The Cult of Mormac Is Alive and Well

It keeps popping up in  predictable places. It is as expected.The environment is conducive still.

I haven't viewed the tape of Tuesday's meeting yet. Yesterday was busy with phone calls and comments to the post. People watched it as it happened and viewed the tape since. Still others informed me of what happened after I left the meeting.

My thoughts are usually well organised going into a debate. I do not rely on notes. It's a skill one must learn,a  required discipline. The ability  to oppose with force and conviction without causing  personal offense is a political imperative.

The water rates issue came to the forefront last year with 12% increase. Estimated water loss was increased from 8% to 12 % which I was unable to accept.. I sought  precise numbers for water breaks from  the Director of Infrastructure and Environment(formerly Public Works Director) . The Chief Administrative Officer combined with the D,I,E. and the C.F.O.  form a triumvirate of the Executive Leadership Team. (Formerly Management Team).

The  information was refused. Explanation? ..... they were afraid I would  distort the numbers.

My argument  last year was the same  as this.except this year  I was on firmer ground.

Ratepayers are led to believe by the fact of meters,they pay only for water they  use. They have been  encouraged by various regional strategies to conserve water. Everything points to an understanding that they have control.

The methodology used for calculating water rates does not support that understanding.

Again and again,I have repeated the basis for my opposition. Water used for town services is not metered. How is it measured ?  Where does it appear in the town's budget?

How does water loss increase when infrastructure is mostly new and we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to reline pipes to prevent water loss.

Water loss should be less ...not more.

The methodology for calculating water rates is flawed.

I contend  the problem existed  long before  current staff. It dates from installation of meters.  The difference in equity and lack of transparency  grew with the numbers. It can no longer be ignored.

Inequity came about as a result of some homes  being served with wells  and not receiving water bills.

So-called "water loss" , water used for tax supported services is not shared across the town. The $49 a year charge for storm water ponds , a surcharge on the water bill, the purpose is to improve the quality of Lake Simcoe water, is also not shared .

Number of homes not in  the loop, I did not know. The impact for them to be included in sharing the cost of "water loss" and the surcharge for storm ponds was equally obscure.

The actual amount for "water loss" being tacked on to the water rates to consumers was also not revealed.

Until Tuesday evening.... minutes before the Chief Financial Officer declared  he could " no longer think to do his job because  his integrity was being impugned"

Councillor Pirri, speaking in support of my motion,had estimated the difference to the  tax bill of water used for tax supported services, would likely be "pennies"

The Chief Financial Officer apparently decided it was his responsibility to nip that notion in the bud.

He joined  the debate, used the word semantics,  and stated  a  transfer  would  mean a  3.4% increase in taxes. It represents almost a million dollars.

My face must have betrayed my delight in finally receiving hard and fast figures.I was  not about to let the  opportunity pass. I was happy.

So, that was the  amount tacked on to the water rates. The same amount that  belonged in the tax rate.

I remember commenting,  "That's what's so good about these discussions. One never knows what information will come out"

It was after I exploited the opportunity to prove my point, the Chief Financial Officer decided his integrity had been impugned.

 I had previously made the comparison between a municipality having a monopoly in supplying a service and other public utilities  monopolies. They require  approval from C.R.T.C to increase charges.  In the private sector,what we are doing would be regarded as fraud.

I accused no member of town staff. I noted when a Bylaw is approved, Council takes ownership.

The point was made without reaction from anyone at the table.

I still need to see the tape to confirm my recollection of  the debate but nigh these many years, I have learned to trust myself.

During the recess called by the Mayor.  (Shades of the Past)....  I  understand   Councillors were scolded by the Chief Administrative Officer for voting in favour of my motion for re-consideration of the Water Rates Bylaw. He stated with exasperation they "had given me a voice"

On another  budget matter, I voted against spending  $85 Ks for a consultant to advise on how to achieve  excellence in Customer Service.

I believe  people who occupy  positions of authority in a municipal administration and are paid accordingly, should be equipped to train others in the concept of excellence in customer service.

Over the years, I became accustomed to department heads who understood and respected the authority of the elected body as representative of the people.I took it for granted. More so in a  Council meeting than anywhere else.It all came to an end during the last term.

I am well aware of respect I am entitled to receive as a representative of the people.

It will be a snowy day in hell, before I apologize for being disrespected and wrongfully accused,  by an employee of the municipality while doing my job on behlaf of the people who gave me their trust.

If I were an employee, I would have recourse to Bill 168, a Bill to prevent harassment in the workplace.