[Image-1]
Despite his claims to the contrary, not all of Matt Whitman’s constituents are happy with how he conducts himself online.
The deputy mayor and councillor for Hammonds Plains—St. Margarets has made a habit out of saying things he probably shouldn’t. He’s casually mentioned confidential information over the radio, cracked jokes maligning residents and been ordered by council to make a public apology for “inappropriate” tweets. But for a public official who can dish it out, Whitman doesn’t seem to be able to take much criticism himself.
Susy MacGillivray, a resident in Whitman’s District 13, recently submitted a letter to the mayor’s office complaining about her councillor after he deleted her comments from a Facebook post about the Cornwallis branding vote.
Whitman’s post, now deleted, stated that Cornwallis was “not perfect.” The deputy mayor also asked “How bad was it?” in reference to the former governor, who issued bounties for Indigenous scalps and used rape as a war tactic.
â¨
MacGillivray commented that she found the post “completely disrespectful and insensitive.” Whitman removed that comment, and the two engaged in several subsequent private messages (shared with The Coast).
“I do not need your posts about how disappointed you are,” Whitman writes to MacGillivray, advising her to “praise others publicly and criticize personally.”
“That’s a good rule of thumb for you,” writes the deputy mayor.
In her letter to Mike Savage, MacGillivray lambasts Whitman for using his social media accounts as political tools, but then censoring anyone who criticizes or disagrees with him—something she calls “profoundly undemocratic and completely unacceptable.”
You can read the full letter here.
“I really do think that it’s unacceptable for any elected representative to use social media freely to their benefit, but then be unaccepting of any form of constructive criticism,” she says in a phone call with The Coast. “It’s like taking advantage of the power of the message he can get across.”
Whitman, however, downplays the incident.
“I’m sorry that someone was disappointed,” he says. “I could not please her, and that’s that. People think that by sending it to the mayor it becomes a bigger deal. For The Coast it does; for others it doesn’t.”
He also shrugs off MacGillivray’s accusations that his actions were undemocratic and his comments condescending.â¨
â¨
“Sounds like her, sure.”
â¨Mayor Mike Savage says he intervened in the matter, speaking with MacGillivray to understand her complaints. He considers the matter largely resolved.
“There was certainly a difference of opinion between the citizen who wrote the letter and the councillor,” Savage says.
A difference of opinion isn’t an official complaint, though. Only one of those has been filed (so far) against Whitman.
â¨
Earlier this year he was forced to make a public apology after publishing what he later called rude, unkind and inappropriate tweets about an RCMP officer who was ticketing his neighbour. A complaint made by that officer caused council to debate the deputy mayor’s use of hashtags like “#powertrip” and “#getalife” for three hours in camera before ordering the act of contrition.
The self-admitted fan of publicity stunts then went on an “apology tour,” telling CBC that he would be more careful with his social media use in the future.
Whitman says he “gained a lot of fans” for that debacle—both for standing up for his resident and then later apologizing for his “disrespectful” comments. He also points out that councillors aren’t required to operate social media accounts, which excuses his careful curation of what and who shows up in his timeline.
“If I’m not happy that someone writes that they’re disappointed with me, or I’m ugly, or I’m a jerk, I don’t need to leave that on my wall. It’s not a public tool. It’s a personal tool. And, yes, I’m on there as the ‘deputy mayor,’ because that’s my title. If I was an architect, I’d be on there as an ‘architect.’”
Whitman’s earned a reputation over the past few years for routinely blocking “negative” users on Twitter who either slag him online or try to discuss municipal politics. The councillor says he’s learned a lesson about that, too, and usually just mutes people these days.
Asked how many people he has blocked on Twitter—a question he says “really offended” him—Whitman claims it’s only “three or four spammy companies.”
The councillor made that remark yesterday, after I chased him down at City Hall—an effort required because the usually media-friendly Whitman has been aggressively difficult to get a comment out of for this article.
He didn’t return The Coast’s calls, and refused to answer any emailed questions, only writing back to say he was “disappointed” in me and to call the story a “witch hunt.”
Part of what I wanted to clarify from the deputy mayor were confusing remarks he made at a recent Hammonds Plains town hall about the proposed Tantallon asphalt plant.
Three attendees of that meeting The Coast spoke with claimed Whitman declared he wouldn’t be part of the community advisory committee for the project, because of a conflict of interest over negative remarks he’d been making about the asphalt plant in the media.
⨓I didn’t fully understand that,” says Hammonds Plains-Lucasville MLA Ben Jessome, who was at the meeting and heard Whitman make such a statement. “It wasn’t clear to me why he would have decided not to. I don’t understand enough about what makes that a conflict of interest.”
When I was finally able to corner him after Tuesday’s council meeting, Whitman clarified that he only meant he wouldn’t be a part of the unofficial citizen liaison committee being organized by Scotian Materials developer Rob MacPherson.
That’s a small but important distinction. Still, the confusion between what Whitman said and what he meant is understandable, given the councillor’s ongoing foot-in-mouth disease. When it comes to praising publicly and criticizing privately, Whitman’s really bad at taking his own advice.
He casually belittles others, including satirist Matt Brand and Pamela Lovelace (his political opponent in October’s election).
“Via FOIPOP I know that Whitman refers to me as ‘ThePamFactor’ to his staff and supporters,” writes Lovelace in an email to The Coast. “He refers to me on social media as ‘Loveless.’”â¨
Former CAO Richard Butts was also a common target of Whitman’s japes—both while he was at HRM and shortly after his departure this past winter. Whitman appeared on News95.7’s “Rick Howe Show” back in January with fellow councillor Gloria McCluskey to talk about Butts and claim, among other things, that a cheer went up at City Hall when the CAO announced he was quitting.
â¨
During that radio appearance, Whitman also revealed confidential information that was discussed during in camera meetings with HRM’s hiring committee (while also throwing shade at the other members of that committee who didn’t like his idea).
“We’ve started a process to see how we’re going to find a replacement, which is going to involve, of course, spending a ton of money on a recruiter. I thought we would just take a look at the top 10 from last time, and see if they were still interested. We interviewed them all. That was my idea. But my five colleagues on that committee said, ‘Let’s spend the money…’” —Matt Whitman
The Coast was told Whitman’s remarks prompted the staff report request made a week later by Jennifer Watts on procedural options when a member of council breaches in camera. Watts denies her request was about any councillor or incident in particular. But a week later, Whitman himself told me he was “already in trouble for something else” he had said in the media during an interview on an unrelated matter.
Speaking yesterday at City Hall, Whitman admitted to unwittingly releasing confidential information over the radio but claims to have not received any disciplinary penalty for breaching in camera.
“People don’t get in trouble for saying stuff like that.”
To be completely honest, Whitman’s forthright comments are refreshing and his (accidental) willingness to expose in camera discussions is certainly beneficial to members of the media. I mean, it’s not like we were big fans of Richard Butts around here, either.
Speaking critically about matters and individuals in a public setting is often part of the responsibility of being a councillor. But it’s hard to square all that with Whitman’s own tweet-positive philosophy and his failures to live up to it. He takes a noticeably giddy amount of glee in cracking wise about others—whether it’s the assholes who deserve it or just people who disagree with him.
“If I do, I shouldn’t,” Whitman says about his negative remarks. “I wouldn’t be proud of dressing down staff or speaking to someone the way I wouldn’t want to be spoken to. If I’ve done that, I’m sorry, again. I’m just a human.”
Even after her experiences with him online, Susy MacGillivray still praises Whitman for being “hyper aware” of what’s happening in his district. She says she respects the way he’s active and supportive in his community, which is why his “condescending” remarks were so surprising and disappointing to her.
According to Mike Savage, Whitman receives the same amount of “unofficial” complaints as anyone else at City Hall.
“I certainly know he’s got a lot of very supportive constituents, and he’s got some that don’t like his style,” says the mayor. “But that’s something that gets sorted out in October.”
Related Stories
Pamela Lovelace to challenge Matt Whitman for District 13
All of Matt Whitman’s strangest tweets (since January)
Matt Whitman is sorry if he offended anyone by using the word “negro”
Matt Whitman stands by white supremacists’ message
This article appears in May 26 – Jun 1, 2016.
That Matt Whitman is vocal doesn’t much bother me. But am I the only one concerned about his Christian faith?
I like to think that running a city is a rational operation, with decisions made based on evidence. You see a challenge? You react with a solution that solves that challenge. A study examines the pros and cons of multiple ways forward? You take the path with the evidence backing it up. Can we trust Matt Whitman to act this rationally?
Mr. Whitman is only too happy to admit that evidence isn’t always meaningful or important to him. I don’t know if he believes the earth to be 6000 years old, or man and woman to have been wished into existence, but he is a vocal Christian. He’s apparently quite content to believe that a man named Jesus once performed miracles and then died to absolve all humanity of sins that would otherwise send them to hell for all of eternity. He believes this…just because he chooses to. No evidence needed thank you.
Can we be confident that someone who chooses to believe in magic and fairy tales in his personal life will find real solutions to real problems in his professional life? His constituents need evidence-based solutions. But they’re working with someone who literally worships a supernatural entity based on nothing but “faith”.
Yes, to some degree it’s refreshing to have a public official who speaks his mind honestly. It’s also unnerving that this person puts stock in a book that instructs us to kill disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21), raped women (Deuteronomy 22), homosexuals (all over the place), and all nonbelievers (Deuteronomy 17).
The Jesus thing is bad enough, but I can’t take someone seriously when they have one of those douchie “26.2” marathon tattoos on their calf. (had the misfortune of seeing it when he was wearing shorts with a suit jacket once at an outdoor public announcement thing.)
This is the media equivalent of playing Angry Birds while taking a grumpy. This puss-rag actually thinks that a difference of opinions, and a person being subsequently told off, is a story? This whole Jacob Boon -vs- Matt Whitman is basically the same as Tim B -vs- Peter Kelly, except for the fact there was an actual story with PK. My fucks given for Matt is pretty low, but shouldn’t we be encouraging politicians to speak their mind whether they are right or wrong. At least we will know their true feelings, not some dumbed down, politically motivated, secret agenda, falsehood of a personality. Let people speak their mind, and come election time, we can decide which pile to throw them on.
This letter to the mayor’s office is an utter embarrassment, she scolds Matt for using his Facebook page for his political gain while she posts private messages, from a private conversation with him, on her Facebook page for what reason? Because she wants to shame him for having a difference of opinion and not giving her the time of day, then she writes who she thinks is his boss and tattles on his ass while alerting the media. Just a other smug SJW who won’t give up because she thinks she’s right, and disagreeing with her is some sort of crime. What a twat!!!
This paid political advertisement has been approved by Pam Loveless.
I like Matt Whitman and think his heart is in the right place when it comes to our city.
What was that thing called again…right, freedom of religion, Brad Dykema! Regardless of what is said in this article, your comments are completely irrelevant, wrong and extremist (on the left). I have my own opinion about him too but to try to punish him or make fun of his faith for his religious views is as ridiculous as calling a Muslim (say Sadiq Khan, new mayor of London) terrorist because he believes in a “similar” faith as the ISIS followers. What if our city one day grows up enough to elect a Muslim, gay, women, or whatever mayor? Are we going to treat them like this? Your extremists comments are shameful and has no place in Canada, and this is coming from a leftist atheist.
Prohfx, I’d appreciate it if you’d address my actual comments, and not some dramatic and fallacious interpretation that you’ve constructed in your own mind. I expect more intellectual honesty of a fellow atheist. But then, I suppose the application of the label “atheist” doesn’t necessarily guarantee a level of skill in critical thinking.
First, when and where did I dispute the value and importance of freedom of religion? Of course Mr. Whitman is free to believe whatever he wants, as we atheists are free to not believe. As an atheist you should understand that granting people the freedom to believe a religion doesn’t grant them them freedom from criticism, and it certainly doesn’t preclude the asking of questions. Your opening point is irrelevant and misleading. Should we not question FGM because…freedom of religion?
Second, how exactly am I making “extremist” claims, prohfx? Re-read my comment. I make no claims of any sort.
1) I state a number of facts: Mr. Whitman is a Christian. Mr. Whitman believes certain stories in the Bible to be true. Mr. Whitman doesn’t require evidence (I’ve had conversations with him in which he literally stated this) in order to believe in the Bible’s factualness.
2) I then raise questions about the confidence his constituents can have in such a person’s decision-making logic.
I ask a question that logically follows from certain facts. This you label as extremist behaviour?
Third, to extrapolate my question about a devout Christian to women and homosexuals is a fallacy of relevance, a straw man. It’s dishonest and misleading, again. My entire point, I will say again, is that people may have reason to not be confident that Mr. Whitman’s decisions are based on logic, reason, and evidence, because–now here is the key part–he has already proven himself to not value evidence and reason in much of his decision-making. Why would this have ANY relevance or implication for my opinions on women or homosexuals? Have these two groups of society likewise proven themselves to not value evidence and reason? This is the worst kind of example of a straw man, and it’s intellectually dishonest, prohfx. Muslims? Of course the same questions I have of Mr. Whitman would apply to a devout Muslim, or any person who admits they believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
Lastly, what’s “shameful” about raising questions about the logic of religion and its followers? Why, prohfx, is it shameful to ask if people can fully trust the decisions of a person who has already demonstrated irrational behaviour in their decision-making?
Prohfx, in your effort to come off as politically-correct you seem to be sacrificing intellectual honesty. You might want to work on that.
So, to get this straight, the above story was supposed to be about a letter of complaint to the mayor from a resident who still praises Matt Whitman for being “hyper aware” of what’s happening in his district and respects the way he’s active and supportive in his community? That story-line kinda got lost in your vitriol for Matt Whitman. I would have appreciated it if you had addressed Ms. MacGillivray’s actual comments and based your story on that. However you have taken this as another opportunity to show your bias and personal dislike for Matt Whitman. And if your Whitman bashing wasn’t enough you have the nerve to berate a reader by telling him in his effort to come off as politically-correct he seemed to be sacrificing intellectual honesty and that he might want to work on that? There is no “news” in this story, only the “opinion” of a writer who will take every opportunity to pass on his personal dislike of a public figure.
Funny how the Coast never criticizes Waye Mason, which Halifax publication did Mason’s wife work for?
oh No! If you don’t like who most of us elect..stop your tattletail whining, and organize your campaign.