"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Saturday, 5 May 2012

Wait And See

Anonymous  said
Clr Ballard says the reason he doesn't support having Council representation on the cc board is "that it promotes political interference in the arts". Fine. The the cc board shouldn't be accepting any tax dollars or using any town buildings either, Councillor.

The quote from ClrBallard  no doubt derives comes from  something he heard.

In the context of "political interference"., reference is  as follows.

The advantage  of   "arm's length  governance" for the facility, is to avoid political interference in  management.

"Political interference"  means the  principle of operating in a business mode cannot be achieved.

Business mode means  the facility operates on at least a break-even basis.

It means no dependence on public resources.

It means paying for all  overheads.

The recommendation was made by one of a  succession of financial advisers..The  purpose  being to prevent the facility from becoming a sink hole for public funds.

But lo... with   full political interference and apparently no  input from a financial adviser,  legal counsel,
or any other professional in the administration, in what must have been the only time ever, the woman did not retain legal counsel,  the agreement was drawn up by the  former Mayor to become precisely  that which was  not intended .A sink hole for public resources.

The previous post responded to a comment stating the town solicitor launched  the current expedition with his complete, accurate, concise and straight forward report.

The comment was neither  concise  nor  accurate.

"The expedition was launched" when the solicitor was directed  by Council to review the contract and report  on its shortcomings and omissions..

Council approved a motion put forward by myself , over initial objection  from the Mayor on the basis of the solicitor's workload.

It's not always easy to tell who is  doing the talking from the chair. But  I distinctly recall asking the question; "Why would you not want the contract reviewed and reported  by the solicitor?"

Though he had nothing to do with the contract, not being in office at the time, it was almost as if  the Mayor had something to hide.

The only thing I can think of would be that  no  person,  except the former Mayor,  had anything to do with the contract on behalf of the town. I have heard a shreddng machine was running non-stop in the Mayor's office between election day and the end of term.

The town has  a Chief Executive Team  that costs  upwards of a million dollars a year
One can see  how Councillor Ballard , in a Grangerism,  might  eagerly grab  the words "political interference" and use them  inappropriately .relevant  to "the arts"..

The  Centre's  articles of incorporation are relevant in any discussion of an ongoing agreement with the
town. about how the board will be constituted.Charitable status, in my opinion is not likely relevant.

Do the articles permit  political representation on the board.?

Will  two  Councillors on the board take direction or be accountable  to Council.

 If not, what is the purpose of having Councillors on the board.

Particularly Councillors who have publicly stated they are in full support of how the board is operating the facility and  that  funds  to do so  should continue to be  provided by the municipality..

How will that make a difference?

 Is that really the intention?

 Or is the real intention to create a sham of change while spending staff time  and treasury funds.?

 Or alternately ,is it the intention to drag things out , with progress reports  regularly  until the end of the agreement  just to calm the multitude.?

We shall have to wait and see.

Because that's  what the majority  has decided..

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Please, could someone please tell me what happened to the termination clause? Was it dropped entirely, postponed or is it hovering somewhere in limbo? We have to stop getting side-tracked into arguments about programming. This is about dollars, sense and the Museum. Aurora still holds all the legal, moral and fiscal high ground if it has the guts to use its position this time.