An Ongoing Dilemma

Tuesday's  General Committee  meeting presented a  repeat problem.

A newly worded report on the  snow dump and treatment facility was  presented again to Council for approval.

This time, the first page suggests the Minister of Environment "requires" municipalities to reduce salt going into the environment.

The last page, disclosed the  project proposed does not remove "soluble" salt.

Estimated costof the project has gone  from $500Ks to $800Ks.

$123Ks was already spent in the last term  for a design.

The report was signed by the Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Environment and Infrastructure.

It was presented by its writer.

In a  team management system, all reports written  by managers are approved by the executive team  and authorised  for recommendation to Council.

 Councillors comments indicate they have been informed, the town is "mandated"  by the Minister of Environment  to undertake this project.

My  dilemma presents as follows; if. on the basis of my  experience and observations, I am unable to accept  a  recommendation, must I hold my tongue or risk interruption on a point of order, to be criticized by Councillor Gaertner, against rules of parliamentary procedure, for criticizing staff  by disagreeing with a  recommendation 

Or. risk staff interrupting me, to be accused of impugning  integrity of said staff,  making it impossible for him to think and do his job.While distracting me from doing my job and disrupting the meeting.

Or,  if a report  is presented  more than once with changed wording and I. more than once, launch  into  opposition  because of inability to accept the new argument plus the old argument, plus throw in information learned since the last time the report was discussed; a complaint of harassment might be lodged against me for making it difficult for staff to do their job and lose status among their peers.

Thereby hangs the dilemma Does my job trump their job.

There is no soft or gentle way to express strong opposition to a recommendation.My
purpose is rejection.

I can't skate around it, mince my words or dress it up to appear to be something it is not.

My task calls for  scrutiny, analysis,  a conclusion formed and presented  in forceful terms for the purpose of  influence a sufficient number of votes or failing that,  to command  public attention.


Particularly when  an expenditure of  best part of a million dollars is proposed.

It's my understanding of my reason for being at the Council table.

The obvious flaw in a system that pits elected against appointed,  allows reason to be   obscured  by  sympathy for the hapless appointed.  Who must  publicly  endure a  point by point critique of a report written with  best intent.

It is not an equal contest.

In the past,council authority has been ruthlessly exploited for evil intent . 

On Tuesday,the issue was deferred until November,when it's said, the Minister will  rule on the plan.

But, before moving on,Councillor Thompson, for the second time ,gave  assurance to staff for excellent work.

The community, by and large, has no difficulty understanding  my arguments.Their thinking comes from the same practical level as my own.  I'm regularly asked,why don't they listen to you Evelyn?

Well, they do. It's just easier  to dismiss a forceful argument from a politician than a rationale from a professional.

Inclination of the fair- minded  is to defend the person who appears to be unfairly  under attack.

This time, my argument was not dismissed .The decision was deferred.

Signs are, the honeymoon really is over. Awareness has grown of whose interest we are there to protect. It's not always a tidy and amenable process.

That's progress. Whatever was done and continues to be done to keep it moving  is appreciated.  .