Curlicue, Curlicue, wilt thou be true,Not By The Hair On Your chinny,chin,chin

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Bits And Bobs":

"Why the fear that details may not be conveyed accurately?"

Oh, I don't know....it might just have something to do with all the other times you've twisted information to serve your own self-interest.

Staff's probably grown tired of you taking what they give you and having you turn it around to attack
them with it

********************************

I  have published the foregoing  as an example of how accusations continue and the facts were regularly distorted  in the past term.

No specific example of  inaccuracy  was ever provided.

When  a resolution is passed by Council  it is owned by Council. Criticism of a political decision is not criticism of staff .

Readers may recall halfway  through the third year of the last  term when I requested a list of all legal invoices paid  during the term.  Expenditures from the public purse  are a matter of public record.
Three times, I was assured the documentation was forthcoming.

A resolution moved  and seconded by Mac Eachern and Wilson contrived to provide  a reason eventually not to provide  the information.

Staff had no reason to be afraid of how  information might be  perceived. The CAO had  been employed by the town for six months , the solicitor and Finance Officer  both  followed  his appointment.

No, indeed.  It wasn't staff who needed to keep information  under wraps.

It was the dreadful duo themselves,who were hell bent on  legal devices, no matter how much of the public resources  they  used for the purpose.

Our  new Council  should certainly  require figures of  actual spending as opposed to budget forecast, to make sense of  the requirement  for legal services in 2011

If I recall  figures correctly, a  legal reserve  of $100K in 2009,  was emptied in 2009. In  2010, a reserve of $250K  created that year was also  used up in the same year, over and above the annual budget estimate.

That means in those two years alone $350K more was spent than anticipated needs reflected in the budgets, by the legal department.

I have yet to discover where, in last year's spending, is the total figure paid out in wage settlements in the last term.  I think that might come under the heading of  legal  spending as well.

There has never been any question about whose pocket was emptied.