Plans for Recreation.

I received the following e-mail from a concerned citizen:

The new Master Plan "draft" was presented to the LSAC. The LSAC committee decided not to refer it to Council because it was viewed as being deficient and in some regards not appropriate for Aurora. Instead they are going to have a sub committee review the recommendations and then send it to Council.

Since the document has not been recommended to Council can Council members use it? I would think not. But am I wrong in that assumption?

It has been referred to during Council meetings and even in the Banner and the Auroran.

In the minutes from the April 7 minutes "comments from the Master Plan" are requested to be included in information from Mr Garbe LS09-012. That then should be referred to the only Master Plan that has been approved which is 2003 and not the current "draft" version. But it is clear to me that the minutes actually refer to the unapproved document.

This is clearly an attempt to use information that is not to the AMBA's favour because while the previous document states a current need (now overdue) for the diamond, the "draft" incorrectly suggests we won't need it until 2013. What would Council's reason for this be, other than finding an excuse for not building the facility? I have trouble understanding why they would want to do that.

My question for you is... Can you refer to a document that is not approved by either the committee or Council?

I asked the same question of Chief Administrative Officer Neil Garbe during last week's council meeting and prior to receiving the e-mail. I knew the answer but needed it confirmed.

A Master Recreation Plan which has not been adopted by council cannot be referenced in a current decision.

Of course, if the decision can be deferred often enough then a different outcome can be obtained.

Councillor Evalina MacEachern chairs the Leisure Services Advisory Committee.

Clearly Council is not perceived as competent to make a judgement of whether the Draft Master Recreation Plan is acceptable and a sub-committee of an advisory committee needs to vet and obtain different findings before presentation to elected representatives. All of which takes time of course. Delay one decision long enough and it can be overtaken by another.The strategy is not subtle.

It's kind of like the letter we got from a lawyer last year on the issue of byelection versus appointment . The one page letter of advice wasn't acceptable so we sent it back and required something different. We got it. The result was appointment versus by-election. There wasn't much subtlety there either.

All that's needed is to thoroughly confuse the public with bafflegab and we're off to the races.