A vote for Casey Jones is a vote for no representation!
Yeah, yeah I’m just spewing political rhetoric, right? Wrong.
And therein lies the problem. Because according to the City of Winnipeg charter, City employees must be granted leave if they decide to be run for public office. Okay, fair enough. However, if an employee wins public office ( i.e. council) they must be given a leave of absence for the equivalent of two council terms ( City of Winnipeg Charter).
See the problem?
How can you represent the interests of your constituents when you still have a vested interest as an employee of the city? You can’t. It’s a clear conflict of interest.
This means Jones has 3 choices if elected:
a) Immediately resign from his city job
b) Be in a clear conflict of interest on any votes that have any financial implications. Since he is an employee, any financial decisions may have at minimum an indirect effect on employees (him).
c) recuse himself from any votes involving financial decisions, thereby denying the residents of Old Kildonan representation.
Being on leave is irrelevant. Because there is a job to return to, there will always be the possibility of putting that job ahead of the constituents.He’s not on council to represent employees, he is on council to represent the citizens of Old Kildonan.
Jones hasn’t made it clear on his website that he will resign. So the assumption must be made that he will take advantage of the provision of the charter to take a leave.
So if you’re an Old Kildonan resident thinking of voting for Jones, he’s either not going to be able to properly represent you or be consistently in a conflict of interest.
Is that what you want?
Looks like the province has to have a hard look at the City Charter on this one.