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:
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.
Post a Comment