The Uproar Continues

The town's contract with the Farmers Market has never allowed the park to be used by vendors or vehicles.

The reason for the Market's move from downtown, was to allow room for growth.I called to establish it would not be in the park. I was assured. I noted publicly the reason for having a market was to bring people downtown. Moving to Wells Street, would defeat the purpose.

The Market moved. Public funds were spent on increased power. Wells Street was not large enough for Market . Vendors spilled into the park.The contract was ignored for three years.

For three years, vendors were in the park. So long as Sher St. Kitts was associated and the band shell could be used without payment of fees.

While Councillor Granger was in attendance every week, the contract was ignored.

St Kitts had a booth on the street , promoting the family business. Artisans and food vendors were assigned to the park.

Now, disassociation with their former events co-ordinator over a dispute about remuneration,(she was demanding it) and the Mayor no longer welcome to be front and centre of the Market, the contract has been re-discovered.

Ignored while St..Kitts had free access, to the band shell, enforced when St. Kitts has to pay for the band shell.

But wait!

St. Kitts has a sponsor. The Town has provided $2,000. It's not a waiver of fees ,
as was to be requested at the July 13th Council Meeting in a delegation.

It's a sponsorship.

$2,000 has been provided from the office of the Chief Administrative Officer. Funds it seems,are in his budget for such an eventuality.

The CAO is on vacation.

Not known at this time; has the money been paid by cheque or in services? The amount would far exceed a waiver of all fees. A cheque would require joint signatures of Mayor and Treasurer.

I don't like to ask.

The Treasurer doesn't like to answer my questions.

The Mayor is on vacation.

But there's a corollary:

In a recent e-mail to Councillors from the Mayor;

"Further to Councils recent "rise and report out" of our action(s) re: retaining Mr. Northey as Co-counsel

I enquired of Mr. Cooper what Members can share about our legal counsels reccommendation

Mr Cooper has kindly advised that if asked, Council Members can reference that :"


In those few lines the Mayor deftly shifts responsibility from herself and her supporters to Mr. Cooper, town solicitor and "our legal counsel"(external)

It was Council's decision .

But it was "our legal counsel's recommendation" re "retaining Mr.
Northey as co-counsel."

And Mr. Cooper , town solicitor was privately asked by the Mayor to "advise " what Councillors could "share".

Presumably with the public whose business it is.

Last October, an "option" for "re-imbursing" neighbours opposed to Westhill's site plan application was first proposed as a "grant".

I objected publicly to that discussion being behind closed doors.

It went away for a while.

It came back in a different garb and again behind closed doors.

It was reported out as "retaining expert witnesses". Witnesses already paid by opponents of the aplication, for evidence already provided and in the public record.

Retaining the opponents' lawyer on the advice of external legal counsel because of his "expertise" is the final successful sleight of hand in transferring coin of the realm.

In a similar vein, we now apparently have an item in the CAO's budget allowing a $2,000. sponsorship be provided to the Mayor's most admired in all the world and feted volunteer, outside the normal process for making grants or the authority of Council.

If anyone out there imagines this was not a decision of the Chief Magistrate, well you're just dreaming in technicolor, my innocent friend.