The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

W-I1TBY FREE PR.ESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23.1986, PAGES5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal ho8tility againat every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thom as Jefferson - TH V ~>~kI Bomal/& OR iVaO4's~OM~B/6.? CROW'S NEST 5by Michael Kne Il While 1 admit that I dldn't take in the entire episode, something that West Ward Coun. Joe Bugelli said durlng last week's meeting of Wbltby Town Coun- cil dlsturbed me a littie. 1 don't remember exactly what he said, but the ini- i ference was plain. When speaking about a private citizen's commenta on a ; jreport wrltten by clerk Don MacKay, the councillor suggested that the citizen bhad no right to criticize a member of staff. He, ln effect, attempted to sbield a .member of town staff from the anger, justified or flot, of a taxpayer. Weil, there la one littie thing I'd like to remlnd ail members of council: like themselves, ail town employees - from administrator Bfi Wallace to his depar- tmnents to the kind soul wbo cleans up the streets of downtown Whitby - are sub- ject ta public scrutlny s0 long ais they remain on the payroil of this community. In other worda, If a member of staff screws up, then the press and the public have the rlgbt not only to criticize that staff person but to demand that council take action toput rght whatever situation bas been wronged. Public servants, ha be the Clerk of the Town of Whitby or the Clerk of tbe Prlvy Council of Canada, accept public responsibilities and are therefore, sub- ject ta public scrutlny and crlticism. They do flot enjoy complete immunity frons the blows <usuaily verbal) of angry citizens. 0f course, town staff enjoy personal prlvacy. As far as I'm concerned, a public servant's private 111e is exactly that until and unless it detrimentaily interferes with the discharge of bis or ber public duty. Fortunately, the Town of Wbitby, bas a senior staff that is second to none In jthe province, probably la the country. They are ail bright, weil informed, r ticulate, dedlcated and extremely professional. But they are also huaxan. They do make mistakes. And considering that ail of them have power in its most defineable sense - iLe., tbey havé autborlty to make decisions and take action to carry out thepoicies of council - tbey must be accountable to a higher authority for the waylinwhlcb they exercise tbat power. While tbe ultimate responsibility for the actions and decisions of every town employee resta solely with the seven elected members of council, tbat is not sufficient reason to protect tbem fromn public scrutlny. I have often heard a member of council get up at a meeting and criticize tbe local press (even me, I'm happy ta say) for berating some report or pronoun- cement from a senior staff person. Usually, in this case, as last Monday, it's tbe councilor who looks bad and appears foollsb. Staff are usually crltlclzed by the local press or a local taxpayer because coundil falled ta realize wbat was golng on and correct that staff person and prevent hlznfrom doing sometblng he was going to get himself into trouble for. Council does have an obligation to, protect its staff and shield themn from un- due and unfafr (tbose are the key words) crltlcism. However, council's primar responslbillty la ta manage this municipality In the hast interests of the tax- payer wbile respectlng the rlghts of that taxpayer to criticize, question, petition and seek redresa for grievances. And, if tbat means taking a senior staff person and putting bis professional conduct and recommendations under tbe microscope and examinlng it in full detail, soh eIt. But tais situation is part of a larger problem. I've been around for a few years and I've seen the seven men who sit around Wbitby's council chamhar under al klnds of conditions. I've seen tbemn under stress, wben they were 50 angry they practicaily lost control, and wben tbey were s0 elated they were like kids in tbe candy stare. But from the newspaper accounts I've read, from the stories of eyewitnesses I've spoken to and from the cable television broadcasta I've seen, 1Ican only come to the conclusion that sometbing la dreadfully wrong at Whitby Town Counci. Tbere seems to ha an attitude problem on the bill and I don't know why ithbas evolved or wbat can possibly!be done about It. This new attitude bas manlfested itself in many ways but the most noticeable bas been over the Iroquois Park decision. I watcbed Ed Buffett make bis presentation ta coundil last week. Ed spoke civily, presented the facts as he vlewed them, gave coundil bis 2,600-name petition and hahaved binseif in a dlgnified and respectful manner. But at least two of the councillors who oppose Ed's position weren't so graceful. If I were to describe their attitude towards hlm it would ha scornful. They bad no time for what be had ta Say and didn't want taknow tbatbe was cballenglng their position. He went to coundil to ask some serious questions. Tbese questions bave to ha answered, and answered fuily and bonestly and right down to the last penny, before 'Complex North' is even let for tender. I cant explain what I saw on cable television last Monday night - ail I know is that I didn't ike it very much. The seven members of Whltby Town Council sbould ha reminded that municipal government la dloser ta the people than any other level of gover- rnent. Wbile tae grant issues aren't debated there, the bread-and-butter ones are, and taese are the ones that count on an everyday basis. Tbey have to respond ta the needs, wants, questions and concerns of their constituents im- medlately. Tbey don't have the lu.xury of timne to dwell with a problem, stand back fromn it hafore attempting to desi wita It. Potholes need to ha fixed today. Grass in the-parks must ha cut tais week. A new firetruck must ha purchased tais monta. A new lifeguard mnust be hlred for Kinsmen pool hafore the summer. These are right-now concerns. These are right-now problems tbat nemi right- now solutions and action. But the people stiil have to have their say. They are fully entitled to criticize any coundillor taey want, any group of coundillors taey want and any member of staff taey want if taey feel strongly enough about tae issue al, band. And taey have the right to an immediate and respectful response. WITH OUR FEET UP By Bill Swan Now tbat the doctors of this province have tipped tbeir hand- they were after money ail this time - it perhaps is time to bestow full union memharship on tbem. Talk of strike action helps, of course, but it takes more than that for the rank and file of other unions to flock to the support of doctors. The time was, you may recaîl, that doctors througb their union negotiating team (The Ontario Medical Association) insisted they were objecting on principle. The banning of extra billing, they said, eroded their freedoms. This, while insisting at the same time taat few doctors do extra bill. . S0, they said, allow us to extra bill or we will strike. But sometime over the past weekend, someone mentioned the magic word to the OMA, and the talk of strike began to take a back seat. The magic word? M.o. n.e.y. It works this way: the faderai governrnent is withholding from Ontario about $100 million a year in transfer payments. This is the amount equal to the estimated total extra billing done by doctors. The feds, you see, even under a Tory government, don't believe in extra billing. Stop extra billing, the feds say, and we will give you that $100 million dollars. Give us some of that $100 million - say haîf or so - say the doctors, and we will give up the rigbt to ex- tra bill. Great principles, eh? The analysis of tae medical problem is complex. But press coverage even in the major media seems limited to reporting of the rbetoric and avoidance of substance. Now let us admit that doctors are wonderful people individually and a necessary service in our society. But let us also recali that the medical profession bas a few perks now that most workers envy: Self-governing: doctors are one of the few privileged groups deemed to be professional. As such tbey control licensing and control of their own members. Plumbers and tcau'hers should ta' lucky. Guaranteed payment: Before the introduction of OHIP in 1971, doctors suffered from the businessperson's plague. Some people don't pay their bills. Now, virtually every doctor bill is paid. Dentists envy that. Professional autonomy: Doctors in private prac- tice control their own workload, and decide how many patients they will see in a day. They also refer patients for tests, often in labs owned in part (or partnership) by theroselves. Hospital privileges: The health care package we know today in Ontario would ha impossible without hospitals. But that part of state financing and con- trol the doctors accept. The alternative to aIl of this could ha a return to yesteryear and private enterprise medicine. Or private medical care practiced in the Unitéd States. Where, incidentally, the total cost of health care is 50 percent higher than bere. Before OHIP, somne will recaîl, bealth cosis were financed in two ways. Eitber you workmi for a sizeable firm which had a private health care in- surance or you praymi that no serious illness or ac- cident would touch your family. Most familles had no health coverage. Doctors dlaimn that their woes are those of the whole health care system. But in 1981 wben hospital workers were so haleaguered tbat tbey finally called a strike - which is illegal - they got no sym- pathy from doctors. What the nurses and health care workers got then was bullied back to work, with little or no redress to their problems. .Wbat doctors got that same year was a pay in- crease - increase mind you - which exceed the total pay of other health care workers. Fire me a floor cleaner, the doctors seem to ha saying, and give me the dough you save. But doctors should remember that their privileged position stems from days in which few could meet the rigors and expense of medical education. Today we have the resources to double the num- ber of doctors graduated every year. This would allow for fewer patients per doctor, more time for ;atecti visits, and less assembly-line medicine. It would also resuit in lower income for doctors. But is a doctor really worth four nurses, five nur- sing assistants, six floor cleaners or two MPPs?