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
inadequacy.
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.
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.
ReplyDelete21:59
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
09:44 I find it humourous that the discussion around the centre use war-like words.
ReplyDelete"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?
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."
ReplyDeleteApart 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.
8:58
ReplyDeleteWE do not need to replace anything except an additional unnecessary level of administration with an unelected board.
@ that old canard " contracted services "
ReplyDelete18:42, if you can't face facts or recognize realities, you're wasting everybody's time.
ReplyDeleteContract dublication of services.
ReplyDelete