What's 'best' for the town?

You hear a lot of talk about people doing what's ìbest î for the Town of Athabasca.

What the heck do they mean?

Is it ìbest î for the town if council sets it up for a lengthy legal battle and uses administrative resources to research and prepare the paperwork?

Or how about threatening taxpayers with that legal battle - at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars - if your equally-elected peers find that you're unfit for the council table?

Is it ìbest î for the residents of this town if the reasons are only mentioned through elusive phrases and tantalizing innuendo?

None of this would be good for any democracy, let alone for the town.

And you're ìnot going to take this lying down, î Coun. Tim Verhaeghe?

Perhaps you should.

It is that kind of stubborn, I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude that brought council to where it is today.

That paucity of co-operation - an utter lack of desire to work together - is why the divided camps will not bend on their version of ìbest î for the town.

Verhaeghe is obviously not the only guilty one. It's hard to spar without an opponent.

Regardless of where the guilt lies and who is at fault, the table is weighted against Mayor Roger Morrill and Verhaeghe. Four councillors voted to start the disqualification process against them.

If Morrill and Verhaeghe really care about what happens to taxpayers' dollars, they would choose to avoid the Court of Queen's Bench and step down without a fight. If they really do believe they are in the right, they will no doubt have an excellent case against this unjustified attack, and voters can give them delicious vindication in the next municipal election.

The four councillors who voted to disqualify them already showed how much they value their voters' opinions and dollars by setting this process into motion based on muted logic and secrets. But if they can prove they are taking the correct course of action, the electorate will no doubt reward them.