the oversight of the council president? That's a little 'possive' isn't it?


Gillian Swart said...

Well, Dan, I hesitated to use that phrase (knew someone would say something) ... but I think in the wider context, they are under the purview of the Council President - or there would be no need for a council president.