The Unreasonableness of Bureaucracy

The opposite of being reasonable.

Evidenced time and time again.
Today's newspaper story by Rolke:  "Alternate rules make waves" is just one more example.

"Terry Mooney, a member of the Stakeholders Advisory' Committee, looking at the master water plan had asked for an alternate to fill in for him March 17, but that request has been turned down," reported the Morning Star.

And it was a bureaucrat that said "no".
Imagine that...a bureaucrat who works for taxpayer Mooney!

Why was his request denied?

(Readers are advised to be sitting down...) RDNO boss Sewell, who also works for taxpayer Mooney, was quoted as saying "...an alternate would have not been part of any previous discussions...(and) we don't have alternates...(and) an alternate would have to be appointed by the regional board."

Huh?

Firstly, Sewell is wrong.
Alternates are addressed in the committee's terms of reference (actually in two places), a document produced by his own office which Sewell obviously hadn't read!

Secondly, one would think that a temporary committee of such importance as the Stakeholders Advisory Committee reviewing the Master Water Plan would allow a bona fide member to actually name a replacement for a scheduled absence!  One would also think that the person expecting to be absent would actually have been considerate enough to bring his appointee up to speed for the upcoming meeting.

Thirdly, the biased treatment of Mr. Mooney--as chair of Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan--smacks of throwing a log under his wheels.  One would hope that bureaucrats would make a considerable and conscious effort to NOT do that.

RDNO:  yet another FAIL!

Someone should print and staple this to Sewell's door

"The second bullet in the graphic...change it to 'and the people'," advises Kia.

Strange too, at Rolke's choice of when to actually do a story that relates to SAC.