Tuesday's General Committee meeting presented a repeat problem.
A newly worded report on the snow dump and treatment facility was presented again to Council for approval.
This time, the first page suggests the Minister of Environment "requires" municipalities to reduce salt going into the environment.
The last page, disclosed the project proposed does not remove "soluble" salt.
Estimated costof the project has gone from $500Ks to $800Ks.
$123Ks was already spent in the last term for a design.
The report was signed by the Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Environment and Infrastructure.
It was presented by its writer.
In a team management system, all reports written by managers are approved by the executive team and authorised for recommendation to Council.
Councillors comments indicate they have been informed, the town is "mandated" by the Minister of Environment to undertake this project.
My dilemma presents as follows; if. on the basis of my experience and observations, I am unable to accept a recommendation, must I hold my tongue or risk interruption on a point of order, to be criticized by Councillor Gaertner, against rules of parliamentary procedure, for criticizing staff by disagreeing with a recommendation
Or. risk staff interrupting me, to be accused of impugning integrity of said staff, making it impossible for him to think and do his job.While distracting me from doing my job and disrupting the meeting.
Or, if a report is presented more than once with changed wording and I. more than once, launch into opposition because of inability to accept the new argument plus the old argument, plus throw in information learned since the last time the report was discussed; a complaint of harassment might be lodged against me for making it difficult for staff to do their job and lose status among their peers.
Thereby hangs the dilemma Does my job trump their job.
There is no soft or gentle way to express strong opposition to a recommendation.My
purpose is rejection.
I can't skate around it, mince my words or dress it up to appear to be something it is not.
My task calls for scrutiny, analysis, a conclusion formed and presented in forceful terms for the purpose of influence a sufficient number of votes or failing that, to command public attention.
Particularly when an expenditure of best part of a million dollars is proposed.
It's my understanding of my reason for being at the Council table.
The obvious flaw in a system that pits elected against appointed, allows reason to be obscured by sympathy for the hapless appointed. Who must publicly endure a point by point critique of a report written with best intent.
It is not an equal contest.
In the past,council authority has been ruthlessly exploited for evil intent .
On Tuesday,the issue was deferred until November,when it's said, the Minister will rule on the plan.
But, before moving on,Councillor Thompson, for the second time ,gave assurance to staff for excellent work.
The community, by and large, has no difficulty understanding my arguments.Their thinking comes from the same practical level as my own. I'm regularly asked,why don't they listen to you Evelyn?
Well, they do. It's just easier to dismiss a forceful argument from a politician than a rationale from a professional.
Inclination of the fair- minded is to defend the person who appears to be unfairly under attack.
This time, my argument was not dismissed .The decision was deferred.
Signs are, the honeymoon really is over. Awareness has grown of whose interest we are there to protect. It's not always a tidy and amenable process.
That's progress. Whatever was done and continues to be done to keep it moving is appreciated. .
Saturday 24 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
How many of the top Town Staff members live in
Aurora and contribute to the tax base they are
supposed to be helping Council oversee? I still see
money being spent on big ticket items without
adequate thought about their value.
Evelyn:
This sounds like something out of "Alice in Wonderland."
The Minister "requires municipalities to reduce salt going into the environment" and yet the report disclosed that "the project proposed does not remove 'soluble' salt." This is contained in a newly worded report that was presented AGAIN to Council for approval.
The report was signed by the CAO, Mr. Garbe, and the Director of Environment and Infrastructure, formerly the Works Department. I would have preferred using the name of the Director in addition to his title, as I have done with Mr. Garbe, but was unable to find it on the Town's web site. I was unable to find the names of any Department Heads for that matter, after spending 15 minutes trying to do so. Can you advise where and under what heading these names can be located?
What exactly does this proposed facility consist of and where is it to be located. You say that last term $123,000 was spent on design and now the estimated cost for construction has increased from $500,000 to $800,00, and even this is not likely a final figure.
If this problem is impossible to solve, as the report suggests at its conclusion, why is this matter being discussed in the first place? Because the Minister wants to reduce salt going into the environment? Let him come up with a solution with backup facts that confirm its capability.
Apart from the subject matter of salt, what is really "Alice in Wonderland" is the lunacy of everyone running around shrieking "Off with their heads." This all seems like a horrid nightmare. Who is responsible to whom and for what. People who work for governments are called "civil servants." They are employed to serve those who pay their salaries. Members of Council are elected by popular vote, now every four years - too long in my opinion - and they are responsible for and accountable to the electors.
Obviously civil servants should by necessity be professionally proficient and should be charged with drawing up the various proposals required by Council, in order that it may consider and render decisions on these as they fulfill the desired best interests of the community at large. Council must determine what the proposals must be based on the expressed needs of the town's residents and within the financial constraints of the budget.
Council then request its civil servants to bring forward a proposal, a plan, for Council's ultimate decision and disposal.
All this garbage about he said - she said - they said - This is all nonsense and must STOP.
If civil servants are unable to work with the Council then it is the responsibility of Council to replace those who are obstreperous with others of equal or better qualifications who can work in harmony in the mutual best interest of the entire community.
That report is like the 'Cultural Centre'. Nice
facade. Nothing of value inside at the moment.
Thereby hangs the dilemma Does my job trump their job.
YES !!! And you better keep it up so far you are the only hope there is
And they claim you are tied to the past . Staff need to
grow with the new Council, not wallow in Mormac
garbage.
The Minister "requires municipalities to reduce salt"
that’s Odd,check out
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/results/index.htm?txtSearchType=library&txtSearchValue=Snow Disposal and De-Icing
MOE Guidelines on Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario appears to suggest something completely different , words like "Guidelines" , "Suggests",
"Preferable" "Where ever Possible" scream off the page
No mention that it's required. Maybe you better dig a little deeper into this Councilor , ????
1 million can be better spent ,or not at all
Post a Comment