Doublespeak... Nineteen -Eighty-Four Chapter 2.

I should probably read the book again. I never saw the movie. Trouble is,I do re-call not enjoying the book.At the time, I  finished every book I started. Later on, if I'd read a third of the way  and a story had yet to start, I would  quit while I was ahead.

Later still  I learned  huge tomes  of books,  intermittently used up thirty of forty pages of minute,  boring, descriptive detail. I  would skip those  to get back to the story.

One scene  from "1984" stuck in my head.  It seemed people were constantly watched, even in their homes by  camera.  A character in the story  found a spot ,where there was an angle to the wall, where he could hide and write  a few thoughts Video cameras  that could spy on people all the time hadn't been invented at the time.

I may have to read the book again. I was probably too young to appreciate the nuances.

Policy 64 and 65, imposed by the administration in March but not  presented for  adoption  by Council until May. It was prepared by the "Executive Leadership Team" formerly known as Management Team Reference in the document is made to "the corporation will not tolerate"

It strikes  a jarring note. What is the corporation? I remember difficulty the former CAO had  explaining to the Dreadful Duo the concept of corporate communications. It meant  communication to the community of whatever had been  established  by a majority vote of Council

The pair were determined the  division should be political promotion of the Mayor's office rather than the corporate communication device. And so it became. And is still. Though it did the previous office-holder little good.

Now  we have  two policies  implemented  months ahead by the administration without input let alone a vote of Council.

It's difficult to see how why the  policy should be corporate.

The elected body  has no authority over  day- to- day operations. Employee relations are outside its purview.  Council  does not hire or fire or review performance or give direction to staff  below the level of director.

Why therefore should the word " corporation" be used, as opposed to  "administration" ?

Is it simply misuse of a word. Without discussion I cant be sure of that fact.

Dire warnings are repeated in the twenty five pages of policies 64 and 65, that the rules, without tolerance, shall  apply to all, regardless of  level.

A frequent phrase is "can be reasonably understood to mean". Requirements are  to complain about objectionable behaviour .

Without an adjudicating process to determine merits of complaints ,other than the judgment of the Human Resources  Manager or the CAO, complaints by one employee against another  can become part of an employee's record. or a reason for  termination or heavy fines imposed on  the municipality or incarceration of person or persons.

Responsible authority for imposing heavy fines on the municipality or sentencing to incarceration is not identified.

It seems such extreme measures  would be the result of injury or death of an employee; like a firefighter for example.

That's when use of the word "corporation" as opposed to "administration" becomes relevant.

The elected body, with no authority over the day to day operation of the municipality , adopts the policy. It is  owned by the corporation. It then becomes the responsibility of the elected body.Not the administration.

Would the elected body then be more liable for incarceration or heavy fines?
I think so.

The Report to Council notes the  policies were prepared by the Executive Leadership Team. Council on the other hand chose not to have input. They  simply rubber-stamped the report.

They probably weren't the only Council in Ontario that did that.Why waste time on something you can't do anything about anyway?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

On the other hand, you can lead sheep to the edge of a cliff and watch them jump over.