Does Coun. Brian Skakun deserve censuring from his peers on council or not? It's hard to determine the answer to that when even his own accusers seem to lack the courage of their
conviction.
The public has heard Mayor Dan Rogers give plenty of lectures from his leader's chair about how unethical it was for Skakun to hand over a sensitive report over personnel problems to the media.
Rogers was among those who spearheaded a resolution to the Union of British Municipality Committee annual general meeting that would see all cities and town in B.C. exact more rigorous punishments against politicians who breach their promises over privacy.
And yet only one Prince George councillor - Brian Skakun - appeared before the UBCM committee to state his case.
Do our elected officials take this matter seriously or not? If so, why was not a single one present to make their case? And if not, why do they persist in raising it again and again, leading to its reappearance in court?
Remember, it was a council censure motion - one that Rogers supported - that dragged this issue in front of a judge... yet again.
And now Rogers is stepping down from his pulpit after being challenged on his ability to bring an open mind to court proceedings.
Note: the mayor is not saying he's pulling out because Skakun may have a point - never that. He says he's pulling out because he doesn't want to cost the courts money.
At this juncture - tens of thousands of tax dollars into it - that seems like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.
And since when does a council member get to recuse himself from proceedings while denying he's in conflict of interest? Politicians get to pick and choose which motion they vote on now?
But let's agree that his intentions are just as he presents - where does that leave him and the rest of council?
First and foremost, it gives him a seemingly "noble" way out of a sticky political mess... and just in time for an election.
Taking a peek at the comments online and overhearing what's being said on the streets, it seems Skakun has a fierce crowd behind him. That's not to say many out there don't believe the councillor did wrong, but given the forcefulness of those supporting Skakun, the byproduct of Rogers's hand-washing of this subject means he doesn't have to wear it.
So who's left to wear it?
Lo and behold, the person acting in the mayor's absence is ... Shari Green - Rogers' rival for the mayor's chair.
Green has already stated her opinion on the Skakun matter. Now she's in the unenviable position of either sticking with her first impression - thereby showing the bias councillors are being accused of - or softening her stance against Skakun, thereby proving herself the most odious of politicians: the flip-flopper.
The way she handles this may be an indication of whether she'd sink or swim in the big chair.
So, is the mayor actually getting out of a sticky situation or is he handing his rival an opportunity to shine?
-- Prince George Citizen
