Anonymous said...
To be honest I really don't understand why something like this comes to council. Shouldn't it be handled at staff level anyway? I assume there are policies and procedures that govern something like allocation of time in public facilities. Could someone please enlighten me why this would go up to council?
And as to "Love my town more than politics" saying "Smash those kids' hopes and dreams," really, get a grip. Enough of the melodrama.
************
This reader does understand how these matters are managed. Council sets policy. Staff make decisions based on the policy.
The clubs, with contracts since the facility opened, were on hand even before it was built.Originally the plan was for five lanes. The clubs urged Council to direct eight lanes be provided.
The facility was built two years ahead of schedule. There had to be a debenture for what might otherwise have been available from development charge revenues.
Revenue from the clubs have been earned since day one. They paid the fees and conformed to whatever town policies were required.Never at any time was there an agreement which did not serve mutual interest. In other words, suggestion of preferential treatment is a crock.
Last time, Selkies club owner bypassed the process,made her way to council through the Mayor's Office and launched a campaign to get what she wanted through the political process. She was successful.
This time she was enabled to bypass the process to delegate to Council with the assistance of Councillor Ballard.
The last harangue went on at the Council table for months, concluding with intervention from a provincial swim organisation.
Selkies owner was offered lane time in the Aurora Leisure Centre. She refused. The other clubs have four,five and six swimmers in a lane at the same time. Selkies are observed to have three swimmers in three lanes, one being the owner of the club
I expect a deluge of criticism from readers for providing information they do not wish to know. It happens when people have been taken in, gingered up for a fight, to be mad at the person who deprives them of their arguments
It's O.K. I am the one in possession of the facts and the responsibility to keep people informed.
When the dust settles, everyone will have a better understanding.
I will print comments that disagree with my perspective. Just don't call me names, tell me I'm stupid or make allegations against my character. It's not nice, your mother would not approve and it brings out the worst in me.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Where does someone go when they do not get a satisfactory response from someone? They go to that person's boss. No satisfaction there, they go higher. It's called "fighting city hall". You may not like it but that is how we have structured all sorts of things - especially with public services.
For example, we have bylaw enforcement which has been explained to me on many occasions as "enforcement through complaints". The person wanting a certain thing is obligated to complain to someone or go over the head of someone in order to get satisfaction.
This should not surprise you at all. The person in charge of the pools was not treated unfairly. There is an attempt to overrule his authroity because we allow it. He needs a thick skin. This is not the forst and will not be the last time this happens.
Evelyn - I just love your honesty. Keep it up!
My question would be: When are some people going to be satisfied? Does the of size of the club come into play here? Didn't this issue have a moderator to help to satisfy all clubs involved? What happened there? We are not hearing from the other clubs. Is there only one dissatisfied customer here? And again are they ever going to be satisfied? Business versus business. Maybe the answer is go build your own pool if you are not satisfied with the town facility!
The issue here is that three non-Town organizations all want use of the facility. Two of the organizations are part of the Old Boys club and get special treatment. The third wants to have a more equitable situation but she is an outsider.
The solution, I see that each club lists the number of members. The allocation should be pro-rated based on the number of members. Then it's fair to everyone.
I am the anonymous poster to whom you have directed your post. Your first comment states,"Council sets policy. Staff make decisions based on that policy." So my point is why did this issue not just end with staff's decision according to the policy. If the complainant wasn't happy with the director's decision, why didn't she go to the CAO who would make a final decsision. I still don't get why it would need to go to council. Isn't that what staff are for, to make decisions by operationalizing policy? Why is it so bloody complicated? And what a waste of council time!! If you were to say that there is no policy governing this type of issue, I would understand but you say that there is. What's the point of council's setting policy if staff don't have the authority to make final decisions? Why is council micro-managing issues like this?
Post a Comment