The Code in Practice? Or not?

At last night's general committee meeting, I asked about the status of the new windrow clearing program. I understood the direction given by council had been changed and I sought an explanation.

Council's decision was to provide the service to seniors and the disabled by an outside contract with costs to be recovered from participants in the program. Not much controversy there.

In an early discussion, we had been informed a contractor would need two hundred participants to make the program financially viable. Fifty residents had indicated interest. More were anticipated. But when the final decision was made, it seemed fifty no longer represented an obstacle to financial viability.

I was not assured. Since it was a try-and-see project which might result in the entire town receiving the service, it was my position there should be no charge to the subjects of the experiment. But council was firm in its position.

Christmas and New Year intervened. We received no updates on the plan's progress, as noted above. When the Town Hall re-opened, I inquired; how many people had signed up? was the program underway?

It was indeed. But without a contract. Thirty residents had registered. Public Works were providing the service with a plough-attached pick-up truck.

Last night, I raised the matter in committee and requested information to indicate the circumstances whereby council's direction came to be set aside in favour of a different plan.

Councillor Gallo was in the chair. Mayor Morris intervened. The issue was not on the agenda, she said. It could not therefore be raised. A resolution would be required to direct staff to submit a report.

Councillor MacEachern said she did not understand what the fuss was about over a matter of $2100. "Staff should be permitted to make decisions under these circumstances" she said.

That was odd, I thought.There was no fuss. My request was for information. I offered no conclusions.

It was an interesting exchange. The circumstances were not clear. Council gave specific direction. It was not followed. No information was provided to Council to indicate a change in plan or the reasons. No authority was sought.

What I know is as follows; the service was first proposed at the Seniors' Centre by Mayor Morris and Councillor Granger. Neither Council nor staff were consulted beforehand.

After several discussions and contradictory information, a decision was made to provide the service by outside contract and charge the cost to recipients.

That did not happen. Numbers registered indicated for corporate purposes, there was insufficient interest. Not enough to make it worthwhile for a contracted service as approved by council.

It was provided anyway.
dMy question was directed through the chair to the Public Works Director. Mayor Morris intervened and advised the issue could not be raised because the matter was not on the agenda. She further advised a resolution of council is required to direct staff to provide the information.

Under the Procedure Bylaw, Notice is required prior to presenting a resolution. Resolutions must be in writing. The schedule means such a resolution, if seconded, could not be considered until the end of January. The information would therefore not be forthcoming until February.If there was no seconder the matter would not be discussed. If seconded and defeated the information would not be forthcoming.

How Council's decision came to be changed would forever remain a secrect.

Enter The Code of Conduct. Stated purpose as follows:

• Decision making process is transparent, accessible and equitable.
• Decisions are made through appropriate channels of government structure.
• Public office is not to be used for personal gain.

The Code of Conduct has ten pages. It's chock-a-block full of such righteous statements. The Bylaw requires it to have been "read and understood" and signed TWICE by all members of Council. According to the Mayor, it was written by George Rust D'Eye, legal counsel retained by the Mayor and paid for by the town; $16,2000.

I do not believe Aurora's Director of Public Works took it upon himself to disregard and disrespect the decision of Council and thereby breach The Code of Conduct. But somebody did.

I am equally certain a comparative calculation could and should have been provided to Council as to cost of an alternate plan. even if considered justifiable, to clear thirty driveways with in-house resources.

Costs are identifiable. Wages plus benefits and support services from other town departments. We know the hourly cost of a truck in service. By now, we know time needed for a single run to clear thirty driveways in different locations throughout the town. The task must be taking employees away from other responsibilities. Is overtime involved? Did we purchase a plow?

In 2003, an election re-count which took a couple of ten hour days and one twelve, of staff time, withdrawn from other responsibilities, cost the town in excess of $21,000. It did not involve a truck with a plow .. It confirmed the original vote count and the efficacy of the machines and my election.

It refuted Councillor MacEachern's contention the machines were unreliable.

Since at least 2003, adopted policy requires administrative decisions to be made by a Management Team of Department Heads. I have no reason to believe the Management Team was involved in this decision.

Thus we are left only with questions. How and on what basis was the decision made to change or ignore the direction of council?? Was it done through appropriate channels of government structure as required by The Code of Conduct? I think not.

Why is the information having to be pried out like a winkle from its shell? Where is the transparency and accessibility required by The Code of Conduct? Is The Code worth anything at all?

What interest is being served? Is it Corporate or Political?

Whose ox is being gored?



Addendum:

Friday January 16th 2009.

It has occurred to me the Mayor's advice that a resolution of council is required to obtain information about the driveway clearing plan is not acceptable.

It is unlikely the service provided by the works department can be done at the same cost as a contracted service

The fee authorized by council is unlikely to cover the cost of the service..

No funds were provided in the 2008 budget to provide for the expenditure..

No funds are provided in the 2009 budget to provide for the expenditure. .

Spending outside a budget can only be authorized by council , A source of funding must be identified
.
The decision was not likely made by Management Team Treasurer would have advised of the need for council authorization and to identify a source of funding

Because of the refusal to provide the relevant information about the status of the program, it is my intention to process an application under the Freedom of Information Act .