HomeNewsPrint got it wrong: Sooke CAO not hired by unanimous agreement Log in

Comments

Print got it wrong: Sooke CAO not hired by unanimous agreement — 8 Comments

    • Yes, Lily. The article you reference with a link was on the CAO’s probation, which was reviewed in early May (article is dated May 10, 2016), five months into the term. The approval rating from that review was, as you point out unanimous.

      The print paper is referencing the date of hire, “last December” (2015). As is correctly stated in the posted SPN article, the hire was approved by the hiring committee plus one. Two opposed (Logins and Parkinson), and one (Tait) was absent.

      That was probably where the confusion arose.

      History can get re-written when the details get mixed up.

      I do appreciate your diligence on the matter, as well as the link. Thank you.

      -Britt/SPN

    • Nope. The print paper specifically referenced the date of hire, which was December 2015. As stated in this article, the motion at the date of hire was approved by the hiring committee plus one.

      The “Not Print” link above references the five-month point probation review (May, 2016), which was, as Lily (and SPN) duly point out, was unanimous.

      So: Hiring in December 2015: Not unanimous; performance in the first five months come May 2016, unanimous. The December event references a motion by the hiring committee, the second May date references the CAO’s performance. A very significant difference.

      -Britt/SPN

  1. Thanks for the clarification. I fail to see however, how this, a fine point on her hiring. relates to the purported harassment.

  2. Mark J – read between the lines mate, the Mirror are fully in favour of the new CAO and is only running positive stories abour her and her high-priced assistant Joseph….there is no digging from the Mirror at all…and while you dismiss the lack of ethics by Logins as minor this week it is indicative of character and i wonder how many ethical lapses are allowed before we are accountable – Logins showed no sense in not excusing herself, the vote went thru easily and didnt need her…

    • Ok Mark. Reading between those same lines, while the Mirror may be in favour of the new CAO, the SPN seems biased toward the opposite point of view. Now I’m not saying this is true, only that someone could draw that conclusion as easily as you have about the Mirror. This is not meant as a slight against Britt, who I think does a good job, in spite of, or because of, providing a soapbox for some of the local nutters.
      I don’t dismiss the ethical vapour lock by miss Logins as minor, but as a lesson to be learned, because in the future it might have a greater impact when the vote is not unanimous. She is young and lacks the experience, but this is how that experience is gained.

  3. Mark J – struggling to get answers from council and staff is very tough, and really shouldnt be. Having spoken to both Rod and Britt seperately over the last month I don’t believe the latter to be against Terri S and Gabi J personally but frustrated by them not answering what should be simple questions (for my part I have been waiting nearly 4 four weeks for an answer from Terri who was told by Pearson to have the chat with me yet she refuses…)..looking into Gabi’s background he does not seem qualified for his position and yet he gets a premium salary, 6 weeks off plus 11 stat days and 100% benefits – is this someone you support and are glad to pay your hard-earned taxes? If he were qualified etc this struggle to get info would not have happened…SPN seem to be the only media that is asking any questions unless you can highlight where the Mirror has done so? Isn’t that the job of the media in a democracy?

    Mark J – I enjoy your responses and views!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield