Tim the Enchanter has left a new comment on your post "Order By
Rule":
I think we need to look beyond the petty rules-of-order
squabbling and see the bigger issue.
There is no chance in Hades that this
council will ever be able to judisciously dispense $33M.
I'm convinced
this council is better than the last and is fairly well populated with
well-meaning citizens but let's be honest - responsibility for this kind of
money is over their pay grade.
************
If I choose to write a post about consequences if the rules are misunderstood, abused or not applied in the manner intended or how I came to use the disrespectful term SHUT UP to another Councillor I will do so.
The rules are not petty. It's how nine people manage to bring strongly held points of view together and bring about a majority vote in a civilized fashion.
The majority vote doesn't have to be right
It just has to be a majority
Right or wrong, we all share the consequences which is usually taxes well beyond what they should be.
Therein lies the only equity.
Which brings me to the second point of Tim's not so enchanting point of view.
"Responsibility for this kind of money is beyond their pay grade."
Everything we do as a Council is beyond our pay grade.
Since when has it been suggested politicians should be paid for what they do.
The Premier of Ontario is paid less than a GTA police chief. or a hospital administrator, for God's sake or maybe even a Regional chairman.
We have a chairman, a police chief and four hospital administrators in York Region alone.
The last hospital administrator had an expense allowance higher than the Premier's salary.
Who pays attention to those comparators?
Where's the logic.
The Town of Aurora struck a budget of $79 million this year. Who is accountable? Council? The Administration?
When did the electorate vote for the administration?
By the way, I don't know one who lives in Aurora or pays our taxes.
Maybe Tim is really Dan the Man, in charge of town finances.
Richmond Hill sold their hydro before we did. They realized less than two hundred million and more than one hundred.
They built a Performing Arts Centre with almost a hundred million.
They made a huge contribution to their hospital.A hundred thousand maybe. I think they still have some left.
Not a whisper of discontent drifted up the Hill to Aurora.
Never have I heard it said that Richmond Hill Councillors walk on water.
But they are paid substantially more than Aurora Councillors They have wards. Responsibility is divied up amongst them.Does being paid more mean they are worth more?
They have a Councillor who thought it was O.K. to buy a set of golf clubs with his EXPENSE ALLOWANCE. His argument ?Cheaper to buy than rent when he had to go and play in all those pesky charity golf tournaments.
Next post I will argue Tim the Enchanter's strange enchantment with the competence of the administration versus the right of a taxpayer to say!!!!!!
WTF. I'm not effing well buying that argument .
Or words similar meaning the same.
Saturday, 9 June 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Evelyn, Tim is over the top but he is saying what he/she feels. And I tend to agree in principal. The Birthday idea was a bad one. Especially with the economy the way it is. And he/she probably knows another SECRET report is due from the Center. Enough to make anyone blow his/her cool.
Possibly instead of elections we should have auctions.
The winning bid would get to serve a term of 18 months on council.
Auctions should be held every two months with a councillor retiring as one was declared winner.
In this manner there would be "experienced" office holders with declining terms remaining as new members came along to replace them.
Similar to the US Senate where the term is six years and one third of Senators face election every two years.
The level of the subject matter these past few days makes one wonder about our entire concept of government and the thinking that obviously runs riot in the heads of councillors and mayor.
Possibly only multi-millionaires should serve as elected officials. They at least would appreciate the dollar amounts with which they were dealing. And they might even agree to serve for a nominal $1 per year.
Think of all the extra money that our town would then have to spend on "Roman circuses."
You can't take the high road here, Evelyn. The reports from the meeting make it quite clear that the Mayor's mind would be 'boggled' by anyone opposing his plan. Well, the minds of a few Aurorans were boggled. Maybe he miss- spoke but it was an enormous gaffe.
Thank you for this day.
"And he/she probably knows another SECRET report is due..."
How oxymoronic of you.
In the interests of fair debate I'll cop to the facetious nature of some of my comment but my underlying point remains the same.
Yes - council ultimately approves a $79M budget but the vast majority of the work is done by staff. Of course there must be debate regarding adding here, trimming there, which is mostly an excercise designed to keep tax increases reasonable. It's not as if council is given $79M and must decide how to spend it.
Richmond Hill spend a barrel of money on the performing arts centre. I've been in it - it's very nice. Didn't realize it cost upwards of $100M but if that's the case such an ediface, albeit smaller, would be difficlt to accomplish with $33M in Aurora.
Perhaps you would agree Councillor Buck, that rightly or wrongly council's reputation for fiscal prudence has been tarnished by special interest spending of the past. Traffic calming for a "special" neighbourhood. Law suits - for which as far as I know the taxpayers have yet to be reimbursed. A very wobbly deal for the Culture centre which has yet to be rectified. An expensive Promenade Study about which nary a word has been heard since last term.
How much council time has been spent discussing the Petch House?
These are all nagging issues that involve 10's of thousands or 100's of thousands of dollars and while yes it is true they are not by and large the fault of current council - they still persist.
Yet we are to expect your group can successfully parlay a $33M windfall into Aurora's Golden Legacy?
I'm sorry but I don't think so.
Yes, other towns and cities have had their "Taj Mahal" moments as well as their spending "clunkers" but frankly I don't care about other cities because I pay taxes here and a share of that $33M is mine.
Having an annual budget laid out for you is not the same as having $33M to spend. Many parents pay for a college education could easily cost over $50,000 (in Canada) yet which responsible parent would ever give their child a cheque for %50K and say "go get a college education"? Typically, big budget expenditures are handled by the Region. Nothing in recent history serves to suggest this council can handle it.
I would rather just have the money back but failing that I wouldn't be entirely opposed to having 2 or 3 proposals put together by professionals under supervision of our town staff and have them presented as a referendum as long as None of the Above is one of the options. Winner must be by clear '50 plus 1' majority of ELIGIBLE voters - meaning if no-one bothers to vote forget the whole thing. There's no way that kind of money can end up serving the wishes of special interests. Council can solicit ideas and oversee the process.
Someone will point out "why have a referendum - we elect council to make those decisions?"
Why?
Because this isn't an annual $33M windfall that we get top spend on "something nice" that's why.
This is a one-time, one-shot deal.
When this money is gone - it's gone.
I'm sure you'll disagree but that's OK by me.
It hasn't all been smooth sailing here is Richmond Hill.
One Mayor, Al Duffy, was turfed. It involved some very nasty in-fighting and brought the main-stream newspapers out to cover that election.
"The Town of Aurora struck a budget of $79 million this year. Who is accountable? Council? The Administration?"
All of the above!
I guess the councillors that voted FOR the budget have more accountability to those (or the one) that did not vote for it. Those that did not approve the budget should not have any say in how the money is spent. You're either in or you're out.
Post a Comment