Clr. Ballard response, the only one I received from the aforementioned group is patronizing and completely fails to recognize the issue of exclusivity that the organizers have contributed to.You can read that here:
Clr. Ballard’s response doesn’t speak to the cost of the event, he doesn’t offer any justifications for. I suppose in his case the the courage of his convictions is easier than having the courage to question them. Which is a stark contrast from the courage shown by those that chose serve us, and perhaps i was naive in believing that what this event was all about.I particularly like the fact that the Clr. claims to not have read the article in the Banner, which clearly contradicts his claim that the event is solely a fundraiser, yet feels he is in a position to “clarify” the purpose of the event for me. The article in the Banner is quoted: “We’re going to have as many of them there as we can get as our honored guests to let people say thank you.” The cost of saying thank you in Aurora is pretty high, especially when you compare it to Lieutenant Governor David C. Onley’s New Year’s Levee:
http://news.ontario.ca/archive/en/2009/12/31/Media-Advisory-Lieutenant-Governor-David-C-Onley-hosts-New-Year39s-Levee.html That event is free. Considering that the QYR levee is holding a silent auction to raise funds, one wonders why an entrance fee is warranted at all, let alone one that is a staggering $300. Talk about turning away potential $ right off the bat. If the organizers were truly interested in letting people say thank you, perhaps a pay-what-you can approach would achieve that. Perhaps like what was done here:
http://blog.berkeleyrep.org/2011/03/how-did-mike-make-out.html It is a viable way of raising funds that completely nullifies the cost issue, opening up the event to all, not just a handful of elitist ass-hats. Which, at a measly sum of 30+ tickets sold, is all the attendees that will be realized. All of this just goes to show how inept this committee is at fundraising. On a separate matter I find it interesting what Clr. Ballard includes in his signature when responding to questions in his capacity as a town councilor. His email address in his signature is not the one provided by the town : firstname.lastname@example.org (which is the email I sent it to). Instead he responds with his own email address. He includes a web link to his own personal website, not the town’s. Is he responding in his capacity as a councilor or not? None of this increases communications, in fact it hinders it significantly. I believe the motto echoed by school kids everywhere as they play with their G.I.Joe action figures is : “knowing is half the battle” I guess in Clr. Ballard’s case, that’s a battle he’s all too happy to lose.