A Shambles

Town business got short shrift last Tuesday Two items were discussed in depth and ended in a tie vote, which is a non-decision.

Of the two that went behind closed doors at midnight,only one was decided. At one in the morning, we were too tired to make a decision on the remaining matter.

We never got to "new business" where notices of motion are given of items to bring forward for action.

I called a number of items for discussion at the start of the meeting but they had to be referred to the next meeting because not enough time was left after all the time taken by Selkies and Walmer delegations

Selkies swim club got on the agenda for a second time to make the same pitch from a different angle and it stretched out substantially with the help of Councillor Gaertner.

An exchange related to the Selkies item proved revealing.

The Selkies owner got on to the agenda of the previous meeting with the help of Councillor Ballard. Accusations were made against the Director of Leisure Services of unfair and unequal treatment. He was directed to provide a report on the history of negotiations with Selkies and a proposed pool allocation policy. (It was the idea of former Councillor MacEachern with silent back-up from the former Mayor)

At the previous meeting, dates of meetings with Selkies owner were demanded. Like he was telling lies and needed to produce the evidence.

He did provide the dates. Apparently they were overlooked in the reading by Councillor Gaertner. Councillor Ballard e-mailed Mr. Downey and pointed out dates were not provided.

Ballard's attention was drawn to the pages. Councillor Ballard apologised to Mr. Downey.

Councillor Gaertner later audibly apologised to Councillor Ballard in the closed meeting stating she had not read the report properly.

In the public meeting, Councillor Gaertner requested Mr. Downey make his presentation first. So Selkies owner could respond . When that didn't happen she wanted Selkies to have a second round to refute the Downey report.

The procedure bylaw allows delegates five minutes. Councillors may ask a question for clarification. No debate is permitted between council and delegate.

I asked Selkies delegate if he and other club members were aware of an offer of hours at Aurora Leisure complex,refused by the owner. He said no. Owner sneaked up behind him and he added owner was also unaware of the offer.

Downey was asked to name the dates. He did. And particulars of hours offered.

Councillor Gaertner said. "No wonder she refused those hours, kids are in school"

Seats in the chamber were filled with little swimmers and parents no doubt encouraged to attend in support of "fair and equal treatment"

That is not what they saw.

One delegate spoke of having to rise at five in the morning to have his child at swim practice at six.

Downey reported the facility was opened earlier to provide additional hours.

The owner of Selkies is not much interested in anything but getting what she wants, whoever has to be pushed out of the way to get it. Fudging facts and making unfounded accusations and allegations against a public servant or anyone else who gets in her way is apparently all part of the game plan.

Councillor Gaertner is clearly in her corner just as the Dreadful Duo always were before.

No support there for town policies or the director responsible for upholding them. Quite the opposite.

Clause 4 of the Code of Conduct provides a principle for elected representatives to follow in their relations with town staff.

It calls for Councillors to read and understand the Code.

Well that's a joke!

If Councillor Gaertner ever read the Code, Clause 4 was no doubt overlooked same as dates in the Director's report.