Small things occur that indicate remnants of gang mentality survive still.
Last week, the solicitor sought an opportunity to advise in closed session on a previously discussed issue/ Gallo. Gaertner and Ballard decided the issue should not be behind closed doors.
They stayed out and waited for council to report out.
Their plans were never discovered.
Council returned and waived solicitor/client privilege and spilled the beans.
To cut a long story short: first reaction to the problem with the agreement with the Culture Board was to have Council representation on the board. Time went by and the full complexity of the agreement was revealed. Disadvantages of the plan became apparent.
I speak for myself now and my understanding of the difficulty.
Articles of incorporation detach this board from the authority of Council.
The theory was to remove the board from political interference which would, in theory, prevent the operation from becoming financially self-sufficient.
Politicians are inclined to give away services to peole with voting clout, or not charge enough to cover costs of operation.
Politicians love to be loved.
You have to acknowledge the irony.
Anyway, a potential problem with Councillors on this board is, a Councillor cannot serve two masters.
Since the board receives funding, ad infinitum, from the Town, and are not legally accountable to the town , a Councillor serving on the board might find him/herself in a conflict in a Council meeting. A solicitor might have to be consulted at the Councillor's expense or a conflict of interest declared and be unable to participate in board-related business.
An option would be for two councillors to be appointed to attend board meetings to observe but not participate.
Y'all know I have not agreed with the agreement since it was created. I didn't even know then the agreement had been written by the former Mayor.
I do not believe the instrument is redeemable.
Difficulties in negotiations are no surprise.
Apart from the amazing arrogance displayed by the current Board, to my mind, there is only one solution to the problem.The Town must withhold funding ,take back Church Street School and start afresh.
The library board is not the same. Town funding provides library service.The board decides how funding is used.
The entire Board is appointed by Council ; three are council members.The town is accountable for service and cost of same.
Another irony comes to mind.Every year of the last term the library budget was challenged. In the last year, Councillor Wilson and Rebecca Beaton were appointed to the board, no doubt to bring the board to heel
In the last board meeting of the term, the gang of five filed in, one by one. Purpose of the invasion was never discovered..
Even this year, Councillor Gaertner voted against the town's budget because the library board did not reduce theirs
The same group within Council, Gaertner Gallo and Ballard ,are bound and determined ,extravagant support to a board with no accountability whatsoever is justufied.
"I didn't even know then the agreement had been written by the former Mayor."
ReplyDeleteYour oft-repeated assertion is not an established fact. When dealing with legal matters, please rely on facts, not suppositions.
I am in agreement, let's start fresh! This is like watching a dog chasing it's tail, and the taxpayer is funding it. So damned sick of watching this!
ReplyDeleteIn absence of contradictory evidence, assumptions may be made at will. If 10:22 AM knows ' facts ', please feel free to enlighten. To date, the assertion has not been challenged. Go for it! [ You never contribute a thing of substance }.
ReplyDeleteIs that a question we can answer definitively, Evelyn? I mean, could you just ask our CAO who wrote the agreement? Even if it is not just one author, that's ok. He should be able to identify who participated in the actual writing of it. That shouldn't be a state secret, should it?
ReplyDelete"In absence of contradictory evidence, assumptions may be made at will."
ReplyDeleteSure, and they are - often- and those assumptions are just as likely to be incorrect. Continually stating an opinion or belief as fact, without the benefit of verification, can only lead to an eroding credibility of the source. Thus, the charges of misinforming.