My brief synopsis of the Nain Inuit Community Governments recent election for AngajukKak: We will rue the day.
My synopsis in a little more detail: I think the results showed a distinct backlash from the citizens directed at the present council for their badly planed and handled rush to have a plebiscite on turning Nain into a dry community.
Then to make matters worse; at the public meeting after the plebiscite the council refused to take the dry community option off the table.
Rightly or wrongly the outgoing AngajukKak paid the price for the rest of the councils actions.
Overall Sarah Leo carried out her role as AngajukKak with dignity, decorum and integrity.
Sarah publicly backed up the council during the alcohol debate and backed up their actions, now we have an AngajukKak with none of Sarah s attributes, and I state this categorically.
2 comments:
Voter appathy caused Sarah's demise, and that same appathy will allow Tony to go on a 4 year paid drunken holiday. You can be sure he won't put in the time and effort she did.
Voter apathy plays a role in most elections everywhere. With a turn out of well over 50 % it did play a small role.
More likely voter anger at the way the plebiscite on a dry community was handled by council resulted in Sarah’s defeat.
Looking back a decade on the same subject consultations were undertaken with all stake holders first before any thought of a plebiscite was mentioned.
As I have mentioned, it was all arse up.
People’s anger [not all] blinded them to the type of person Sarah is and her past work history vis a vis the type of person and work history of the winner.
Or to put it more bluntly, too many people are too bloody lazy to put any thought process into many issues that affect there daily lives.
Post a Comment