"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday, 14 November 2008

You Asked.

A reader would like my take on the Bulkhead issue at the new rec complex. I have not seen The Banner story. Reporter Sean Pierce called me yesterday to get a better understanding of the situation. I answered the questions I could, without breaching the privacy of our former CAO.

Here's how it was :

The arena was completed and in use. Condensation was forming on the ceiling and dripping on the ice. The ice became pitted .That is not a good thing. Staff determined the problem was warm air leaking into the space above the cold air of the arena.

Staff did an excellent job negotiating a contract with the Roger Neilsen Hockey School to our beautiful new facilities. The revenue would go a long way to reducing an anticipated deficit of $350.000 in the operation of the pool. Closing the facility until the problem was corrected was not an option.

The Hockey School would have gone elsewhere.

The architects acknowledged a design flaw and committed to correct the problem. Mistakes happen and they had liability insurance The town's interest was never at risk.

The complex had been completed under budget.

The architects , true to their word,designed the change, wrote specs and tendered the contract. The contract was let and work was completed efficiently and on time. Problem solved. Roger Neilsen's Hockey School continued uninterrupted .

The architect's insurance company denied liability.

The contractor had in good faith, completed the project. Tradesmen and suppliers had been paid. If he did not receive payment,his option would be a lien against the property he worked on and legal action.

Our management team, Chief Administrative Officer John Rogers, Chief Financial Officer John Gutteridge and Leisure Services Director Al Downey conferred and determined the contractor should be paid. The circumstance was similar to a change order and was processed as normal financial management of a construction project.

Staff did their due diligence The next step in the process to obtain the funds from the architects. was through the town's legal department.The architects had, remember, acknowledged their responsibility in writing and accepted liability.

The town's legal department took over. Politicians are regularly reminded that in legal matters they should clam up. It is not in the Corporations interest for politicians to mix in to legal matters. All hell can break loose.

But in this matter, in my view , everything staff did was logical and in order.

Time passed. A new council had been elected with minimal collective experience. Some of them decided they should know about legal issues on hand. Now we are seeing the consequences.

I have never known politicians who deliberately set about creating enemies and bad guys to make themselves look like heroes. Especially against the public service. Politicians under attack can fight back. Ergo Blog.

Attacking the public service is like shooting fish in a barrel..They can't shoot back. It isn't even good strategy. Politicians never escape blame or responsibility , no matter how many gobbledy-gook lawyers they hire to do their bidding .In this instance, in my view, they contrived wrongdoing by staff for their own ulterior purpose.

There is always a time of reckoning. Dirty stuff acquires an aroma. Dogs find it and dig it up.

The people will have the last word. But not soon enough to prevent or undo the harm. Our administration is decimated and demoralized. and I believe the worst is yet to come.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It is interesting how this story has two different perspectives in the press.

In The Auroran, the focus of the story is this is why the CAO was escorted from the Town's offices and dismissed. In The Banner, the story never mentions the CAO by name or title and refers to the entire matter as "Staff".

In reading Ms. Buck's account, and if it is factual, I have a couple of questions.

1. Why was only the CAO terminated and not the other directors that made decisions to pay the contractors?

2. Why is the CAO not suing for unlawful dismissal (maybe he is) because it certainly seems to me that he (and other senior staff) performed their duties as they should?

Clearly there is a paper trail indicating that there was fault accepted by the architechs. Whether their insurance covers it or not, they are responsible to pay the costs that have been accrued. I understand perfectly why the payment to the contractor was made, what else could they do. My only caveat to that would be about making sure the council of the day was aware of what was going on and that a cheque had to be cut.

Clearly this is an example of the responsibilities of staff versus council. Council is there to create policy. Staff is there to implement said policies. It does not surprise me that once Phyllis got involved, things go off the tracks.