steveintoronto
Superstar
The term "complicit" is misleading, albeit I had modulated that by stating "in that respect" (following orders). She could have quit at any time, no? "I refuse to be party to implementing this decision".Using words like "complicit" and even "responsible" is unfair. The role of staff is to advise Council but Council makes the decisions. When Council asks staff to carry something out, it's staff's responsibility to do that, even if they advised against it. For Jennifer Keesmaat to refuse to follow orders or direct her staff to not follow orders, she could very justifiably have been fired and disciplined by the OPPI. To call her complicit is to imply that she was involved in some sort of wrongdoing, which isn't the case at all.
We still aren't aware of what 'broke the camel's back' for her, but she must have realized that her professional and personal reputation was being tarnished by association of action. It's good she left when she did, although as is always easy with hindsight, it might have been more opportune to have done it earlier. She does discuss that in some interviews, the gist being 'I had hoped to influence this in a better direction from the inside'.
She is tarnished, no doubt, but far from broken. I for one am interested in seeing what else seeps out with time. She is being very professional in not gushing it out.