Whatever It Was..It was not Chaos..It was not confusion

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "We Are All The Same Under The Skin":

Some categorize people as dumb, smart, intelligent or wise.

There was very little of the last two on display at this week's Council meeting.

One definition for "council" is: "group of people appointed or elected to give advice, make rules, manage affairs."

It seems that there was very little of these in evidence either. The entire affair seemed to implode in on itself.

Councillors Abel and Pirri spoke from the facts and from the heart on their Motion, the latter quite cutely forgetting where he was in his remarks.

The Triple Threat made the usual hash of things, drawing attention to the word "dumb."

The meeting got out of control and eventually no one really knew what was being said, what was a Motion, what was an Amendment, what was "Chaos."

It is discouraging to see such an impressive setting built at the cost of several millions of taxpayer dollars turned into a circus.

But have no fear, this matter will be resolved, sooner rather than later. A flawed Agreement can be remedied. This one is and it will be.

No one is attempting to take anything away from the Aurora Cultural Centre. What is required to happen, and it will, is that the Centre will be placed on the same footing as other town organizations - the Library comes first to mind - and will be financially accountable to the taxpayers whose money it is spending.

As Councillor Abel pointed out, with a bank balance of some $200,000 and double the visitors in 2011 as compared with 2010, which should translate into double the revenue, where is the proven need for the Town to fund the Centre to the same degree of some $350,000 as the previous year?

Transparent and accountable - the two buzzwords of recent political life - to which should be added "responsible" - that's what this affair is all about.

All the emotion and vitriol and exaggerated stupidity should be cast aside. The Cultural Centre President, who did not impress by his inability to answer a simple question with a "yes" or "no" and who had to be prompted by Tracy Smith, certainly did not engender confidence in himself. He should sit down with his Board and Town representatives and deal with the real and substantives failings that are contained in the Report dated December 6, 2011, from the Town Solicitor.

If you care about culture, then you should be prepared to care how it is presented, administered and financed.

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

There certainly was someone at the table who knew the difference between an amendment and wording to completely changed the intent of the motion What am I,chopped liver?

I suspect others knew it as well but it did not fit the plan to acknowledge.

"The Triple Threat" do not "usually" make a hash of things . I do not believe it can be written off as dumb. I believe it was deliberate. So  they could claim to have a foot in both camps.

There was no chaos. It was a calm, deliberate,  cold-blooded plan. Not  immediately apparent  because it was the last thing expected.

In retrospect,  all the signs were there. It cannot be disputed.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool  me twice shame on me.

Something far more valuable than money was lost on Tuesday and it happened in full public view

It was plain the Chairman of the Board was not equipped to respond to any  question with a simple yes or no. It was embarrassing  for all to see. He was  flanked by book-ends  with their backs turned so that Council would not notice answers being whispered into an  ear leaning  alternately toward each ;  all the better to hear them with, my dear.

So why would one anticipate  productivity  from a meeting with the parties and staff from both  sides?

Why would one expect  amendments to an agreement that provides  for surrendering town  authority,  handing -out  millions   of thousands of  public  dollars without  accountability ,allowing a self-appointed board and staff to thumb their noses at the community, to be easily changed  with amiable chat around a table.

At what point in the last several years, did this  community agree to  finance  a  program, in a facility intended for another use  that the community had endorsed, to siphon instead  inordinate benefits from the public treasury each year with no end intended.

They did not. Nor should they be backed into endorsing it now?

Is  misuse of public resources less than corruption? Not much I would  say.

You suggest  nobody is trying to take anything away from the Aurora Culture Centre. Is that your advice?

I  have said nobody should  have  robbed  the Historical Society of that which was theirs.  But they did. .  

Is there honour among thieves?