I spoke on the agreement with the Culture Centre Board last night. I called for a recorded vote.
Three people voted against proceeding with the draft..The other two for a different reason than myself although they didn't say so, I believe their reason was not to change .
Six people voted to direct staff to finalise the agreement.
Councillor Thompson said it was not the final decision..I'm not sure that means there is time to change direction.
The Mayor did what I said he would.
I did what I planned .
I did what I planned .
My comments of course do not appear on the public record so I will record here what I asked Council to consider.
****************
Mr. Mayor,
As an introduction to my comments on the question of renewing the contract with the Culture Centre Board ,I refer to the yesterday's decision of Master Hawkins of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
It is the elephant in the room.
The Master found the action against residents by the former Mayor to have been SLAPP.
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.
I believe the person who abused public resources and the authority of her office to process that action is the same who wrote the original agreement for a purchase of arts and culture services.
Twice ,the Mayor tried to stop me from making the reference.
He said : " I am not going to allow you to speak along those lines."
I said: "I just did".
He said "I am not going to allow you to continue"
I said "I just finished "
I completed my comments as follows without further interruption..
Council is being asked to approve a draft revision of the same contract.
I see the purpose the same as the original,Mr.Mayor. Perceived Political Advantage.
On Page 83 of the staff report, the only alternative offered Council is to direct changes to the draft .
I have another alternative Mr. Mayor; that the town manage the facility with municipal staff.
It is a facility like any other owned by the town. It provides space for activities.
It was decided thirty-six years ago , it would primarily be the symbol of Aurora's heritage. It would house a museum.
Compatible uses would be accommodated.
Until 2003, they were.
Compatibly.
Millions of dallars have been spent to keep the building from sinking into the ground and the weather out.
In 2006, an additional $2.3 million was allocated from the Hydro Reserve Fund to complete planned renovations.
A specialty design costing $250,000 was commissioned, at their expense, by the Aurora Historical Society. They were adopted by Council.
Approval of an Agreement for purchase of arts and culture services with a non-accountable board, saw original plans abandoned and the vision unfulfilled.
The building was handed over rent-free, maintenance provided,with substantial financial resources that could not then and cannot now be identified as a response to public demand.
There was no public demand. There was only a sense of sadness and betrayal.
There is only one argument in favour of a board management arrangement. A charitable foundation, which the board is, can provide tax receipts for donations that would help the board to become self-sufficient and financially independent of the town.
Except for a single donation of $50,000 made within weeks of signing the agreement no donation of equal value has been recorded. Despite the town's generous offer to match donations, dollar for dollar.
Financial resources provided by the town offer no encouragement for private donations to be sought by the board.
The revised draft does not change that, Mr. Mayor.
Council representation on a board with arm's length authority does not make the board accountable.
Space for heritage display and storage does not fulfill the vision of a modern, hands on heritage experience.
Oversight by the Director of Parks and Recreation does not justify making arts and culture a burden on the shoulders of property owners.
A library board model for financing arts and culture has never been sought nor endorsed by the community, Mr. Mayor.
Having it imposed by Council is unacceptable. I cannot foresee when such a thing would become acceptable.
Mr. Mayor, the last election is still fresh in my mind. The result signified serious dis-satisfaction with numerous decisions made by the previous Council.
Failure to follow through with the commitment to heritage was one.
Funding arts and culture from taxes was another.
I urge this Council not to repeat that mistake.
I propose the draft agreement be rejected in favour of in-house management of the facility by town forces.. Costs of operation would be recovered by user fees in accordance with town policy which provide equity among users of public facilities.
No municipality can justify preferred status of one group over another.
The end.
Thank You!
ReplyDeleteEvelyn, When you suggest that the intent is the same now as it was then - perceived political advantage - are you suggesting that the political advantage would accrue now to the current mayor, as it would have then to the previous mayor?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteEvelyn:
Have members of Council actually seen the latest version of the draft agreement?
Surely there must be something on paper after countless secret meetings and the passage of something like seven months.
Or is the draft still so secret that it cannot be distributed or discussed among councillors?
How is the draft agreement going to be finalized?
What will finalized mean?
Who will finalize it?
Does it mean the Council can reopen it and pick it to shreds?
This entire process sucks, big-time.
In my opinion the existing agreement should be allowed to expire at the end of next year.
I agree that the Centre should be operated with town employees, some of those to be hired who are knowledgeable in the operation of a combined Historical/Cultural facility.
That would end all this total crap about agreements and Councillors sitting on a Board without the ability to vote because of possible conflicts of interest.
I don't know how many hours of staff and councillor time have been pissed away on this subject, but the cost to the town in terms of time squandered that could have been put to better use must be into the tens of thousands of dollars. This is a direct cost to the taxpayers.
Pending matters from times past could have been brought forward and dealt with.
Both the CEO and the CAO would appear to be guilty of mismanagement.
So with all of this re-work on the agreement is the ACC also submitting a new budget for approval?
ReplyDeleteWill they be asking for more money? Or less? Do they have a new business plan as to how they will operate? Or are they continuing on with the status quo?
Where are these so called KPI’s (key performance indicators)? How can you approve an agreement when you have no way to measure it’s success? (Oh sorry, they are coming at some later date, really when?)
Is anyone looking at what they have already done (i.e. last year’s financials what their revenue was and I’m not talking about the Town’s “grant” – But how many people paid for programs). If the purpose is to subsidize programs then that is what is happening. That’s fine. So how many people are taking advantage of the ACC? Is it well used? Where are the numbers? How many paid for programs? How many came for free programs? (and I’m not talking about the people through the doors for the winter farmer’s market that would bolster any venue) – real numbers for music, art & heritage.
If the purpose is to be self sufficient they have a long way to go and their work is cut out for them. If they are not to be self-suffient then are they to breakeven? What's the plan?
What’s really going to be different at the ACC from 2013 to when 2027 in their program offerings to increase the numbers through their front doors. (I originally thought that 2027 was a typo until I read it in the full report).
If programs and events are subsidized the more patrons, the better usage, the lower the subsidy per capita, but all I see is a revamped agreement – WHERE’S the NEW BUSINESS PLAN to shut us all up? You wouldn’t get this agreement and money from other levels of government or the BDC (Business Development Bank of Canada) would you without a sound business plan? If you are re-organizing don’t you need a new plan? Or am I naïve about all of this?
If Council approves a new agreement, I predict the next storm will be the Council approving the new yearly cultural budget?
I wish I were a fairy queen with a wand and "poof" away the damned cultural centre. I am sick to death of it, its cost, the people who run it and the council that has no backbone to deal with it once and for all!
ReplyDeleteThank you, 4:45 PM, for your constructive, reality-based contribution to the debate. It's always good to hear from grounded, sensible people.
ReplyDelete