"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

Saturday, 27 December 2014

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Nothing is free":

It is only natural, and justly so, that "we the people" should question secret meetings when:

1. The mayor and deputy mayor are in attendance.

2. "We the people" are contributing cash and kind in excess of $500,000 per year.

Are (1.) above permitted to share the contents of these secret meetings with other members of council?

This is a case of smut and mould continuing to languish and no one appears to have the means to remove it.

At one time the deputy mayor led the motion to terminate the agreement but now he is embedded in it. 
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 27 December 2014 at 19:56


The Municipal Act prohibits secret meetings except for specific items. Real estate negotiations ,
Protection of privacy, wage negotiations.

The idea a Council would publicly proclaim interest in real estate  is utterly senseless.Direction  to  staff to inquire the asking price is  a classic example of pitiful denigration of convention.

That a Council would closet itself with a lawyer  retained at public expense  to plot the political demise of a Councillor with different views is equally foreign.

The Act has not been much respected  during the last two terms  of Council.

A Board of Management was recommended to Council for the renovated Church Street School by a former Financial Adviser. It may have Ben  the last advice Council received on financial affairs.

A consultant was appointed and a format provided

The objective was  financial self-sufficiency.  For three years seed money would be provided on a
reducing sale . By the fourth year, no  further financial support would be available.

The Board  of Management would succeed  or not . If not, the Board would have no validity
and  would be dissolved.

The  legal agreement signed by the  for rear Mayor  was an abomination of the original concept.

During  the last term the agreement  was improved. On a motion by myself  and objected to by the new Mayor, the new solicitor was directed to review the agreement a and reported on the appalling

An  improved  agreement made no difference to  practice. The Mayor  had been clandestinely attending Board meetings. Funds have increased in each passing year.

.The town's interest is ill- served.

The Mayor and  a Councillor participating in private  meetings and maintaining secrecy exacerbates
a situation  already morally and legally unsupportable.

The election did not change that.


Anonymous said...

The electorate chose Dawe for mayor. A good choice considering the alternative. The 2 main town concerns were employment and transportation. Fiscal responsibilities was a strong 3rd like all other municipalities, along with some transparency and accountability BS. They will all claim the ACC is fiscally responsible, accountable, transparent, and creates jobs. I'm sure sometime soon they'll also be offering free pick up and drop off to the center, and that will take care of transportation as well.

Anonymous said...

You are correct - the electorate simply had to select Mayor Dawe. Fact is, during the last 2 elections that was the case.
However, this does not negate the on-going concern about the drain on town resources by the centre. They occupy a building that is not theirs and receive funding to which they have shown no need.
I do not expect action during the first year of this term but hope to see some as we move on.

Anonymous said...

09:44 I find it humourous that the discussion around the centre use war-like words.

"They occupy a building...." is just another in a long line of it.

The reality is, they are using a building that the elected officials of this Town have granted them access. Further, the Town has also decided to provide funding.

Short of ideas like storing a bunch of old garbage (under the guise of a museum), no one has a better use for the building. As well, no one can suggest anything that will not drain the treasury of the Town.

My point in this is to ask all of those so critical of the Centre - Ms Buck included - to provide a viable replacement?

Anonymous said...

You sound reasonable and realistic, 08:58. However, you also fall into the adversarial construct which frames the discussion on this blog by using words like "they" and "them."

Apart from here, there is no 'us versus them.' It is a Town facility with contracted-out services for any and all of the town's residents. It's as simple - and valuable and enjoyable - as that.

Anonymous said...

WE do not need to replace anything except an additional unnecessary level of administration with an unelected board.

Anonymous said...

@ that old canard " contracted services "

Anonymous said...

18:42, if you can't face facts or recognize realities, you're wasting everybody's time.

Anonymous said...

Contract dublication of services.