"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

Sunday 21 October 2012

My Manifesto

On Tuesday, I will be obliged to vote to give staff direction to proceed or not, with a new  Culture Centre Board agreement.
Under the new agreement:
Two Council members would serve on the board .
Space would be provided for a museum. 
The Board would be required to submit a budget before receiving an operating grant. 
The Director of Recreation Services would receive the budget and recommend the grant to Council. 
Centre staff would,under no circumstances become town staff and entitled to town benefits.
The contract would be subject to  legal requirements of the Board's Articles of  Incorporation 
The Board would be responsible for its own continuity.
The agreement would not be in place until Jan 1st 2014.
It would continue until  the year 2027 .
Subject to what I  hear on Tuesday, I am unable at this time  to support  a new contract under these or any other terms. .
I will attempt to speak to the history. 
The Mayor will use whatever opportunity, he has to restrict the range of my  comments.
Challenging the rule of the chair is not something I do lightly. 
Should  the ruling not be upheld, consequences are serious.
At higher levels of government, it means non-confidence and  generally  triggers an election..
Be that as it may, my  reason for not supporting a new contract are simple and basic.  
Church Street school is a town facility. 
It represents millions of dollars of public investment. 
It is maintained with public resources. 
Prior to 2003, it was  managed by the town. 
The Historical Society used  the second floor as a museum.
An annual  grant of $50,000 was provided  for curator services.
Employee benefits were provided to the curator.
Prior to 2003, the Historical Society conducted a fund-raising drive  for renovations.
 $750,000 was raised, including a bequest from the late  Margaret Brevik, a dedicated  supporter of town heritage.
 A consultant was retained by the Society,
Plans were commissioned for a state of the art heritage function
A legal agreement was signed  to protect financial interest of the Society and  give them sole right to manage the facility.
Subsequently,  the Society was represented  on an ad hoc committee appointed by the next council in office to plan use and 
management of the facility.
The curator  was staff resource to.the committee.
A grant of $750,000 was obtained from  the Federal Heritage Foundation. 
Curator resigned the  position .
Historical Society withdrew commitment to manage the newly renovated facility. 
Low membership and limited capability were cited. 
The agreement  to protect their financial interest of hundreds of thousands of dollars was surrendered.
Specialty architects plan, commissioned  with a  fee  of $250,000, for a state of the art, heritage facility had been  adopted, constructed and  financed  by the town from the Hydro Asset Fund in the amount of $2.3 million .
Plus  the  heritage grant of $750,000.  
The Historical Society  suggested  funding  for their program on the same basis as the library.board. 
It's not clear where the idea emanated .
No public discussion. 
No input sought from the public
No hint of what was afoot. 
A new board of governance for the facility was created with articles of incorporation. 
Legal fees of $9,000. were  paid by the town .First i the flow of public largesse. 
The town itself, without legal representation to protect its interest.
signed agreements.  
A lease for a building  representing millions of dollars of public funds was signed at an annual rent of $2,
Purchase of  cultural services  for $340,000 with annual increments of 3% was contracted.
Included in the agreement, full maintenance services at  an  estimated cost of $143,000.also subject to annual increase
All revenue from the facility accruing to the benefit of the board. 
Charitable donations to the board to be met dollar for dollar by the town. 
Without dwelling on  responsibility for the charade,  nothing in these facts persuade me the interest  of   residents in general  are represented in any  successor to the current  agreements.  
Public  input  was never  sought or given for the concept of  purchasing  arts and culture  at the expense of property taxes. 
In the life of the agreement two million dollars will have been siphoned from the town's treasury to finance the annual  program 
No interest will have been earned by the Hydro Reserve fund from the investment of $2.3 million in the building.
Under no circumstances I can  envisage will I vote to continue  agreements providing  arm's length governance of  Church Street School.
No program  provided in the facility persuades me of  the need to burden taxpayers with  their  cost.              
      

 
  

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

You don't support the new agreement? Knock me over with a feather.

Anonymous said...


As I understand it Council requested the Town Solicitor in October last year to prepare a report on the then existing agreement between the Town and the Centre with respect to the latter providing certain services. The original agreement signed in 2009 was the creation of the then mayor and a law student in the town's legal department. The Town Solicitor pointed out a number of shortcomings and made specific recommendations to correct these. His report was submitted in early December 2011.

In February 2012 a Notice of Motion was placed on the agenda for a Council meeting by two councillors, calling for termination of the agreement and its replacement with a new one that reflected the recommendations of the Town Solicitor. This resulted in a virtual free-for-all at a packed meeting of Centre supporters, some from outside Aurora. This mob scene resulted in the Notice of Motion effectively being cancelled and after a ridiculous amount of time being spent by Staff, Council and the Centre Board it was ultimately agreed to form an Ad Hoc Negotiating Committee to attempt to arrive at a solution that was mutually agreeable to the parties.

One of the Town Solicitor's recommendations was that two members of Council sit on the Centre Board. After lengthy discussion it was determined that this might create a conflict of interest for the two councillors as between their responsibilities as councillors and those as Board members. At one stage it was suggested that councillors could serve on the Board but without a right to vote.

Ultimately the matter was referred to the Ontario Judiciary for an opinion and two senior staff members were nominated on behalf of the town.

All meetings of this Ad Hoc group were held in secret and interim reports were to be submitted to Council, these likewise being secret.

Now there is supposed to be a draft agreement ready for presentation to Council, presumably still secret.

Apparently this document stipulates that the agreement, if approved by Council, would run until 2027.

This entire matter has been mismanaged from the outset both by Council and by Staff.

It is beyond the capacity of any Council to ratify an agreement that will run for 15 years beyond the date of its approval and based on present cost to the town, both direct and indirect, the agreement would involve $7,500,000.

In my opinion tax-payers should seek to halt any further effort at completing this agreement by court injunction.

Council's efforts in this matter represent gross incompetence and malfeasance.

Anonymous said...

O.K.

Anonymous said...

One can only do one's best. This is not a new council & the subject is certainly not new. Each of them is aware of the history & the stakes.

Anonymous said...

"Subject to what I hear on Tuesday..."

Puhleeze, don't pretend, or try to insult anyone's intelligence. Your (closed) mind was made up ages ago.

Thankfully, it won't matter. The new agreement, which addresses all the supposed concerns, will pass.

Anonymous said...

Through all of these meetings, council discussions, etc., has no one including the mayor or councillors reviewed the Cultural Centre's past financial statements to actually see what has been delivered in respect to the funds that they have been given.

I'm not talking about the Audit, but how much value in the programs such as the art clsasses and the music classes which competes against other local businesses.

I can understand the concerts and the art exhibitions but the rest seems to be duplicating and competing against other businesses in town. And the ACC is being subsidized by the Town. Someone needs to look at the ACC financials and ask what are the going to do differently in the future that they are not doing now.

Otherwise their programs are status quo until when - 2027? Who came up with that far future date? Where are these so called KPI's? Oh... yeah we'll get to those once we have a new agreement. Nothing really has changed.

Anonymous said...

A Ship of Gullible Fools

Anonymous said...

3:22 PM
Did you miss the community concern that the Centre ween itself from the Public Purse?

Anonymous said...

One Question
Why is there this unseemly rush to judgement?
The Draft has not really been released for reading by the Aurora website. Communications have not posted it. Residents are expected to accept what Council rules Tuesday night without having any documentation. Not many of us have time to get to the Library before the meeting.
Why is there this unseemly rush to judgement?