Councillor Buck,
Thank
you for your recent inquiry. I have been away and am now responding to your
email at my earliest opportunity.
In September, the Board recruited new
Directors by advertising in local newspapers and on several web sites that
specialize in recruitment of not for profit Boards, as well as on the
Neighbourhood Network website. The criteria for application were outlined in
those ads (attached), one being residency in Aurora. All respondents were
invited to personally meet with the 12 members of the Board and had the
opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Centre. The current volunteer
Board is made up of 12 residents of Aurora. The names of those Directors are on
our public website at http://auroraculturalcentre.ca/about-us/staff. The term is two years, and a Director can serve no more than
three consecutive terms.The Board will be examining membership once the new Cultural
Services Agreement is in place. Also, the Board has agreed to add two
Councillors to the Board as requested by the Town and by Council this past year,
again as part of the new Agreement.
The number of staff and their
positions are also listed on our public website at http://auroraculturalcentre.ca/about-us/staff. There are four full time staff (the first four
positions listed), and currently three part time staff (listed as “PT”). The
Centre is also supported by large number of volunteers.
Once again, thank
you for your interest in our Board and staff. Please contact me if there is
anything else I can assist you with.
************
When I made my first phone call inquiry, the administrator was not available . I was told to e-mail my request and it would be placed before the board. The above is better.
Criteria for board membership is wide and varied.
There is no organisation other than a twelve member board. Therefore no election of officers.
I'm not sure it would be an improvement .
The Historical Society has membership. People pay their dues but they apparently don't have an annual election of officers.
Last figure I heard was fifty-nine members. That set me back on my heels a bit.
Then I heard of the interview process for persons interested in being members.
Normally none of these thing would be of the slightest interest to me . Were it not for the business of handing over substantial sums of public money and assets to be spent at will by people elected by no-one and accountable to no-one.
The Arboretum doesn't actually get money transferred. They decide how it will be spent. They work with the parks department
The Historical Society gets money transferred and since 2002, they have provided no service in return to the community.
The Culture Centre Board only have to submit a financial statement to the town's Chief Financial Officer each quarter to get money transferred to their coffers.
Only the CFO sees how they spend the money. He has nothing to say to anybody about it.
He places his signature on a cheque alongside the Mayor's and off it goes.
How can it be acceptable for money imposed as taxation, to be handed over to a self-selected group for purposes not approved and unaccounted for ?
We've been doing it now for three years.
It 's recommended by staff to keep on doing it. The town is set to sign a contract on January 15th , to continue the boondoggle for the next twenty years.
The last Council stuck the current Council with the mess they created.
It 's now proposed, the current Council stick the next four councils with a contract little changed from the one deemed to be completely unsatisfactory and in the opinion of some, scandalous.
It's not entirely clear how the vote will go.
My view is, it should be flushed away ,never to be seen again.
Nothing in a municipal organisation requires or justifies ,8,000 square feet of public programmable space to be governed by an autonomous board provided annually with a million dollars of public resources , currently representing 3 points in the annual tax rate.
Pshaw!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
A 20 year Contract is absurd. As is much of the rest of the deal. But the 20 year bit simply has to go. Council has no right to tie future councils to this mess. If it is their decision to hand over more money on the current terms, then it must remain theirs alone. And the praise or blame must be on their heads, not the heads of future councillors.
"It's not entirely clear how the vote will go."
Oh, I think you know. Why else the repetitious, desperate attempts to affect the obvious? The term 'whistling (I'm being polite) in the wind' comes to mind.
"My view is, it should be flushed away ,never to be seen again."
Your (minority) view is well known - you've only shared it innumerable times. One year starts as the last ended ... and to no avail.
This is absolute nonsense and you know it -- the Town has a contract with a legal not for profit corporation called the Aurora Cultural Centre -- that volunteer board delivers services on behalf of the town according to a binding contract and cultural services agreement. Those contracts are audited both financially and for service delivery with performance indicators agreed to. Just like any other contractor in town. Stop saying the town is handing over money to an unaccountable entity, the town is buying a service, one that you don't support -- OK -- but many do.
After 9 months; The Board has yet to present a budget. There is no business plan presented. How can we sign an agreement? It has been stated in the proposed agreement 2 Councillors have been invited to the Board. But we know this to be a lark, as 2 Councillors would find themselves in conflict under the Municipal Act. A decision is before the Supreme Court on this matter.
There are many positive points in the proposed agreement that addressed many of the concerns brought forward in the Town's Solicitors Report to Council in Dec / 11.
Negotiations have been prolonged and incomplete.
Negotiations have failed.
I am not surprised, as it has been apparent from day 1 the Board never wanted to negotiate. That's a problem.
And now the lease for our treasured Church Street School Cultural Centre for $1 / year, for a term of 20 years is before Council to approve.
Seriously?
That is not a good deal for the Town of Aurora. For Council to approve such a lease would be irresponsible!!
It has become very clear what must be done.
We own the Church Street School Cultural Centre, staff, maintain and fund the programs.
Terminate the current Cultural Services Agreement.
Have the Town assume the day to day operation with the current staff.
Have Council appoint a Board with Terms of reference.
No Agreement
No Lease.
Is that from someone calling themself "John Abel"? If not, that's foolish talk from a town councillor (other than the usual suspect, of course).
12:45 PM
I agree with Evelyn on her assessment about the vote.
Sorry about that. The entire matter has been discussed to death & should have been settled the first time it rose to the surface. At that time, it was quite obvious how the vote was going to do - for termination and re-negotiation. But it didn't. That is not what happened. It was quite dreadful and shocking to a large number of residents who had expected better from some of their newly elected councillors. We had not expected the sudden flip brought about by threats and intimidation.
So, to repeat one more time, it is still not entirely clear how the vote will go.
I think that the Culture Centre and the latest very protracted negotiations have been a big, ignorant joke from the very beginning of the Centre's creation, a joke played on the residents of Aurora.
And if Council votes in favour then it too is an bigger, more ignorant joke.
Councillor Abel is entirely correct when he states that negotiations are incomplete and have failed.
What is or will be the role of the two Councillors who may some day sit on the Centre Board? Will they be cut-out dummies without authority?
We are waiting on a decision from the Ontario Superior Court. A hearing date has been set for late next month and a ruling could take several months thereafter, all to determine whether Town Councillors sitting on the Centre Board might find themselves in CONFLICT OF INTEREST situations.
In the meantime Council's final consideration of the matter occurs in a couple of weeks.
One last point that beggars the imagination is the fact that it is proposed for the Town to enter into a 20 year lease on the building from which the Centre operates, at a firm annual rent of $1 per year.
Please go back to the Media Release by the Town dated September 10, 2010, wherein it was giddily announced that the town had concluded a 10 year lease with the Department of National Defence, to add space for the Queen's York Rangers. There is also a five year extension option in favour of the DND.
Included in the release is the following statement" "By not selling the building, Garbe said, the Town retains hold on a valuable asset while at the same time, gaining a steady income stream from the lease with DND."
Where is the "steady income stream" from the Church Street School building? Why is there a ridiculous lease term of 20 years? What provision is there for the Town being able to terminate the lease and at what cost? But cost is really a nonsense word in this context because the Town owns the building. Will the Centre sue the Town over a lease termination? Will the Town fund both the plaintiff and the defendant in such a litigation?
This is STUPIDITY of the highest order.
If this moves forward, the broom of the New Year should sweep clean the Council table and our residents should call for a new election of Councillors.
To 1:15 PM
That Board is not like any other contractor in town and you are quite aware of that fact. No other contractor requires year-long negotiations with legal attendance and costs the town far more than it provides in value. The Board should be replaced by individuals, who could be staff or other volunteers, who operate the business in order to make it self-sufficient over time.
To tie Aurora into a multi-year contract with this outfit would be an admission that taxes would never benefit from the deal. An admission of defeat to be handed on to future councils.
Show me how this is similar to any other contractor in town.
Good grief! Here we go again ! Even Councillor Ballard's pooch can tell him that this contract with the Centre represents lost revenue to the town.
3:08 PM
John Abel was elected Deputy-Mayor. He is a Councillor and deserving of respect. You, on the other hand, did not fare so well, did you?
I am sorry 6:16 PM... Mr Able may be the "Deputy Mayor" but he was not elected to that post.
Deputy Mayor is some farceacle title handed to the councillor that gets the most votes. There is no "Deputy Mayor" role in the Municipal Act that someone is elected to.
If the poster who claims to be John Able is John Able, he should understand that participating on a blog to argue a point goes against the code that he agreeed to by signing it.
8:48 AM
Are you for real ? You can't even spell the man's name
,refuse to refer to him as Councillor & harp on the hackneyed old code. Can't spell for beans either. Had a rough New Year entry?
I guess 8:48 AM missed the object lesson on Freedom of Speech that was issued by the courts.
Hello 8:48 AM
Your comment shows ignorance as well as disrespect.
John Abel's name is spelled ABEL. And, yes, he is very able.
The post of Deputy-Mayor goes to the Council member obtaining the largest number of votes of those running for a Council seat, and is not simply an honorary title.
The Deputy-Mayor presides over all Council meetings when the Mayor is absent, and can also represent the Town at Regional Council meetings when the Mayor is unable to do so.
I am not going to strain my brain scouring through the Municipal Act to find references to the position of a Municipal Deputy-Mayor, but I would suspect that some exist.
I don't know why commenting on a blog goes against anything, code or otherwise. Mayor Dawe has a regular column in The Auroran and I haven't heard anyone condemn him for so doing.
You do not cover yourself in glory with these stupid comments.
"John Abel's name is spelled ABEL. And, yes, he is very able."
I beg to differ. I'm sure Mr Abel is a good guy to share a beer with at King Henry's, or a pleasure to be with during a guitar jam session. But, let's be honest, he does seem to have difficulty understanding many of the issues that arise at the council table. He may be earnest and well-meaning, but he's not the brightest of sparks, I'm afraid.
Councillor Ballard also has a Blog & he does the tweeting thing too. Does that mean he, also, is breaking some special code ? I think not, unless he puts the town at risk with legal ramblings.
To 12:13 PM
Could you please identify a brighter spark or two.
I can think of four who wouldn't light if a blowtorch were held to their wicks.
12:13 PM
How very condescending of you ! Councillor Abel received the most votes. I have no interest in sharing a beer or discussing guitar with him but am pleased that he enjoys such things. Don't be such a twit.
12:56 PM, in my opinion, the only one dimmer is Cllr Gaertner.
"John Abel @AbelinAurora
Upper Canada Mall opens at 10:00AM. Parking lot full when we arrived at 10:10 AM. It's good Canadians don't have the right to bear Arms!"
In light of the recent gun control debate arising from mass killings, does the above Twitter comment not strike anyone as stupid to the nth degree?
3:52 PM
Good call.... sort of like telling people that you have stopped beating your wife.
directed to 3:52 PM
Can a Twitter comment be forged?
'tis bad enough to have to read all these comments, but do we now have to get into another medium?
Where would we be if canaries had been replaced by tigers from the outset?
There you go again, 3:52 PM, getting offended at an off-the-cuff remark. Where is your sense of humour? Councillor Abel likely meant that as a sigh of relief that we are able to feel a bit more secure in crowded surroundings. Man, it sure doesn't take much to draw your ire! Always hiding behind a mask of righteousness.
John Abel spelled his name right is a very congenial person would it surprise you that myself and John go to bluejays games.
Counselors are normal people like the rest of us I do not agree with all of councils decisions but that does not mean that I wil criticize them personally perhaps if we get to know our elected officials beyond POLITICS. It will shed some light on why they vote the way they do respectfully Tyler Barker
Post a Comment