The procedure bylaw was discussed again last night. In a televised council meeting. The Mayor's call.
As we were leaving the town hall, a comment was made, the meeting was so exciting, a reporter fell asleep.
Arguing about rules is like cooking porridge. You have to keep stirring or it goes lumpy. Edible but not appetising.
Rules of Order are an agreement upon how we conduct ourselves. Without commitment, meetings are like the traffic pattern in the north-east quadrant; plagued by obstructions and deterrents to the safe, smooth, efficient movement of traffic.
According to the agenda, the bylaw was recommended for approval. I had a position .
The discussion opened with the Mayor's announcement, we had already spent eleven hours on the issue therefore each Councillor would be limited forthwith to ten minutes to speak.
Well, I thought. That's a new one for the book. Also not the Mayor's decision to make. Let's see how that works.
Councillor Gaertner was first up and focused on the clause that dealt with the problem of improper conduct. The question and answer session certainly seemed more than ten minutes.
I may have to buy a stop watch. It will go in a bag along with the hand-cuffs I bought to chain myself to the railings in the event of an attempt to remove me from the seat to which I was elected.
I may also have to buy a bull horn to ensure against an attempt to deny me the right to speak or finish my thought.
Many dismiss politicians as a bunch of thieves and robbers.
In previous terms the view appeared to be shared by a select group of town representatives.
The supreme beings determined the solution was a Code of Ethics followed by the Code of Conduct followed by the appointment an Integrity Commissioner.
They were the answer to the implied problem of the lack of integrity or ethics among the elected.
They brought Aurora to a "gold standard of integrity".
Extraordinary expense was incurred in a failed attempt to ensure purity and righteousness in public affairs and bring the main transgressor to heel.
The time came when the community made its own judgment.
Councillor Gaertner was re-elected and clearly feels the responsibility to defend the gold standard.
Seeking to understand what comes under the Councillor's heading of improper conduct, I posed a question.
When the Councillor accused staff of deliberately falsifying records and refusing to withdraw the accusation or apologize. as requested by the presiding member, would that qualify?
The Councillor called a point of order and angrily proclaimed herself innocent of the charge.
Being so righteous an' all.
Therein lies the crux of our problem
There is no shared understanding of rules or even the meaning of words. Councillor Gaertner regularly sets herself up as an arbiter of words. Meetings are frequently disrupted while she re-defines a word in someone else's vocabulary and argues it means what she determines it to mean and it's not permissible. And somebody should apologise to somebody.
In the circumstances, a lack of consistency or order continues to bog the Council down.
Providing the presiding member with power to penalise will not solve the problem. It creates yet another.
The Municipal Act does not intend the duties of a Mayor to provide leadership and guidance means wielding a whip.
Parliamentary rules have been in print in Canada since 1984. Amended regularly to keep them up to date.
They are tried, tested and true and acknowledged and used successfully throughout the world
By the Mayor's count, Council had spent, before last night's meeting ,eleven hours trying to re-invent the wheel.
Finally on recognition by the chair, I expounded on the principle of restoring authority to council .
I spoke for twelve minutes.Two minutes more than the presiding member's decree.
I was not permitted to complete my thought.
I have one more opportunity to do so when the bylaw is presented to council for approval
I can't promise it will be exciting television.
What's exciting about stirring porridge?
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
That's Enough
I've let Prickly Pete frolic in my blog space more than long enough.
Now Buck Off !!!
Post your own blog.
See how many readers you attract.
Now Buck Off !!!
Post your own blog.
See how many readers you attract.
Thirty minutes
Depending how much snow falls in winter, we may move a lot or a little from Yonge Street between Wellington and Mosely.
We didn't used to. I re-call getting an occasional boot full making my way from car to sidewalk.
For as long as can be remembered, the snow was taken to a location currently the site of the community gardens. Now flourishing, despite contamination from salt that may or may not have been present. If evidence of our eyes is to be depended upon. there was no salt.
It is currently dumped, and has been for several years on a gravel parking lot in the vicinity of Lambert Willson Park.Similarly, no visible signs of salt damage to surrounding vegetation.
The proposal is to pave the parking lot, build a curb around it to contain melting snow, pave the driveway leading to it and build a treatment facility that separates everything except salt.
Silt and oil referred to in the report, remains on the surface after the snow has melted with no help from an elaborate treatment facility, designed at a cost of $123Ks.
Cost of the project is estimated and included in the town's capital construction budget increased to $800Ks. $500Ks has been there since 2007, with the above amount already spent for design.
Ar the time of budget discussions, I argued against the recommendation, strictly on the basis that salt dissolves in water. It can't be removed. The premise the project would reduce contamination from salt in the environment is not valid.
Council deferred approval of that project and others.
Last week, a second report was submitted to Council acknowledging "soluble" salt is not removed by the process.
Salt is salt. Wrapped around aggregate or whatever, it is still soluble.Brine is salt in a soluble state.
The new report claims the project is a requirement of the Minister of the Environment.No cited regulation accompanies that claim.It cannot be accepted.
As they did at budget time, council deferred the decision until after the Minister of Environment has approved the plan.
I contend Council should exercise its own mandate and reject the recommendation.
I voted for the deferral. Beggars can't be choosers.
If a town can be embarrassed, I think our town should be, to forward this cockamamie scheme to the Honorable Minister for approval.
It does nothing for our image.
The recommendation the project should be paid for with money collected from new homeowners on the pretext the work is required because of growth is a glaring misrepresentation of facts.
It cannot be countenanced.
We didn't used to. I re-call getting an occasional boot full making my way from car to sidewalk.
For as long as can be remembered, the snow was taken to a location currently the site of the community gardens. Now flourishing, despite contamination from salt that may or may not have been present. If evidence of our eyes is to be depended upon. there was no salt.
It is currently dumped, and has been for several years on a gravel parking lot in the vicinity of Lambert Willson Park.Similarly, no visible signs of salt damage to surrounding vegetation.
The proposal is to pave the parking lot, build a curb around it to contain melting snow, pave the driveway leading to it and build a treatment facility that separates everything except salt.
Silt and oil referred to in the report, remains on the surface after the snow has melted with no help from an elaborate treatment facility, designed at a cost of $123Ks.
Cost of the project is estimated and included in the town's capital construction budget increased to $800Ks. $500Ks has been there since 2007, with the above amount already spent for design.
Ar the time of budget discussions, I argued against the recommendation, strictly on the basis that salt dissolves in water. It can't be removed. The premise the project would reduce contamination from salt in the environment is not valid.
Council deferred approval of that project and others.
Last week, a second report was submitted to Council acknowledging "soluble" salt is not removed by the process.
Salt is salt. Wrapped around aggregate or whatever, it is still soluble.Brine is salt in a soluble state.
The new report claims the project is a requirement of the Minister of the Environment.No cited regulation accompanies that claim.It cannot be accepted.
As they did at budget time, council deferred the decision until after the Minister of Environment has approved the plan.
I contend Council should exercise its own mandate and reject the recommendation.
I voted for the deferral. Beggars can't be choosers.
If a town can be embarrassed, I think our town should be, to forward this cockamamie scheme to the Honorable Minister for approval.
It does nothing for our image.
The recommendation the project should be paid for with money collected from new homeowners on the pretext the work is required because of growth is a glaring misrepresentation of facts.
It cannot be countenanced.
Another Challenge
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Challenge":
Evelyn:
What does the system actually consist of? If in excess of $120,000 was spent on its design and the capital cost is likely to exceed $800,000 there must be something to show for all of this.
Or is it just a big parking lot whose perimeter is contained so that the dumped snow will simply melt, the resulting water will evaporate, leaving leaving behind a mixture of salt and other scum? And how will one separate the salt from the scum?
I have yet to have determined for me to any degree of satisfaction whether this matter is one mandated by the Ministry of the Environment or is an option for municipalities to consider.
Can you please do this.
Evelyn:
What does the system actually consist of? If in excess of $120,000 was spent on its design and the capital cost is likely to exceed $800,000 there must be something to show for all of this.
Or is it just a big parking lot whose perimeter is contained so that the dumped snow will simply melt, the resulting water will evaporate, leaving leaving behind a mixture of salt and other scum? And how will one separate the salt from the scum?
I have yet to have determined for me to any degree of satisfaction whether this matter is one mandated by the Ministry of the Environment or is an option for municipalities to consider.
Can you please do this.
A Challenge
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "At This Time Of The Year":
On matters of engineering, I'd certainly take the opinion of someone who has an engineering degree over that of a career politician whose credentials include being a stay-at-home mother.
***********************************
Even when the engineer recommends a treatment system costing $800Ks to remove salt dissolved in water that wasn't confirmed to be there in the first place?
What exactly do you have against a mother who stays at home to take care of her children?
What are your reservations about a person who has been involved in town business over a span of forty-four years?
When a person has enjoyed the confidence and trust of the community sufficient to have been elected eleven times , once as Reeve and County Councillor and twice as Mayor and Regional Councilllor; at what point, is such a person deemed to qualify to be well-versed in what he or she does?
At what point does that add up to an ability to recognise a lack of logic where there is none?
We are not talking about designing a bridge here?
We are talking about the basic principle that salt dissolves in water and unless the water evaporates,
salt cannot be removed.
On matters of engineering, I'd certainly take the opinion of someone who has an engineering degree over that of a career politician whose credentials include being a stay-at-home mother.
***********************************
Even when the engineer recommends a treatment system costing $800Ks to remove salt dissolved in water that wasn't confirmed to be there in the first place?
What exactly do you have against a mother who stays at home to take care of her children?
What are your reservations about a person who has been involved in town business over a span of forty-four years?
When a person has enjoyed the confidence and trust of the community sufficient to have been elected eleven times , once as Reeve and County Councillor and twice as Mayor and Regional Councilllor; at what point, is such a person deemed to qualify to be well-versed in what he or she does?
At what point does that add up to an ability to recognise a lack of logic where there is none?
We are not talking about designing a bridge here?
We are talking about the basic principle that salt dissolves in water and unless the water evaporates,
salt cannot be removed.
E-mail to Council From Gordon Barnes
Posted with permission:
Folks,
Following a knee-jerk response to a question from Chris Ballard this weekend, the subject has bubbled on the back burner.
Without exhaustive supporting numbers, I see it this way through a triple-bottom-line perspective.
Environmental: marginal if any benefit.
A Catch Basin removes floater and sinkers (petroleum products and lighter than water debris plus road sand).
Salt is dissolved in the water therefore out-flows with the water.
In the current situation, most (or all) of the floaters and sinkers stay on the parking lot, not entering the river.
I believe that the existing parking lot and the proposed one should be viewed as equally hard, im-permeable surfaces.
Most of the snow-melt stays on the surface until it hits the grass or a sewer entrance.
Social: medium benefit.
The addition space will provide about 15 more parking places - an increase of 30-35% over existing.
Financial: As a taxpayer - federal, provincial and municipal - it seems very poor Return on Investment.
If it is an Infrastructure project, we may be committed to the agreement or suffer penalties on withdrawal.
If it is mandated - rather than suggested - by the Province or LSRCA, then there is no choice.
This TBL stool has but one short leg.
The Arboretum concern is for the 5 Ginkgo trees, planted by the Town and ACA in the spillway. The ACA requested and received drawings of the area. We commented on the increased saline into the area and suggested that continuing the out-flow pipe to the Nokiidaa Trail culvert would remedy the situation for the trees. It should be noted that the existing drain in the parking lot directs the outflow into the same spillway - where the trees are - as the proposed project. The capacity will increase by about 30% in area so the contaminant load would be expected to similarly increase.
These are are slow-growing trees, but they do not appear to have been adversely effected by the previous annual saline influx.
If further reflection is of value, please let me know.
Cheers <<gb
Go for a virtual nature walk www.auroraarboretum.ca
Go for a virtual nature walk www.auroraarboretum.ca
Monday, 26 September 2011
At This Time Of The Year
I become very conscious of the last few day of summer ..I used to feel the urge to go someplace and feel the wind off the ocean on my face.
If I'm not up writing a blog at the crack of dawn, by the time, I respond to citizen's e-mails, post comments that can be posted, have breakfast, wash dishes, the day is half over and I have to get out.
I had a sarcastic comment yesterday congratulating me on my engineering degree. Like... unless a person has a degree, no credibility can be deduced from anything they have to say.
Like engineers and other consultants aren't retained to bring about a pre-ordained result.
Consultants don't answer to the taxpayer.
Councillors do.
Some lose their seats after a single term and are reduced to making bitter,senseless comments anonymously through the internet.
Aurora Council had a Professor make a presentation by invitation of the Mayor last term
He had deduced council decisions were the result of contributions from developers to campaigns of municipal councillors.
His study amounted to sitting in front of a computer and pulling off figures from candidates financial statements. All planning decisions made were attributed to that evidence.
He was invited to present his findings to Aurora Council. He acknowledged Aurora wasn't included in his study . But he declared his confidence Aurora was the same as all the rest.
The Mayor nodded affirmatively and cast her forbidding glare in strategic directions around the table.
The Professor got his five minutes of fame and appeared on talk shows and was quoted in newspaper articles here and there.
Somebody took the trouble to check the financial statements after the next election told me, the only donation from a developer in Aurora was from the Rice Group who built the Longo Shopping Centre on Wellington Street. They got an entrance from a regional road within feet of a signalized intersection.
But not before Longo's sent a letter to Council informing they had terminated their contract with the developer.
It appears the donation went to the campaign of the town's only regional representative.
Of course it was all perfectly legal and above board and proved the Professor's point.
Just not about all the candidates in Aurora's election.
If I'm not up writing a blog at the crack of dawn, by the time, I respond to citizen's e-mails, post comments that can be posted, have breakfast, wash dishes, the day is half over and I have to get out.
I had a sarcastic comment yesterday congratulating me on my engineering degree. Like... unless a person has a degree, no credibility can be deduced from anything they have to say.
Like engineers and other consultants aren't retained to bring about a pre-ordained result.
Consultants don't answer to the taxpayer.
Councillors do.
Some lose their seats after a single term and are reduced to making bitter,senseless comments anonymously through the internet.
Aurora Council had a Professor make a presentation by invitation of the Mayor last term
He had deduced council decisions were the result of contributions from developers to campaigns of municipal councillors.
His study amounted to sitting in front of a computer and pulling off figures from candidates financial statements. All planning decisions made were attributed to that evidence.
He was invited to present his findings to Aurora Council. He acknowledged Aurora wasn't included in his study . But he declared his confidence Aurora was the same as all the rest.
The Mayor nodded affirmatively and cast her forbidding glare in strategic directions around the table.
The Professor got his five minutes of fame and appeared on talk shows and was quoted in newspaper articles here and there.
Somebody took the trouble to check the financial statements after the next election told me, the only donation from a developer in Aurora was from the Rice Group who built the Longo Shopping Centre on Wellington Street. They got an entrance from a regional road within feet of a signalized intersection.
But not before Longo's sent a letter to Council informing they had terminated their contract with the developer.
It appears the donation went to the campaign of the town's only regional representative.
Of course it was all perfectly legal and above board and proved the Professor's point.
Just not about all the candidates in Aurora's election.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
What!!!!
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Malfeasance?":
Oh, do be cautious. Evelyn. Fiefdom builders do not
appreciate challenges to their turf.
************
What do I have to be cautious about. I'm just stating facts. I don't know anything about a $300.admission event. So I can't say anything about that.
I do know that after registration for election closes. everybody registered is a candidate. The outgoing council is
It cannot commit the municipality or the upcoming council to anything substantive,
particularly financial and especially legal.
A rental lease ordinarily starts with the first and last month's rent and keys exchanged. Ordinarily there's a termination clause.
Why are we hearing the Armories building will be for sale?
Is a ten year lease without a termination clause. really a transfer of ownership for a pittance of the building's value? Somebody must know these things. Shouldn't it be us?
Rent for this building started on February 1st. Two months after the current council took office. Four months after the election.
I think Council and the community is entitled to answers. I intend to ask them.
I don't think the nation's security is at risk. Do you?
Oh, do be cautious. Evelyn. Fiefdom builders do not
appreciate challenges to their turf.
************
What do I have to be cautious about. I'm just stating facts. I don't know anything about a $300.admission event. So I can't say anything about that.
I do know that after registration for election closes. everybody registered is a candidate. The outgoing council is
It cannot commit the municipality or the upcoming council to anything substantive,
particularly financial and especially legal.
A rental lease ordinarily starts with the first and last month's rent and keys exchanged. Ordinarily there's a termination clause.
Why are we hearing the Armories building will be for sale?
Is a ten year lease without a termination clause. really a transfer of ownership for a pittance of the building's value? Somebody must know these things. Shouldn't it be us?
Rent for this building started on February 1st. Two months after the current council took office. Four months after the election.
I think Council and the community is entitled to answers. I intend to ask them.
I don't think the nation's security is at risk. Do you?
Malfeasance?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "All I Know About The Hydro Building":
CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG without the music -
Is this properly another example of the former's malfeasance?
What militia are you referring to? Those with the $300 admission, or others.
We should have this information so we can better understand the role of Canada's Defence Force in Aurora.
********************
I don't think it could properly be described as malfeasance.
Two parties are involved in any lease.
More than one person is engaged on either side.
Contracts are signed on the part of the town by the Mayor and Clerk. They must be authorised by a resolution of Council.
The agreement is or should be drawn up by the Town's legal department.
The Town's Finance department should be briefed to anticipate collecting rent.
I don't know when the contract was amended. I received the e-mail circulated from the former Mayor that the Minister of Defence had signed the agreement.
I think she'd heard I asked for that to be delayed
I don't know when or if a formal request was made for an amendment.Who made it? Or who received it?
I doubt it went to the Clerk. It would have had to be processed through normal channels. That could not have happened until the new council had taken office. It did not happen after the election or before the new council took office.
On the other hand, the clerk is co-signer to the agreement. His signature would have had to be on the amendment to ensure legality.
The solicitor would have had to have been involved.
That an amendment of sorts was made, is not in doubt. The rent did not start until February 1st 2011.
Therefore that's when the lease began. Which puts authority for the lease properly with the new Council.
The new council was never at any time made aware of the lease beginning two months into our term of office. Three months after our election.
I don't think malfeasance is the correct term. The word suggests exploitation of a position of trust for personal financial advantage. I don't believe there was any hokery-pokery with finances
The term militia means to me. a peace time army. The guys who hang out at the armories and play week-end soldiers. They take themselves very seriously. My impression is the most important thing they do is provide an army training program for young people; the "kiddies" the former Mayor referred to when she announced successful negotiation of a lease agreement with the Queens York Rangers.
That's what this multi-million dollar property was given up for at the expense of potential assessment revenue and twenty-seven jobs and realisation of capital revenue, or alternatively space that was sorely needed and used by the town for town purposes.
Go figger...
CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG without the music -
Is this properly another example of the former's malfeasance?
What militia are you referring to? Those with the $300 admission, or others.
We should have this information so we can better understand the role of Canada's Defence Force in Aurora.
********************
I don't think it could properly be described as malfeasance.
Two parties are involved in any lease.
More than one person is engaged on either side.
Contracts are signed on the part of the town by the Mayor and Clerk. They must be authorised by a resolution of Council.
The agreement is or should be drawn up by the Town's legal department.
The Town's Finance department should be briefed to anticipate collecting rent.
I don't know when the contract was amended. I received the e-mail circulated from the former Mayor that the Minister of Defence had signed the agreement.
I think she'd heard I asked for that to be delayed
I don't know when or if a formal request was made for an amendment.Who made it? Or who received it?
I doubt it went to the Clerk. It would have had to be processed through normal channels. That could not have happened until the new council had taken office. It did not happen after the election or before the new council took office.
On the other hand, the clerk is co-signer to the agreement. His signature would have had to be on the amendment to ensure legality.
The solicitor would have had to have been involved.
That an amendment of sorts was made, is not in doubt. The rent did not start until February 1st 2011.
Therefore that's when the lease began. Which puts authority for the lease properly with the new Council.
The new council was never at any time made aware of the lease beginning two months into our term of office. Three months after our election.
I don't think malfeasance is the correct term. The word suggests exploitation of a position of trust for personal financial advantage. I don't believe there was any hokery-pokery with finances
The term militia means to me. a peace time army. The guys who hang out at the armories and play week-end soldiers. They take themselves very seriously. My impression is the most important thing they do is provide an army training program for young people; the "kiddies" the former Mayor referred to when she announced successful negotiation of a lease agreement with the Queens York Rangers.
That's what this multi-million dollar property was given up for at the expense of potential assessment revenue and twenty-seven jobs and realisation of capital revenue, or alternatively space that was sorely needed and used by the town for town purposes.
Go figger...
And Another Thing
Source of funding for the snow storage site and treatment facility is recommended from development charges. The report claims it can be attributed to new growth.
Whether or not a project qualifies for development charge funding is the responsibility of the Director of Finance.
I contend it does not.
New areas of town have storm water retention ponds.
Streets have boulevards to store snow until it melts. If there is salt in the snow, boulevards would not be green in Spring.
Besides that, only streets in the old area of town are so narrow, there is no place to store snow when there is an accumulation. That has nothing whatsoever to do with new growth.
Our development charges are among he highest in the GTA. They are in excess of $30.Ks.Politicians and municipal administrations love them. They are found money.
They are required to be paid at the time a building permit is issued. They reflect in the price of the home.
The price of the home is the basis for property assessment. Which is the measurement for the amount of taxes to be paid. Taxes are paid on taxes forever and a day. They impact the down payment and the mortgage
They drive both parents out to work to provide shelter for their families and children are raised in institutional day care from a year old.
The new homebuyer is not aware of the inequity.
The municipal councillor most certainly is or should be.
Just because a taxpayer is unaware of inequity, is not a reason to perpetrate injustice.
It is a shame and a disgrace.
Whether or not a project qualifies for development charge funding is the responsibility of the Director of Finance.
I contend it does not.
New areas of town have storm water retention ponds.
Streets have boulevards to store snow until it melts. If there is salt in the snow, boulevards would not be green in Spring.
Besides that, only streets in the old area of town are so narrow, there is no place to store snow when there is an accumulation. That has nothing whatsoever to do with new growth.
Our development charges are among he highest in the GTA. They are in excess of $30.Ks.Politicians and municipal administrations love them. They are found money.
They are required to be paid at the time a building permit is issued. They reflect in the price of the home.
The price of the home is the basis for property assessment. Which is the measurement for the amount of taxes to be paid. Taxes are paid on taxes forever and a day. They impact the down payment and the mortgage
They drive both parents out to work to provide shelter for their families and children are raised in institutional day care from a year old.
The new homebuyer is not aware of the inequity.
The municipal councillor most certainly is or should be.
Just because a taxpayer is unaware of inequity, is not a reason to perpetrate injustice.
It is a shame and a disgrace.
Saturday, 24 September 2011
All I Know About The Hydro Building
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Here's The Deal":
Speaking of Waste , can you fill us in on what’s going on over at the old Hydro Building, looks desolate as hell , is there some kind of top secret military think tank happening over there , have they constructed a subterranean entrance into the place , Has the Town canceled the Deal ? fill us in Please
************
It's still empty. Desolate. Nothing appears to be going on. It's not an old building.
This time last year, the town was using it. We were storing archives and stuff there..
The Parks Department was using it as a workshop. They built parts for a gazebo there in the winter,
brought it out and erected it in the Spring. Somebody asked me how come you spent all that money. We didn't.The Parks Department built it.
It was vacated by Power Stream months after they signed a year's lease with no penalty clause. They left with one month's notice.We had a legal department then too.
It was built by Aurora Hydro when they outgrew their space on Mosely Street. It became an asset of the new utility when the Province decided all utilities should be privatised.
When the town sold the utility to Power Stream, the property housed twenty-seven employees with a huge workshop, garage and a five acre yard ,
Property assessment was worth $69.Ks a year to the town.
I thought it should be sold to bring in revenue, replace twenty-seven jobs lost and realise millions from the sale.
Nigel Keane thought it should be a teen centre. Tim Jones agreed and it became an election issue.
Neither of them were elected and in the new term no decision was made until an opportunity presented to ingratiate the Mayor with the militia crowd.
When the announcement was made about the lease with the militia, the Mayor remarked . "Now the kiddies will have a place" I assumed she meant the army cadets.That was in September of 2010.
The rent was $139Ks a year. We were not told we would be spending in excess of $200Ks to make it ready for the militia nor that we would be responsible for the building's maintenance.
When I asked in March ,during budget discussions. what column the rental revenue would show, We were informed there hadn't been any until February 1st.
I heard afterwards the former Mayor had amended the lease, after the Minister was supposed to have signed it and after the election, when she was defeated.
The lease was put forward until February 2011. two months after the new council took office.
Now a consultant is being paid to examine space needs of works department and parks department with a view to spending twelve million dollars on a new facility.
We will have less than seventy thousand people at build-out as opposed to the current fifty-four thousand ,but never mind, we are currently adding staff complement and space to accommodate them as if there is no tomorrow.
The militia will have a building for "the kiddies" to play in which would have accommodated the Leisure Services Department; offices, board room, parking, landscaping plus an electrically charged security fence around the yard.
Speaking of Waste , can you fill us in on what’s going on over at the old Hydro Building, looks desolate as hell , is there some kind of top secret military think tank happening over there , have they constructed a subterranean entrance into the place , Has the Town canceled the Deal ? fill us in Please
************
It's still empty. Desolate. Nothing appears to be going on. It's not an old building.
This time last year, the town was using it. We were storing archives and stuff there..
The Parks Department was using it as a workshop. They built parts for a gazebo there in the winter,
brought it out and erected it in the Spring. Somebody asked me how come you spent all that money. We didn't.The Parks Department built it.
It was vacated by Power Stream months after they signed a year's lease with no penalty clause. They left with one month's notice.We had a legal department then too.
It was built by Aurora Hydro when they outgrew their space on Mosely Street. It became an asset of the new utility when the Province decided all utilities should be privatised.
When the town sold the utility to Power Stream, the property housed twenty-seven employees with a huge workshop, garage and a five acre yard ,
Property assessment was worth $69.Ks a year to the town.
I thought it should be sold to bring in revenue, replace twenty-seven jobs lost and realise millions from the sale.
Nigel Keane thought it should be a teen centre. Tim Jones agreed and it became an election issue.
Neither of them were elected and in the new term no decision was made until an opportunity presented to ingratiate the Mayor with the militia crowd.
When the announcement was made about the lease with the militia, the Mayor remarked . "Now the kiddies will have a place" I assumed she meant the army cadets.That was in September of 2010.
The rent was $139Ks a year. We were not told we would be spending in excess of $200Ks to make it ready for the militia nor that we would be responsible for the building's maintenance.
When I asked in March ,during budget discussions. what column the rental revenue would show, We were informed there hadn't been any until February 1st.
I heard afterwards the former Mayor had amended the lease, after the Minister was supposed to have signed it and after the election, when she was defeated.
The lease was put forward until February 2011. two months after the new council took office.
Now a consultant is being paid to examine space needs of works department and parks department with a view to spending twelve million dollars on a new facility.
We will have less than seventy thousand people at build-out as opposed to the current fifty-four thousand ,but never mind, we are currently adding staff complement and space to accommodate them as if there is no tomorrow.
The militia will have a building for "the kiddies" to play in which would have accommodated the Leisure Services Department; offices, board room, parking, landscaping plus an electrically charged security fence around the yard.
Here's The Deal
Town staff do not approve spending. Council does.
This $800Ks boondoggle is a carry over from the previous term
The comment is frequently made we should move on. The past is past. We should get on with the job and stop harping on about the past.
Remember the past!!! The first person out the door in the exodus was Director of Public Works. Close behind him went his associate. He was pushed aside in the Knowles Crescent debate in favour of Councillor MacEachern as the preferred go-to person. $60Ks worth of cheques to restore driveways ro former elegance were distributed in time for Christmas.
The Chief Administrator was not allowed to do his job. He left. The Town Treasurer wasn't long after him.
The Director of Planning retired although it was not in her plans and we certainly lost an invaluable resource and the keeper of our institutional history.
The Director of Corporate Affairs/Clerk managed to survive for two more years until he could retire with full pension benefits.He did what he had to.
The Clerk who replaced him signed a five year contract but left after eight months when she handed me the decision wrought by the Integrity Commissioner. who lasted four months less.
He was "stripped of his authority" after elaborate efforts to contrive his dismissal before his decision was " known" to Council.
Had the clerk not provided it to me as required under the process, I doubt the decision would ever have seen the light of day.
They would have hired Tsubouchi sooner rather than later and completed their evil objective.
The snow storage plan got into the ten year capital construction forecast during the period when nothing at all was allowed that wasn't designed to promote the public persona of the presiding member and her loyal band of followers.
The entire administration was commandeered for that purpose. No person under the Town Hall roof was allowed to forget to whom they owed their job.
The plan was started, consultant fees were paid and a design prepared.
Staff are bound to proceed with this and other foolhardy projects until this council decides to stop it.
They must be removed from the forecast or they continue to move along like juggernauts towards completion.
The onus is now upon those you elected to turn things around and get back on a sensible track.
At budget time, a number if items were deferred until council could spend more time considering theimplicatons. But back they came, one by one.
Huge expenditures for repairs to the Aurora Family Leisure Complex have already gotten through by sleight of hand.
The snow storage bamboozle is next on the list.
It did not get past the first barrier. We can only hope.
This $800Ks boondoggle is a carry over from the previous term
The comment is frequently made we should move on. The past is past. We should get on with the job and stop harping on about the past.
Remember the past!!! The first person out the door in the exodus was Director of Public Works. Close behind him went his associate. He was pushed aside in the Knowles Crescent debate in favour of Councillor MacEachern as the preferred go-to person. $60Ks worth of cheques to restore driveways ro former elegance were distributed in time for Christmas.
The Chief Administrator was not allowed to do his job. He left. The Town Treasurer wasn't long after him.
The Director of Planning retired although it was not in her plans and we certainly lost an invaluable resource and the keeper of our institutional history.
The Director of Corporate Affairs/Clerk managed to survive for two more years until he could retire with full pension benefits.He did what he had to.
The Clerk who replaced him signed a five year contract but left after eight months when she handed me the decision wrought by the Integrity Commissioner. who lasted four months less.
He was "stripped of his authority" after elaborate efforts to contrive his dismissal before his decision was " known" to Council.
Had the clerk not provided it to me as required under the process, I doubt the decision would ever have seen the light of day.
They would have hired Tsubouchi sooner rather than later and completed their evil objective.
The snow storage plan got into the ten year capital construction forecast during the period when nothing at all was allowed that wasn't designed to promote the public persona of the presiding member and her loyal band of followers.
The entire administration was commandeered for that purpose. No person under the Town Hall roof was allowed to forget to whom they owed their job.
The plan was started, consultant fees were paid and a design prepared.
Staff are bound to proceed with this and other foolhardy projects until this council decides to stop it.
They must be removed from the forecast or they continue to move along like juggernauts towards completion.
The onus is now upon those you elected to turn things around and get back on a sensible track.
At budget time, a number if items were deferred until council could spend more time considering theimplicatons. But back they came, one by one.
Huge expenditures for repairs to the Aurora Family Leisure Complex have already gotten through by sleight of hand.
The snow storage bamboozle is next on the list.
It did not get past the first barrier. We can only hope.
An Ongoing Dilemma
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. .
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. .
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Anonymoose Again
Anonymoose has left a new comment on your post "Another Opinion":
"I don't understand. the Mayor is not a stupid man."
Indeed he is not. So perhaps you should instead be asking yourself if your information sources are as reliable and fair as you'd like.
You can't believe everything you read on the Internet you know. That goes doubly so if the issue has anything to do with this town.
************************
If I don't write a post first thing, I very often don't write one for that day.
This morning, I had a number of other things to write .When I finished, it seemed like this might be a day I wouldn't post.
Then the above comment came through. It made me smile. It amuses me to guess the author. Who, among all the people I know, would be most likely to offer that opinion.
It recommends, without subtlety, don't be believing everything or anything you read on this blog or in this town.
Which begs the question. If you believe nothing you read in this town, why are you reading it?
The second point is; there's a far greater chance of what you read being true, if the author takes responsibility for accuracy by providing his or her name.
Chances are increased if the person is elected. A councillor has access to facts.Or to be more precise. A Councillor is entitled to have all facts related to town business.
Number three;. a Councillor could believe in the responsibility to communicate the facts to whoever, within the community is interested in knowing.
Number four; facts can be verified.
Number five; a record for integrity may well be the most important qualification a couucillor brings to the table.
Number six;common sense mitigates absolutely against the risk of being proven to have misled people or distorted facts when people depend on said councillor to provide information that helps formulate an opinion.
I bless the advent of the internet.
In all history, there has never been a better opportunity to be informed and participate in the democratic process.
It was never thus.
***************
Three more comments came in response to this post. Al abusive. None worth the space to print them. So don't be holding your breath Anonymoose.
"I don't understand. the Mayor is not a stupid man."
Indeed he is not. So perhaps you should instead be asking yourself if your information sources are as reliable and fair as you'd like.
You can't believe everything you read on the Internet you know. That goes doubly so if the issue has anything to do with this town.
************************
If I don't write a post first thing, I very often don't write one for that day.
This morning, I had a number of other things to write .When I finished, it seemed like this might be a day I wouldn't post.
Then the above comment came through. It made me smile. It amuses me to guess the author. Who, among all the people I know, would be most likely to offer that opinion.
It recommends, without subtlety, don't be believing everything or anything you read on this blog or in this town.
Which begs the question. If you believe nothing you read in this town, why are you reading it?
The second point is; there's a far greater chance of what you read being true, if the author takes responsibility for accuracy by providing his or her name.
Chances are increased if the person is elected. A councillor has access to facts.Or to be more precise. A Councillor is entitled to have all facts related to town business.
Number three;. a Councillor could believe in the responsibility to communicate the facts to whoever, within the community is interested in knowing.
Number four; facts can be verified.
Number five; a record for integrity may well be the most important qualification a couucillor brings to the table.
Number six;common sense mitigates absolutely against the risk of being proven to have misled people or distorted facts when people depend on said councillor to provide information that helps formulate an opinion.
I bless the advent of the internet.
In all history, there has never been a better opportunity to be informed and participate in the democratic process.
It was never thus.
***************
Three more comments came in response to this post. Al abusive. None worth the space to print them. So don't be holding your breath Anonymoose.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Another Opinion
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Rise And Report":
With respect to this post and the previous one, it is obvious that if Aurora Council had a speaker, the work on hand would be accomplished much faster, in accordance with the agenda for each meeting, and with far less acrimony.
I do not believe that time will improve the situation.
The more opportunity wayward councillors have the to play their stupid little games the more set in their ways they will become, and it will become impossible to bring them to heel.
Are there no long serving retired councillors or former legislators, either Federal of Provincial, with experience with the rules of procedural conduct who might be happy to work for a few hours each week within easy driving time of Aurora? Even at a princely figure of $100 - $200 per hour the cost would be repaid very quickly through Council efficiency and more rapid decision making.
**************
Speakers in the House of Commons, Ontario Legislative Assembly and the City of Toronto are perforce elected to office.
Our system of gvernment gives the electorate the right to choose who will make decisions
.
They may be "wayward" they may "play stupid little games". it may be impossible to" bring them to heel"
They were chosen by the electorate to do the job as they see fit for the next four years. There is no role for anyone outside of the elected body to change that.
Possibility for improvement must come from within with positive and critical feedback from the community. I continue to be optimistic.
With respect to this post and the previous one, it is obvious that if Aurora Council had a speaker, the work on hand would be accomplished much faster, in accordance with the agenda for each meeting, and with far less acrimony.
I do not believe that time will improve the situation.
The more opportunity wayward councillors have the to play their stupid little games the more set in their ways they will become, and it will become impossible to bring them to heel.
Are there no long serving retired councillors or former legislators, either Federal of Provincial, with experience with the rules of procedural conduct who might be happy to work for a few hours each week within easy driving time of Aurora? Even at a princely figure of $100 - $200 per hour the cost would be repaid very quickly through Council efficiency and more rapid decision making.
**************
Speakers in the House of Commons, Ontario Legislative Assembly and the City of Toronto are perforce elected to office.
Our system of gvernment gives the electorate the right to choose who will make decisions
.
They may be "wayward" they may "play stupid little games". it may be impossible to" bring them to heel"
They were chosen by the electorate to do the job as they see fit for the next four years. There is no role for anyone outside of the elected body to change that.
Possibility for improvement must come from within with positive and critical feedback from the community. I continue to be optimistic.
Letter To Mayor and Council . Number 2
The first Letter to the Mayor and Council came from the Head of The Arts Department of Sacred Heart High School in the Town of Newmarket.It's three pages long .
It's not clear the York District Catholic School Board intends involvement in the merits of Aurora using a facility that cost three million dollars in capital construction for a purpose other than intended.
The museum was squeezed out of the facility by the Culture Centre Board , Not the other way about.
The letters are undoubtedly part of an ongoing campaign launched by those at the cultural centre with interests to protect. Giving free space to individuals to promote their commercial advantage no doubt entices a loyal following. Nothing like giving money away to draw a crowd
If there is envy in neighbouring municipalities, I doubt it comes from the municipality itself.
The people who hatched the scheme are no longer in charge Mr Griffith or have you not noticed. .
Mr.Griffith comments I have voted negatively on anything positive to do with the Cultural Centre.
I am aware of one vote.
It was for approval of half a million dollars to be spent without accountability to the people who foot the tax bill.
I voted against that. I will do it again in the next budget debate.
I may not be alone on Council. I am certainly not alone in the community.
**************
To: Mayor Dawe and Aurora Councillors
September 21, 2011
Here we go again with Evelyn Buck and her museum. She has cocooned herself on Aurora Council by voting negatively on anything positive that has to do with The Aurora Cultural Centre. If she really wants to shrink The Cultural Centre in favour of a museum, then let the tax payers see some numbers first. No responsible organization would embark on a project like this without a lot of research into its viability, how much it would cost tax payers and how many people could be expected to visit it.
If our neighbouring municipalities, with museums, are any indication of visitations, it deserves a long hard look. I did some research on my own and was astonished at the few “ Open ” hours they can justify. Also, it should be noted that these museums offer more than artifacts in one building. They also have old houses, one room school house, railway station, etc. that can be toured.
Presently we have a vibrant Cultural Centre that has by far outperformed all expectations of it. During the first six months of this year more than 9000 people have participated in its extensive activities. That is an increase of 3000 over the same period last year.
[ doesn’t sound like just a Culture Club to me. ] If a person has never visited or taken in some of these activities, they have no idea of what it is doing for our community of Aurora. I would suggest that Council Members go to the Centre and talk to the staff about the variety of programs that are offered to all ages from pre-schoolers to seniors.
There is designated space for atifacts to be displated at the Centre, and I’m sure more can be acquired if needed. It should be up to The Historical Society, who owns these items, to see that artifacts are displayed, on a systematic basis, so they can be enjoyed by the thousands of people visiting The Centre.
The success of any venture requires more than a warm fuzzy feeling by a few people.
If you listen to other people, you will find that our Cultural Centre is envied by many other municipalities.
David Griffith
Aurora Town Councillor 1991 to 2003
*******************************
Mr. Griffiths lost his seat when a former Mayor, septuagenarian candidate, after a fourteen year absence from council was elected.
I think I may presume to speak for others besides myself.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Rise And Report
We used to rise and address the chair. We did not have microphones. We were not on camera There were no audio tapes.
The Council chamber in Aurora was a big room. The County Council Chamber was bigger .
Standing to address the chair has a salutary effect. It called for focus,and organisation of one's thoughts. A person really needs to be prepared.
.
Sitting around a table, directing random questions at this director or that to help one firm up a position instills no confidence in the argument presented....if one is.
That's what debate is.
There were fourteen municipalities in the County each represented by a Reeve and Deputy Reeve.
Contribution to debate was optional. It still is
.
There were no consent motions to approve recommendations without discussion.
Standing committees recommended to council. Staff were not in the direct line of fire.
At County Council, a committee would rise and report. They would leave their seats and assemble at a table in the centre of the horseshoe with the appropriate director.
Challenges to a recommendation were from councillors to committee members. If a committee chair could not answer a question , only then was the director allowed to participate
Public display of dependence on staff to help one formulate a position, does not reflect favourably. It illustrates failure to prepare, absence of judgment or both
If a councillor has not done their homework or is incapable of comprehending the recommendation, best not put that on display.
"Better to be silent and thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt" Socrates.
At the head of our table conferencing is visible and constant between the presiding member , the Chief Administrator and the Clerk of the Municipality.
What we do in Aurora Council scarcely resembles formal debate. Being seated reduces formality. Creates a casual environment. Consistent application of the rules suffer as a consequence.
At the last Council meeting, the procedure bylaw was recommended for approval. I came prepared to debate. My points of dispute were clear, I hoped to illustrate how many and how significant they were and argue for postponement for further work to be done.
The presiding member directed each of my points to staff for a response. It was not my intent.It took far more of council's time than intended. And frankly I was extremely uncomfortable being steered into a process that I absolutely oppose.
But I believe the chair was well intended.
I stopped before finishing. The bylaw did not accompany the agenda. The item was referred to the next council meeting.
In my judgment,a formal council meeting is not the right place for work that still needs to be done.It's the place for debate and decision. I allowed myself to be sidestepped. It happens when lines are blurred and people are working at cross purpose.
Commenters are expressing frustration with the Mayor's difficulty with the rules.
Patience is not an option.
We needed to elect Geoff Dawe. He offered to serve. Learning in a fish bowl how to provide guidance and leadership to an eight member council, without requisite skills is not an easy task. It's not easy for a person with requisite skills. When it looks easy and things run smoothly, that's a reflection of considerable skill.
We knew that or should have, when we voted. What we need to do now is recognise it's not a one-man show. We need to work to-gether with due respect for the Mayor's responsibility.
If he succeeds , we all succeed. And vice versa
The Council chamber in Aurora was a big room. The County Council Chamber was bigger .
Standing to address the chair has a salutary effect. It called for focus,and organisation of one's thoughts. A person really needs to be prepared.
.
Sitting around a table, directing random questions at this director or that to help one firm up a position instills no confidence in the argument presented....if one is.
That's what debate is.
There were fourteen municipalities in the County each represented by a Reeve and Deputy Reeve.
Contribution to debate was optional. It still is
.
There were no consent motions to approve recommendations without discussion.
Standing committees recommended to council. Staff were not in the direct line of fire.
At County Council, a committee would rise and report. They would leave their seats and assemble at a table in the centre of the horseshoe with the appropriate director.
Challenges to a recommendation were from councillors to committee members. If a committee chair could not answer a question , only then was the director allowed to participate
Public display of dependence on staff to help one formulate a position, does not reflect favourably. It illustrates failure to prepare, absence of judgment or both
If a councillor has not done their homework or is incapable of comprehending the recommendation, best not put that on display.
"Better to be silent and thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt" Socrates.
At the head of our table conferencing is visible and constant between the presiding member , the Chief Administrator and the Clerk of the Municipality.
What we do in Aurora Council scarcely resembles formal debate. Being seated reduces formality. Creates a casual environment. Consistent application of the rules suffer as a consequence.
At the last Council meeting, the procedure bylaw was recommended for approval. I came prepared to debate. My points of dispute were clear, I hoped to illustrate how many and how significant they were and argue for postponement for further work to be done.
The presiding member directed each of my points to staff for a response. It was not my intent.It took far more of council's time than intended. And frankly I was extremely uncomfortable being steered into a process that I absolutely oppose.
But I believe the chair was well intended.
I stopped before finishing. The bylaw did not accompany the agenda. The item was referred to the next council meeting.
In my judgment,a formal council meeting is not the right place for work that still needs to be done.It's the place for debate and decision. I allowed myself to be sidestepped. It happens when lines are blurred and people are working at cross purpose.
Commenters are expressing frustration with the Mayor's difficulty with the rules.
Patience is not an option.
We needed to elect Geoff Dawe. He offered to serve. Learning in a fish bowl how to provide guidance and leadership to an eight member council, without requisite skills is not an easy task. It's not easy for a person with requisite skills. When it looks easy and things run smoothly, that's a reflection of considerable skill.
We knew that or should have, when we voted. What we need to do now is recognise it's not a one-man show. We need to work to-gether with due respect for the Mayor's responsibility.
If he succeeds , we all succeed. And vice versa
Monday, 19 September 2011
Toronto Has a Speaker
Appointed from Council membership. The City of Toronto Act calls for it. But not for other municipalities in Ontario. I don't think it's necessary ..
The problem we have are tampered standards. People have gotten used to the idea, rules can be interpreted to suit the occasion.
Councillor Gaertner is convinced asking endless questions of staff is legitimate debate.
A change in the rules limits time for debate but allows that to continue.
I think that's crazy. Debate is taking a position for or against the question.When all sides have been heard, the question is put and a vote taken.
A Councilor either contributes to debate or not. They should be prepared to speak, listen and think on their feet. If they are not, they should not.
It wasn't happening during the last four years. Former Councillor Mac Eachern would be recognised by the chair without even turning and would monopolise the next twenty minutes with an endless run of questions. Following which, she was ready to vote
.
Gaertner stubbornly sticks to what's familiar.Brings written questions to the table and charging everyone else with being know-nothings.
When I came back in 2003, Morris, Kean and Vrancic were at the top of the table. They hogged the best committees. I expressed my dis-satisfaction. I had been used to Mayor and Clerk working on committee memberships subject to preferences and tabling a report for approval.
"Well" I said. "makes no never mind. Councillors are entitled by law to participate in town business
wherever it's happening.
Council Kean indicated no. That was not so..
I checked the bylaw and discovered changed wording. A Councillor could attend meetings and participate ... IF.... recognized by the Chair.
I moved to amend. Councillors have authority to participate, They may not vote if not a member. Recognition to speak from the chair is a given.
A Councillor cannot be excluded from discussion on a whim of the chair.
Councillor Vrancic saw no need to amend. He did not foresee a Councillor being excluded from discussion.
In fact it had happened.
Former Councillor Betty Pedersen attended a Leisure Services Advisory Committee. Took a seat at the table and was directed by the chair to leave the table and sit with non-members.
Councillor Vrancic was the chair .
The vote changed to favour the amendment.
Kean, Morris and Gaertner opposed. A Councillor was absent. Missed the discussion. Was there for Council's decision. Voted against it . The amendment was defeated.
At the first meeting of the 2006 term, the first time I spoke, I had not said six words when Councillor Mac Echearn interrupted with a point of order. Upheld by the chair.
I apologised and committed to doing better and continued in humble mien.
The second time I spoke, Councillor Wilson called a point of order before I'd gotten five words out.
A pattern formed. When I spoke, Councillor Wilson would slide down in his chair, let his eyes roll up in his head and his tongue loll out of the side of his mouth.
People watching at home at home were both astounded and horrified. .
I endured that conduct for eight months. I started the blog in August 2007 when it was clear nothing was going to change. Y'know...if a fight is what you want, a fight is what you'll get.
Enmity was real and palpable. It was not about positive change. It was about seek and destroy.
Four years of distortion and manipulation took their toll on the practice of rules. The new Council has followed on what was.
But they are intent on doing better. It will take more work and good will and working toward the same objective to get the town's business done in a timely and efficient manner.
Agendas need to be manageable and assembled with more consideration and respect for what can be accomplished in a single sitting.
Rules need to be brief, succinct , easily memorised and no longer subject to interpretation.
We just need a little more time and knowing we can trust each other.
A Council swims together or it sinks.
I don't believe anyone fancies that.
.
The problem we have are tampered standards. People have gotten used to the idea, rules can be interpreted to suit the occasion.
Councillor Gaertner is convinced asking endless questions of staff is legitimate debate.
A change in the rules limits time for debate but allows that to continue.
I think that's crazy. Debate is taking a position for or against the question.When all sides have been heard, the question is put and a vote taken.
A Councilor either contributes to debate or not. They should be prepared to speak, listen and think on their feet. If they are not, they should not.
It wasn't happening during the last four years. Former Councillor Mac Eachern would be recognised by the chair without even turning and would monopolise the next twenty minutes with an endless run of questions. Following which, she was ready to vote
.
Gaertner stubbornly sticks to what's familiar.Brings written questions to the table and charging everyone else with being know-nothings.
When I came back in 2003, Morris, Kean and Vrancic were at the top of the table. They hogged the best committees. I expressed my dis-satisfaction. I had been used to Mayor and Clerk working on committee memberships subject to preferences and tabling a report for approval.
"Well" I said. "makes no never mind. Councillors are entitled by law to participate in town business
wherever it's happening.
Council Kean indicated no. That was not so..
I checked the bylaw and discovered changed wording. A Councillor could attend meetings and participate ... IF.... recognized by the Chair.
I moved to amend. Councillors have authority to participate, They may not vote if not a member. Recognition to speak from the chair is a given.
A Councillor cannot be excluded from discussion on a whim of the chair.
Councillor Vrancic saw no need to amend. He did not foresee a Councillor being excluded from discussion.
In fact it had happened.
Former Councillor Betty Pedersen attended a Leisure Services Advisory Committee. Took a seat at the table and was directed by the chair to leave the table and sit with non-members.
Councillor Vrancic was the chair .
The vote changed to favour the amendment.
Kean, Morris and Gaertner opposed. A Councillor was absent. Missed the discussion. Was there for Council's decision. Voted against it . The amendment was defeated.
At the first meeting of the 2006 term, the first time I spoke, I had not said six words when Councillor Mac Echearn interrupted with a point of order. Upheld by the chair.
I apologised and committed to doing better and continued in humble mien.
The second time I spoke, Councillor Wilson called a point of order before I'd gotten five words out.
A pattern formed. When I spoke, Councillor Wilson would slide down in his chair, let his eyes roll up in his head and his tongue loll out of the side of his mouth.
People watching at home at home were both astounded and horrified. .
I endured that conduct for eight months. I started the blog in August 2007 when it was clear nothing was going to change. Y'know...if a fight is what you want, a fight is what you'll get.
Enmity was real and palpable. It was not about positive change. It was about seek and destroy.
Four years of distortion and manipulation took their toll on the practice of rules. The new Council has followed on what was.
But they are intent on doing better. It will take more work and good will and working toward the same objective to get the town's business done in a timely and efficient manner.
Agendas need to be manageable and assembled with more consideration and respect for what can be accomplished in a single sitting.
Rules need to be brief, succinct , easily memorised and no longer subject to interpretation.
We just need a little more time and knowing we can trust each other.
A Council swims together or it sinks.
I don't believe anyone fancies that.
.
Again With The Rules Already
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "I didn't Mean":
Ummmm, who decides that it is RIGHT before it can be put to a vote? Some HIGHER authority than council?
****************
It's the point I have been trying to make. Rules of order governing debate should not be subject to dispute or disagreement,
Governments have had an accepted standard for hundreds of years.
Some lucky students acquire debating skills in high school. They learn "the rules".
Organisations and associations observe and practice a common standard.
The Parliament of Canada and Provincial Legislative Assemblies observe the same rules.
When the House meets, the first order of business is appointment of a speaker. An M.P.who enjoys the respect and confidence of all parties and who agrees to surrender his/her right to participate in debate, is appointed by a unanimous vote to the role.
He/she is then, according to ritual, dragged unwillingly to the Speaker's chair by the leaders.
The speaker does have authority. But not to participate in debate. The iron rule is impartiality. He/she casts the deciding vote in a tie.
I haven't researched the issue, so don't hold me to exactitude.I have simply observed. In all the years I've been observing, I've never seen a member challenge the rules.
Mostly what we see on television is Question Period. Members are chosen by party leaders to ask specific questions of the relevant Minister.
If the Minister goes on too long with the answer, the Speaker simply rises in his chair and says"Minister" to indicate he should shut up now.Pages rise along with him.
I have seenmembers escorted from the Chamber. Usually for making an accusation of criminality against another member.There is no penalty for "disobedience" The requirement of the House is for the member to withdraw the accusation and render an apology. Usually willingly accorded.
If a member disrupts the proceedings, the member can be removed. Until he sobers up presumably or makes the required apology for a serious accusation.
No power exists to remove a member from the seat to which he was elected.
Markham had an M.P. a few years ago by the name of Jag Bahduria.
He was expelled from the Liberal Party for reasons of scandal.
Voters in Markham campaigned for months the right to replace him. They collected petitions to persuade the government. The government was unable to accede.
What voters had decided in an election cannot be put asunder.
The member sat alone excluded from\ participation. Until the end of the term. He sought the nomination again. He had his supporters. He did not succeed and the problem was finally resolved.
The municipality is a legislature in the same sense as the senior levels of government.Bylaws have the same force and effect. Provided they make sense and are enforceable.
It's no earthly use passing a bylaw that can't be enforced and doesn't have a hope in hell of standing up in a court.
No bylaw can be passed at the local level which contravenes the law of a senior level.
From my perspective, rules of order must be agreed upon by all members. There can be no room for individual interpretation. They must be applied consistently and impartially.Members must learn them, abide by them and respect them.
Continual points of order, interrupting a member who has the floor is harassment and bound to lead to exasperation and loss of cool.
A continual stream of questions, monopolising the time of council is not permissible.
A member cannot choose to use debating time for fact finding.
The rules call for the chair to recognise a member indicating a desire to speak.
On recognition ,the member shall address the chair.
The member shall speak to the question.
The member shall not stray from the question.
The member shall not repeat points made
.
The member shall be allowed A question.
When the member has completed his/her argument, the member will take his/her seat.
In the past, if an argument had already been made the same argument would not be repeated by another councillor. A member might simply state agreement with an argument already presented or say nothing.
There is no requirement for a councillor to participate in debate. The requirement is to cast a vote.
There is no role for staff to participate in debate once a professional recommendation has been received their role is ended.
Right or wrong, decisions made are the prerogative of the elected and accountable body.
There is an obligation for all members to be mindful of time available to complete town business prior to adjournment. It doesn't just rest with the chair.
The problem of a council member using time to embark on a fact finding mission at every meeting is easily resolved.
It is not an orderly process and should not be permitted.
Council members receive an agenda in advance in order to make their inquiries and prepare for debate.They should have a position. At the same time they should be prepared to listen to others.
That's where agreement with the rules between Councillors is essential.We cannot function with different Councillors applying separate understanding of the rules.
It brings the process into disrepute.
I rest my case.
Ummmm, who decides that it is RIGHT before it can be put to a vote? Some HIGHER authority than council?
****************
It's the point I have been trying to make. Rules of order governing debate should not be subject to dispute or disagreement,
Governments have had an accepted standard for hundreds of years.
Some lucky students acquire debating skills in high school. They learn "the rules".
Organisations and associations observe and practice a common standard.
The Parliament of Canada and Provincial Legislative Assemblies observe the same rules.
When the House meets, the first order of business is appointment of a speaker. An M.P.who enjoys the respect and confidence of all parties and who agrees to surrender his/her right to participate in debate, is appointed by a unanimous vote to the role.
He/she is then, according to ritual, dragged unwillingly to the Speaker's chair by the leaders.
The speaker does have authority. But not to participate in debate. The iron rule is impartiality. He/she casts the deciding vote in a tie.
I haven't researched the issue, so don't hold me to exactitude.I have simply observed. In all the years I've been observing, I've never seen a member challenge the rules.
Mostly what we see on television is Question Period. Members are chosen by party leaders to ask specific questions of the relevant Minister.
If the Minister goes on too long with the answer, the Speaker simply rises in his chair and says"Minister" to indicate he should shut up now.Pages rise along with him.
I have seenmembers escorted from the Chamber. Usually for making an accusation of criminality against another member.There is no penalty for "disobedience" The requirement of the House is for the member to withdraw the accusation and render an apology. Usually willingly accorded.
If a member disrupts the proceedings, the member can be removed. Until he sobers up presumably or makes the required apology for a serious accusation.
No power exists to remove a member from the seat to which he was elected.
Markham had an M.P. a few years ago by the name of Jag Bahduria.
He was expelled from the Liberal Party for reasons of scandal.
Voters in Markham campaigned for months the right to replace him. They collected petitions to persuade the government. The government was unable to accede.
What voters had decided in an election cannot be put asunder.
The member sat alone excluded from\ participation. Until the end of the term. He sought the nomination again. He had his supporters. He did not succeed and the problem was finally resolved.
The municipality is a legislature in the same sense as the senior levels of government.Bylaws have the same force and effect. Provided they make sense and are enforceable.
It's no earthly use passing a bylaw that can't be enforced and doesn't have a hope in hell of standing up in a court.
No bylaw can be passed at the local level which contravenes the law of a senior level.
From my perspective, rules of order must be agreed upon by all members. There can be no room for individual interpretation. They must be applied consistently and impartially.Members must learn them, abide by them and respect them.
Continual points of order, interrupting a member who has the floor is harassment and bound to lead to exasperation and loss of cool.
A continual stream of questions, monopolising the time of council is not permissible.
A member cannot choose to use debating time for fact finding.
The rules call for the chair to recognise a member indicating a desire to speak.
On recognition ,the member shall address the chair.
The member shall speak to the question.
The member shall not stray from the question.
The member shall not repeat points made
.
The member shall be allowed A question.
When the member has completed his/her argument, the member will take his/her seat.
In the past, if an argument had already been made the same argument would not be repeated by another councillor. A member might simply state agreement with an argument already presented or say nothing.
There is no requirement for a councillor to participate in debate. The requirement is to cast a vote.
There is no role for staff to participate in debate once a professional recommendation has been received their role is ended.
Right or wrong, decisions made are the prerogative of the elected and accountable body.
There is an obligation for all members to be mindful of time available to complete town business prior to adjournment. It doesn't just rest with the chair.
The problem of a council member using time to embark on a fact finding mission at every meeting is easily resolved.
It is not an orderly process and should not be permitted.
Council members receive an agenda in advance in order to make their inquiries and prepare for debate.They should have a position. At the same time they should be prepared to listen to others.
That's where agreement with the rules between Councillors is essential.We cannot function with different Councillors applying separate understanding of the rules.
It brings the process into disrepute.
I rest my case.
It's Amazing What You Learn
A resident called on his cell phone. He was waiting for a bus. He'd read about the contract for school crossing guards and had something he wanted to share.
He worked in Vaughan when they signed a contract for the service. In one instance ,someone took the job of crossing guard who lived in the Beaches area.Had no car. Had to use public transit. Was given a map to show where he was expected to be.
The job is mostly an hour in the morning before school starts and another in the afternoon when school ends. In some schools, students don't go home for lunch
How could a person work an hour in the morning and another in the afternoon, live twenty miles away and depend on public transit?
I was curious so I made a call.
The contract service we have is local. Recruitment is within the neighbourhood. So that's alright.
But there's more. We have three long term crossing guards . Pay ranges from $14.92 to $16.13. Payment into the town;s pension plan is optional. If the option is taken the contribution is 6% each.
It's not a popular job. Rain, wind , snow, sleet and sub zero temperatures are not to everyone's taste or ability to withstand.
A person looking for full-time employment might be glad to take the work but as soon as they land full-time employment they leave. That's reasonable. But time spent recruiting, checking backgrounds, training is all wasted and must be repeated.
Using pay duty police officers was tried. Theyhave to be paid for a minimum of four hours.The cost was $500. for an hour with 12% tacked on for administration. They had to be paid for each shift separately.
Procedures for issuing a cheque in a municipality to ensure everything is exact and proper is an elaborate process. Not nearly as simple as the former Mayor picking up the phone and retaining a solicitor on a whim every other week.
Contract service for crossing guards is a bit more expensive than the town doing recruiting,hiring and adding to staff complement. But time saved in the process makes it even. A guarantee the crossing guard will be where needed is the added benefit.
There are ten crossing guards.Three are ours and seven from the contract service.
The school year is 196 days including two professional development days. That's 37 weeks. The hours
are a fraction of a work day. It calculates down to seventeen weeks.
The contract for seven crossing guards for three years is in excess of $300Ks.
The thought occurs; suppose no contract service was available. No person to be found willing to do the job. No matter how high the cost could go.
Who should be responsible for the safety of children crossing roads to get to and from school?
Supposing it became impossible to provide the service.
It simply came to an end ?
What then?
He worked in Vaughan when they signed a contract for the service. In one instance ,someone took the job of crossing guard who lived in the Beaches area.Had no car. Had to use public transit. Was given a map to show where he was expected to be.
The job is mostly an hour in the morning before school starts and another in the afternoon when school ends. In some schools, students don't go home for lunch
How could a person work an hour in the morning and another in the afternoon, live twenty miles away and depend on public transit?
I was curious so I made a call.
The contract service we have is local. Recruitment is within the neighbourhood. So that's alright.
But there's more. We have three long term crossing guards . Pay ranges from $14.92 to $16.13. Payment into the town;s pension plan is optional. If the option is taken the contribution is 6% each.
It's not a popular job. Rain, wind , snow, sleet and sub zero temperatures are not to everyone's taste or ability to withstand.
A person looking for full-time employment might be glad to take the work but as soon as they land full-time employment they leave. That's reasonable. But time spent recruiting, checking backgrounds, training is all wasted and must be repeated.
Using pay duty police officers was tried. Theyhave to be paid for a minimum of four hours.The cost was $500. for an hour with 12% tacked on for administration. They had to be paid for each shift separately.
Procedures for issuing a cheque in a municipality to ensure everything is exact and proper is an elaborate process. Not nearly as simple as the former Mayor picking up the phone and retaining a solicitor on a whim every other week.
Contract service for crossing guards is a bit more expensive than the town doing recruiting,hiring and adding to staff complement. But time saved in the process makes it even. A guarantee the crossing guard will be where needed is the added benefit.
There are ten crossing guards.Three are ours and seven from the contract service.
The school year is 196 days including two professional development days. That's 37 weeks. The hours
are a fraction of a work day. It calculates down to seventeen weeks.
The contract for seven crossing guards for three years is in excess of $300Ks.
The thought occurs; suppose no contract service was available. No person to be found willing to do the job. No matter how high the cost could go.
Who should be responsible for the safety of children crossing roads to get to and from school?
Supposing it became impossible to provide the service.
It simply came to an end ?
What then?
Sunday, 18 September 2011
I didn't Mean
To start let's jump all over Nigel movement.. He didn't get elected. There is no election. He is not a candidate. Anyone who chooses, has a right to be a candidate.People have a right to vote but not to challenge a person's right to let their name stand and take their chances.
The story I told to-day was relative to rules of order and unexpected results if misapplied.
Council has spent considerable time on the procedure bylaw, as it pertains to rules of order.
I don't think we've got it right yet and we should take all the time we need. Since it only applies to how council works, it should not go back onto the agenda of a council meeting or a general committee meeting until we've finished it.
I think we should sit together around a table and hammer out outstanding issues until we agree. It's not a matter for the majority to impose their will on the minority.
It's a matter for mutual agreement, confidence and trust that we all have the same understanding and support for the rules.
Legislative bodies under British Common Law have had rules that worked for centuries with amendments to bring them up to date. The basic principles still apply.
We did too until the last several councils decided they could mess with them to the advantage. of special interests.
I don't care who hangs with us if they want to but nobody should have to sit through the working session other than the clerk and council
.
The Bylaw has been scheduled to be read at the next council meeting. . I think that's a mistake.
The story I told to-day was relative to rules of order and unexpected results if misapplied.
Council has spent considerable time on the procedure bylaw, as it pertains to rules of order.
I don't think we've got it right yet and we should take all the time we need. Since it only applies to how council works, it should not go back onto the agenda of a council meeting or a general committee meeting until we've finished it.
I think we should sit together around a table and hammer out outstanding issues until we agree. It's not a matter for the majority to impose their will on the minority.
It's a matter for mutual agreement, confidence and trust that we all have the same understanding and support for the rules.
Legislative bodies under British Common Law have had rules that worked for centuries with amendments to bring them up to date. The basic principles still apply.
We did too until the last several councils decided they could mess with them to the advantage. of special interests.
I don't care who hangs with us if they want to but nobody should have to sit through the working session other than the clerk and council
.
The Bylaw has been scheduled to be read at the next council meeting. . I think that's a mistake.
That' not what I said.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Authority To Expel":
Nigel Kean said that Council debate was beneath contempt; it interfered with drinking time.
Did you find this humourous?
Was he a secret tippler or an outright souse?
From some of his ads and letters in the Auroran I could never be sure.
*******************
From what I know, he was a convivial fellow with his friends. He intended the remark as humorous I am sure. I did not find it entertaining.
He seldom missed an opportunity to denigrate a Council debate as "politics"
I did not intend to suggest drinking was excessive.
But, from my perspective, within the political arena, he was a mean spirited individual.
Nigel Kean said that Council debate was beneath contempt; it interfered with drinking time.
Did you find this humourous?
Was he a secret tippler or an outright souse?
From some of his ads and letters in the Auroran I could never be sure.
*******************
From what I know, he was a convivial fellow with his friends. He intended the remark as humorous I am sure. I did not find it entertaining.
He seldom missed an opportunity to denigrate a Council debate as "politics"
I did not intend to suggest drinking was excessive.
But, from my perspective, within the political arena, he was a mean spirited individual.
Authority To Expel
People who run for office frequently have different ideas about what the job entails.
Some don't think of it as a job at all. For them, it's all about power.
My impression of Nigel Kean was that he was carrying a grudge and getting elected was payback. I felt the same thing with Evalina MacEachern.
I registered late in 2003 as did John West. Ms MacEachern had been registered for some time. Her name was withdrawn. A public statement was made that when she saw who was running, she decided she had better things to do with her time.
The comment was offensive. It also illustrated presumptuous contempt for voters' right to choose.
MacEachern started the practice of wasting Council time with an unending, seemingly pointless stream of questions directed to staff.At first I thought she didn't know how to get off the treadmill
The presiding member proved unable or unwilling to bring the disorder to a halt.
Tim Jones is my friend. I hold him in high affection. But I wouldn't give a hill of beans for his ability to provide leadership and guidance to a council.
Tim excused himself laughingly by claiming to be a lover not a fighter.
Leadership means different things to different people.Providing guidance calls for a similar skill set. Tim never mastered the rules let alone their application.
Nigel Kean ran for the Mayor's chair without having been a Councillor. One reason stated was anger against the Mayor.
Finally elected to Council, he showed little respect for the role.His pre-occupation was with the Royal Canadian Legion, the Darts Tournament, Bowling for Big Brothers and creating the Farmer's Market.
He frequently and contemptuously dismissed debate as "politics" that interfered with drinking time.
It seemed the comment was intended to be humorous.Everyone laughed on cue.
There was nothing humorous about his determination to humiliate former Councillor John West.
In his first term. almost his first motion was to re-name John West Way.He didn't propose a new name that I re-call. Just the removal of John's name.
He contended it gave the Councillor an advantage of thousands of dollars of free advertising in an election.It was the essence of his complaint.
He tried again in his second term.Didn't work then either.
His third bid was successful. He changed the motion to place an address of the Town hall parking lot driveway of Municipal Drive.
The effect was to remove West's name from town hall stationary.
Councillor West was a sitting member of Council.The road had been named fourteen years previously. It had been chosen by the developer and approved by Council.
Kean's motion was seconded by Morris..Morris,Kean,Gaertner were consistent allies.
No rationale was provided with the notice. No reason offered when the motion was presented.
The absence of supporting argument clearly indicated, mover and seconder were confident of a majority vote. They had no need to provide justification for their action.
The lack provided an opposing argument. I stated it was clear members supporting the motion were complicit in agreement beforehand.
Councillor Vrancic called a point of order and stated he had not done that.
Mayor Jones supported the point of order and directed I withdraw the word "complicit"
For once,the Mayor was adamant. I concluded he was reluctant to cross Vrancic and counted on me to help him out of an awkward situation.
He misjudged the limits of my friendship.
I refused to withdraw the word. He directed me again or he would be obliged to expel me from the Council chamber.
"No, Mr. Mayor. complicit is the word I used and complicit is the meaning I intend. I will leave the Council Chamber before I will withdraw the word"
So I had the questionable distinction of being the first Council member ever to be expelled from Aurora Council Chamber.
Mayor Jones,the first Mayor ever to enjoy that questionable distinction along with me. Hardly for a noble cause.
It did not serve him well. He lost the next election.
Morris and Kean were the contenders. Morris won with less than a majority.
The contenders apparently made a pact they would not attack each other.Instead, they would jointly focus their efforts to discredit Jones. An agreement Kean had cause to regret.
The focus of this post relates to rules of order and how they can go awry.
In the last term, the former Mayor attempted three times to order me to do something or other or she would expel me from the Council Chamber.
It never happened.
Apart from my vow. I would never again accede to a demand that I leave the chair to which I was elected . Not if Moses himself came down from the mountain, complete with beard and commandments chiseled in stone.There's a practical reason why it cannot be accomplished.
The rule allowing for expulsion of a member who is disrupting a meeting and not allowing the nation's business to be completed,comes to us from the Parliament of Canada.
In the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly, Officers of the Law are on hand at all times for security of persons.
No person other than a sworn officer of the law has authority to lay a hand or even a finger on the person of another, except as witness to a law being contravened detrimental to peace and good order.
I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on the chance of any member of York Region's finest, responding to a call from Aurora Town Hall to man-handle the octogenarian or any other councillor out of a seat to which elected.
I would not go quietly.
I don't know why a politician worth his/her salt would willingly give power to over-ride the voters choice.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I didn't make that up.
Some don't think of it as a job at all. For them, it's all about power.
My impression of Nigel Kean was that he was carrying a grudge and getting elected was payback. I felt the same thing with Evalina MacEachern.
I registered late in 2003 as did John West. Ms MacEachern had been registered for some time. Her name was withdrawn. A public statement was made that when she saw who was running, she decided she had better things to do with her time.
The comment was offensive. It also illustrated presumptuous contempt for voters' right to choose.
MacEachern started the practice of wasting Council time with an unending, seemingly pointless stream of questions directed to staff.At first I thought she didn't know how to get off the treadmill
The presiding member proved unable or unwilling to bring the disorder to a halt.
Tim Jones is my friend. I hold him in high affection. But I wouldn't give a hill of beans for his ability to provide leadership and guidance to a council.
Tim excused himself laughingly by claiming to be a lover not a fighter.
Leadership means different things to different people.Providing guidance calls for a similar skill set. Tim never mastered the rules let alone their application.
Nigel Kean ran for the Mayor's chair without having been a Councillor. One reason stated was anger against the Mayor.
Finally elected to Council, he showed little respect for the role.His pre-occupation was with the Royal Canadian Legion, the Darts Tournament, Bowling for Big Brothers and creating the Farmer's Market.
He frequently and contemptuously dismissed debate as "politics" that interfered with drinking time.
It seemed the comment was intended to be humorous.Everyone laughed on cue.
There was nothing humorous about his determination to humiliate former Councillor John West.
In his first term. almost his first motion was to re-name John West Way.He didn't propose a new name that I re-call. Just the removal of John's name.
He contended it gave the Councillor an advantage of thousands of dollars of free advertising in an election.It was the essence of his complaint.
He tried again in his second term.Didn't work then either.
His third bid was successful. He changed the motion to place an address of the Town hall parking lot driveway of Municipal Drive.
The effect was to remove West's name from town hall stationary.
Councillor West was a sitting member of Council.The road had been named fourteen years previously. It had been chosen by the developer and approved by Council.
Kean's motion was seconded by Morris..Morris,Kean,Gaertner were consistent allies.
No rationale was provided with the notice. No reason offered when the motion was presented.
The absence of supporting argument clearly indicated, mover and seconder were confident of a majority vote. They had no need to provide justification for their action.
The lack provided an opposing argument. I stated it was clear members supporting the motion were complicit in agreement beforehand.
Councillor Vrancic called a point of order and stated he had not done that.
Mayor Jones supported the point of order and directed I withdraw the word "complicit"
For once,the Mayor was adamant. I concluded he was reluctant to cross Vrancic and counted on me to help him out of an awkward situation.
He misjudged the limits of my friendship.
I refused to withdraw the word. He directed me again or he would be obliged to expel me from the Council chamber.
"No, Mr. Mayor. complicit is the word I used and complicit is the meaning I intend. I will leave the Council Chamber before I will withdraw the word"
So I had the questionable distinction of being the first Council member ever to be expelled from Aurora Council Chamber.
Mayor Jones,the first Mayor ever to enjoy that questionable distinction along with me. Hardly for a noble cause.
It did not serve him well. He lost the next election.
Morris and Kean were the contenders. Morris won with less than a majority.
The contenders apparently made a pact they would not attack each other.Instead, they would jointly focus their efforts to discredit Jones. An agreement Kean had cause to regret.
The focus of this post relates to rules of order and how they can go awry.
In the last term, the former Mayor attempted three times to order me to do something or other or she would expel me from the Council Chamber.
It never happened.
Apart from my vow. I would never again accede to a demand that I leave the chair to which I was elected . Not if Moses himself came down from the mountain, complete with beard and commandments chiseled in stone.There's a practical reason why it cannot be accomplished.
The rule allowing for expulsion of a member who is disrupting a meeting and not allowing the nation's business to be completed,comes to us from the Parliament of Canada.
In the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly, Officers of the Law are on hand at all times for security of persons.
No person other than a sworn officer of the law has authority to lay a hand or even a finger on the person of another, except as witness to a law being contravened detrimental to peace and good order.
I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on the chance of any member of York Region's finest, responding to a call from Aurora Town Hall to man-handle the octogenarian or any other councillor out of a seat to which elected.
I would not go quietly.
I don't know why a politician worth his/her salt would willingly give power to over-ride the voters choice.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I didn't make that up.
Ding Dong !!!!!!The Witch Is Gone
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Interesting Tidbit":
Bash away till the cows come home , it helps to reinforce the fact that it was the worst of the worst, and hopefully never to be repeated,Even better when one of the former members brings it up
*********
Before we leave the issue, not necessarily for all time, I need to mention another point attempted apropos of nothing at Tuesday's meeting.
The motion on the table, moved by Councillor Gaertner seconded by Councillor Ballard, was direction to staff to recruit a new Integrity Commissioner. It failed on a vote of seven to two.
In support , Councillor Ballard hammered home the contention that even though a Councillor has not signed the Code of Conduct, all Councillors are bound by it.
The comment had no connection to the motion on the floor, nevertheless,Ballard was not called to order. A point of order could have been called from the floor but I forbore.
It is such a waste of time.
Failure of a Councillor to understand the rules of debate and failure of the chair to provide leadership and guidance is a continuing problem.
It can create resentment. No good can come of it.
The Code and its consequences are the subject of litigation before the courts, identified as abuse of authority and abuse of public resources .
Just to touch for a minute on validity of The Code.
It's useless if it can't be enforced.
And it can't. It Isn't worth a tinker's damn.
Not a smidgeon.
Zilch, Zero.Nada and Nil.
It isn't worth the paper it's been hundreds of times copied on.
It's not worth the powder to blow it away.
It's a gigantic bluff.
First is clause requiring all members to sign .
Three times, legal means were sought to make that happen.
Nuthin'
It requires all members to "read and understand" .
It presumes competence to do so.
Think about that. How many times have we heard a question asked, an explanation given, sometimes more than once, and the plaintive cry in response "I don't understand"
Remember Stephen Granger.
Another clause purports to compel a member, who disagrees with a majority decision to explain "the attitude" of the majority.
How can a person who opposes, understand others' support,, let alone explain it?
And when I did, did they appreciate it?
The record shows not.
Still another compels a member in disagreement to hush up and never speak of the matter again.
Yeah Right!!
I'm told the same Code of Amazing Righteousness and Virtue has been endorsed by other municipal politicians.
What does that teach us?
Bash away till the cows come home , it helps to reinforce the fact that it was the worst of the worst, and hopefully never to be repeated,Even better when one of the former members brings it up
*********
Before we leave the issue, not necessarily for all time, I need to mention another point attempted apropos of nothing at Tuesday's meeting.
The motion on the table, moved by Councillor Gaertner seconded by Councillor Ballard, was direction to staff to recruit a new Integrity Commissioner. It failed on a vote of seven to two.
In support , Councillor Ballard hammered home the contention that even though a Councillor has not signed the Code of Conduct, all Councillors are bound by it.
The comment had no connection to the motion on the floor, nevertheless,Ballard was not called to order. A point of order could have been called from the floor but I forbore.
It is such a waste of time.
Failure of a Councillor to understand the rules of debate and failure of the chair to provide leadership and guidance is a continuing problem.
It can create resentment. No good can come of it.
The Code and its consequences are the subject of litigation before the courts, identified as abuse of authority and abuse of public resources .
Just to touch for a minute on validity of The Code.
It's useless if it can't be enforced.
And it can't. It Isn't worth a tinker's damn.
Not a smidgeon.
Zilch, Zero.Nada and Nil.
It isn't worth the paper it's been hundreds of times copied on.
It's not worth the powder to blow it away.
It's a gigantic bluff.
First is clause requiring all members to sign .
Three times, legal means were sought to make that happen.
Nuthin'
It requires all members to "read and understand" .
It presumes competence to do so.
Think about that. How many times have we heard a question asked, an explanation given, sometimes more than once, and the plaintive cry in response "I don't understand"
Remember Stephen Granger.
Another clause purports to compel a member, who disagrees with a majority decision to explain "the attitude" of the majority.
How can a person who opposes, understand others' support,, let alone explain it?
And when I did, did they appreciate it?
The record shows not.
Still another compels a member in disagreement to hush up and never speak of the matter again.
Yeah Right!!
I'm told the same Code of Amazing Righteousness and Virtue has been endorsed by other municipal politicians.
What does that teach us?
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Another Interesting Tidbit
After Councillors Ballard and Gaertner's effort to defeat the motion to direct staff to prepare terms of reference for a museum curator and program, Councillor Gallo had something to add, as if buoyed by the vigor of the argument.
"While we're at it" he said "I am sick and tired of the continual bashing of the last council"
It wasn't clear how the comment fitted with rules of order, to speak to the question, banning criticism, required decorum and use of parliamentary language.
Even if it did, there had been no "bashing of the last council"
I said "The last Council did what they did. Now it's this council's responsibility to move forward and do what we must"... or words to that effect.
It was as if Councillor Gallo had bolstered his resolve to make the statement and could wait no longer for bashing to occur.
Or more likely still, at the pre-conference, bashing was anticipated, the councillor was given his lines by the director and felt honour-bound to deliver them even though the occasion did not arise.
Sometimes, nothing goes according to plan no matter how contrived the effort.
"While we're at it" he said "I am sick and tired of the continual bashing of the last council"
It wasn't clear how the comment fitted with rules of order, to speak to the question, banning criticism, required decorum and use of parliamentary language.
Even if it did, there had been no "bashing of the last council"
I said "The last Council did what they did. Now it's this council's responsibility to move forward and do what we must"... or words to that effect.
It was as if Councillor Gallo had bolstered his resolve to make the statement and could wait no longer for bashing to occur.
Or more likely still, at the pre-conference, bashing was anticipated, the councillor was given his lines by the director and felt honour-bound to deliver them even though the occasion did not arise.
Sometimes, nothing goes according to plan no matter how contrived the effort.
Friday, 16 September 2011
"The Holy Grail "
A motion to direct Director of Leisure Services to flesh out terms of reference for a museum curator and program . passed by a recorded vote of six to three on Tuesday.
It was not a vote to expend funds.
Facility maintenance and permit space for programs were under direction of the town's Leisure Services Department when Church Street school was in operation.
Before the aggressive demands of a Historical Society spokesperson that the town butt out.
Argument against the motion was slim. Opposition by Councillor Ballard was the motion was not accurate.
It could have been interpreted to mean: the motion was deceptive. The motion was misleading. The motion lied.
It was my motion. I did not take that meaning. I did not demand a retraction and apology on pain of being expelled from the meeting.
I argued $50Ks was included in the 2011 budget for the purpose of retaining a curator, at my request, and council supported.
"It would be my intention to restore the museum to its rightful home" I argued during budget discusssions.
I looked around the table and received confirmation of my re-call.
But the Councillor was adamant.. He requested affirmation of the record from the treasurer.
Wording composed by staff was read from the record. It was imprecise. .
I said the wording was not "accurate". I could have said imprecise. But accuracy was the point in contention. It was their word.
Councillor Gaertner intervened on a point of order to argue my comment was a serious accusation against staff.
Shades of the not too distant past .
In Councillor Gaertner's guided view, it is apparently acceptable to challenge accuracy of a motion presented by myself but not acceptable to apply it to an imprecise phrase used by staff.
It was the same twisted logic that dominated the last council . It continues to support Council Gaertner's view of the supreme righteousness of the remnant cabal and upholds her conviction only she,Councillors Gallo and Ballard are keepers of all truth,logic and virtue. The only ones capable of discerning and applying appropriate rules for all to live by.
The same argument was presented later for the motion to appoint yet a third Integrity Commissioner to enforce a Code of Conduct that requires all members to read and understand it.
Not necessarily for all to have the same understanding. Just enough members to pursue a particular objective.
A scene in Monte Python's movie. "In Search of The Holy Grail" comes to mind.
A small white rabbit leaps out of a cave in a gigantic curve and bites off the head of anyone who dare to pass in "Search of The Holy Grail.
It was not a vote to expend funds.
Facility maintenance and permit space for programs were under direction of the town's Leisure Services Department when Church Street school was in operation.
Before the aggressive demands of a Historical Society spokesperson that the town butt out.
Argument against the motion was slim. Opposition by Councillor Ballard was the motion was not accurate.
It could have been interpreted to mean: the motion was deceptive. The motion was misleading. The motion lied.
It was my motion. I did not take that meaning. I did not demand a retraction and apology on pain of being expelled from the meeting.
I argued $50Ks was included in the 2011 budget for the purpose of retaining a curator, at my request, and council supported.
"It would be my intention to restore the museum to its rightful home" I argued during budget discusssions.
I looked around the table and received confirmation of my re-call.
But the Councillor was adamant.. He requested affirmation of the record from the treasurer.
Wording composed by staff was read from the record. It was imprecise. .
I said the wording was not "accurate". I could have said imprecise. But accuracy was the point in contention. It was their word.
Councillor Gaertner intervened on a point of order to argue my comment was a serious accusation against staff.
Shades of the not too distant past .
In Councillor Gaertner's guided view, it is apparently acceptable to challenge accuracy of a motion presented by myself but not acceptable to apply it to an imprecise phrase used by staff.
It was the same twisted logic that dominated the last council . It continues to support Council Gaertner's view of the supreme righteousness of the remnant cabal and upholds her conviction only she,Councillors Gallo and Ballard are keepers of all truth,logic and virtue. The only ones capable of discerning and applying appropriate rules for all to live by.
The same argument was presented later for the motion to appoint yet a third Integrity Commissioner to enforce a Code of Conduct that requires all members to read and understand it.
Not necessarily for all to have the same understanding. Just enough members to pursue a particular objective.
A scene in Monte Python's movie. "In Search of The Holy Grail" comes to mind.
A small white rabbit leaps out of a cave in a gigantic curve and bites off the head of anyone who dare to pass in "Search of The Holy Grail.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
What Comes First...Chicken or Egg
Council supported several resolutions last night.
Leisure Services are to work on terms of reference for a curator's position and museum program. Funds were added to the 2011 budget for the purpose.
Reference was made during council's debate by the Chief Administrative Officer to the issue of ownership of the museum collection. The CAO raised his hand to be recognised and he was.
Historical Society members were in the audience. There is opposition to the curator being an employee of the town.
Their ownership of the collection is cited as an argument. It's spurious.
The collection has been assembled over years. Some artifacts were purchased by the town. Artifacts may have been received from an estate or donated for care and keeping to the Historical Society.
Like any volunteer organization, society membership is fluid. Anybody can be a spokesperson.
The collection has been stored in various venues for years. At one time, the town received a statement indicating a storage fee of $12Ks for the collection owing to the Historical Society.
Hillary House is owned by the Historical Society. For the purpose of funding, it's been argued it should be the town's museum.
This year the town provided $10Ks to the Historical Society to mark an anniversary. As well , the usual grant of $50KS.Their employee is identified as manager/curator.
Forty-two years ago, the Historical Society, gladly accepted space in the old school for a museum. The annual grant began when a curator was appointed. Town and Society worked comfortably as partners for years, under different councils, to accomplish a common purpose.
As a town facility, the building was managed by the Leisure Services Department. Organizations such as Big Brothers and Sisters and the Seniors Friendship Circle shared the space.
Then the building had to be vacated for renovation needs. The Society gutted the interior.
Then a particularly aggressive society spokesperson declared, if they were to raise funds and renovate the building, they had to be in charge. They required complete control An agreement was signed giving them what they wanted. The Leisure Services Director was excluded.
Three years passed. The building. costing town resources for maintenance,sat idle and useless/
The town authorized $2.3 million to fund the renovations, a grant of $770.K was received and used for the same purpose. The work was completed.
The noisy spokesperson left. They didn't raise or contribute further funds. They pulled out of their commitment to manage the facility. With a new spokesperson, At fify-nine members,they were too few, they said.
Council should consider giving them a budget like the library board, they said.
It's anybody's guess who put that idea forward though we all know who pulled the rug out from under when the time was right to claim star status for raising Aurora's culture level by vinyl bootstraps.
Arguments the Society owns the collection are a canard. No matter, the collection currently has no home.
The persistent notion, the town should hand over money and butt out of business; has become irksome to more than myself.
When the irrelevant question of collection ownership is insinuated into a council debate as a serious consideration, by a person with no authority to participate in a Council debate, a point of no return has been reached.
The town is bankrolling a payroll at the culture centre to the tune of half a million dollars. Programs offered are duplications of those offered by the Board of Education , Seneca College and Aurora Leisure Services Department.
Classes are offered in unfair competition with taxpaying business trying to make a living
So far as I am concerned, nothing is happening here but a determined and obnoxious campaign to protect vested interest.
It's well past time for the town to put the community's needs come first.
Leisure Services are to work on terms of reference for a curator's position and museum program. Funds were added to the 2011 budget for the purpose.
Reference was made during council's debate by the Chief Administrative Officer to the issue of ownership of the museum collection. The CAO raised his hand to be recognised and he was.
Historical Society members were in the audience. There is opposition to the curator being an employee of the town.
Their ownership of the collection is cited as an argument. It's spurious.
The collection has been assembled over years. Some artifacts were purchased by the town. Artifacts may have been received from an estate or donated for care and keeping to the Historical Society.
Like any volunteer organization, society membership is fluid. Anybody can be a spokesperson.
The collection has been stored in various venues for years. At one time, the town received a statement indicating a storage fee of $12Ks for the collection owing to the Historical Society.
Hillary House is owned by the Historical Society. For the purpose of funding, it's been argued it should be the town's museum.
This year the town provided $10Ks to the Historical Society to mark an anniversary. As well , the usual grant of $50KS.Their employee is identified as manager/curator.
Forty-two years ago, the Historical Society, gladly accepted space in the old school for a museum. The annual grant began when a curator was appointed. Town and Society worked comfortably as partners for years, under different councils, to accomplish a common purpose.
As a town facility, the building was managed by the Leisure Services Department. Organizations such as Big Brothers and Sisters and the Seniors Friendship Circle shared the space.
Then the building had to be vacated for renovation needs. The Society gutted the interior.
Then a particularly aggressive society spokesperson declared, if they were to raise funds and renovate the building, they had to be in charge. They required complete control An agreement was signed giving them what they wanted. The Leisure Services Director was excluded.
Three years passed. The building. costing town resources for maintenance,sat idle and useless/
The town authorized $2.3 million to fund the renovations, a grant of $770.K was received and used for the same purpose. The work was completed.
The noisy spokesperson left. They didn't raise or contribute further funds. They pulled out of their commitment to manage the facility. With a new spokesperson, At fify-nine members,they were too few, they said.
Council should consider giving them a budget like the library board, they said.
It's anybody's guess who put that idea forward though we all know who pulled the rug out from under when the time was right to claim star status for raising Aurora's culture level by vinyl bootstraps.
Arguments the Society owns the collection are a canard. No matter, the collection currently has no home.
The persistent notion, the town should hand over money and butt out of business; has become irksome to more than myself.
When the irrelevant question of collection ownership is insinuated into a council debate as a serious consideration, by a person with no authority to participate in a Council debate, a point of no return has been reached.
The town is bankrolling a payroll at the culture centre to the tune of half a million dollars. Programs offered are duplications of those offered by the Board of Education , Seneca College and Aurora Leisure Services Department.
Classes are offered in unfair competition with taxpaying business trying to make a living
So far as I am concerned, nothing is happening here but a determined and obnoxious campaign to protect vested interest.
It's well past time for the town to put the community's needs come first.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
An Invitation
To breakfast at Jonathan's hosted by M.P.Lois Brown. I decided yesterday I should go. I might get a chance to bring up the agreement with the federal government for lease of the town- owned Hydro building.
I think it's illegal.
The breakfast was from 8 to 10. I logged in at around 7 a.m. and thought I could write that last post and be on my way.
Then I thought about all the items on to-night's agenda I need to call for discussion. I have four motions to present. I need to make notes.
But about the hydro building lease; I talked to Ms.Brown about it during the election. I made a request for the Minister to hold off signing the agreement. I pointed out Councils are not supposed to make substantive commitments after candidate registrations close. The term at that point is a lame duck.
The member mumbled something about not being familiar with the Municipal Act and majority decisions. I knew then the conversation was falling on deaf ears.
Days later the Mayor triumphantly announced the Minister had signed the lease.
It may not have been true.
The announcement about an agreement with the Department of National Defense was made in September 2010.
During budget discussion in 2011, I inquired where rental revenue for the facility would show in receivables.
The treasurer responded there had been none until February 1st.
Rent, we were informed. was $139.Ks.per annum.
We spent more than $200Ks on the building to make it ready.
We vacated it in September or thereabouts.
The parks department were making good use of it.
I heard, after Morris' defeat in October, an amendment to the lease had been signed. Date for rent to start was moved forward three months, until February 1st.
We forfeited use of a building we owned and were using to our advantage, spent more than $200Ks for improvements for the tenant , for rent of $139ks that didn't start until 6 months after we vacated.
It's a ten year lease, no termination clause. The building is still vacant a year later. We have a couple hundred thousand dollars in the capital forecast for maintenance because we are landlord and responsible for maintenance.
Net rental revenue therefore is not what it was said to be.
Being a landlord is not part of a municipality's mandate.
We cannot sell property we own without declaring it surplus to our needs.
There's talk of Queen's York Rangers disposing of the Armories, their home for the last hundred and fifty years.
Does that mean they feel they are safely ensconced in a building owned by the municipality?
Does it mean, by sleight of hand, we have suddenly become responsible for accommodating the Department of National Defence at the expense of Aurora home owners and business operators?
Does it mean, although we cannot sell property unless it is surplus to our needs, we can give it away for next to nothing?
Does it mean this council can sleep comfortably in their beds at night knowing the best financial interests of the community, for which we are accountable, are being served?
I think not.
I think it's illegal.
The breakfast was from 8 to 10. I logged in at around 7 a.m. and thought I could write that last post and be on my way.
Then I thought about all the items on to-night's agenda I need to call for discussion. I have four motions to present. I need to make notes.
But about the hydro building lease; I talked to Ms.Brown about it during the election. I made a request for the Minister to hold off signing the agreement. I pointed out Councils are not supposed to make substantive commitments after candidate registrations close. The term at that point is a lame duck.
The member mumbled something about not being familiar with the Municipal Act and majority decisions. I knew then the conversation was falling on deaf ears.
Days later the Mayor triumphantly announced the Minister had signed the lease.
It may not have been true.
The announcement about an agreement with the Department of National Defense was made in September 2010.
During budget discussion in 2011, I inquired where rental revenue for the facility would show in receivables.
The treasurer responded there had been none until February 1st.
Rent, we were informed. was $139.Ks.per annum.
We spent more than $200Ks on the building to make it ready.
We vacated it in September or thereabouts.
The parks department were making good use of it.
I heard, after Morris' defeat in October, an amendment to the lease had been signed. Date for rent to start was moved forward three months, until February 1st.
We forfeited use of a building we owned and were using to our advantage, spent more than $200Ks for improvements for the tenant , for rent of $139ks that didn't start until 6 months after we vacated.
It's a ten year lease, no termination clause. The building is still vacant a year later. We have a couple hundred thousand dollars in the capital forecast for maintenance because we are landlord and responsible for maintenance.
Net rental revenue therefore is not what it was said to be.
Being a landlord is not part of a municipality's mandate.
We cannot sell property we own without declaring it surplus to our needs.
There's talk of Queen's York Rangers disposing of the Armories, their home for the last hundred and fifty years.
Does that mean they feel they are safely ensconced in a building owned by the municipality?
Does it mean, by sleight of hand, we have suddenly become responsible for accommodating the Department of National Defence at the expense of Aurora home owners and business operators?
Does it mean, although we cannot sell property unless it is surplus to our needs, we can give it away for next to nothing?
Does it mean this council can sleep comfortably in their beds at night knowing the best financial interests of the community, for which we are accountable, are being served?
I think not.
Aimless Meandering
The posts of the last few days are acknowledged aimless meandering in a corner of my mind.
Not without reason
I arrived at a point last week when the weight became overwhelming.
I was reminded of limits. I needed to step back for a bit and take stock.
A long drawn out budget process and summer recess means town issues have backed up and piled up.
From my perspective,directions undertaken in the last term should have been,at the very least,halted.
They have not.
Capital items during budget discussions, were deferred for later in-depth study.
When the day came for that to happen , half the time was taken up with presentations from consultants on Strategic Plan and re-designing the town hall to accommodate extra staff resulting from re-organisation.
I had to listen to an astoundingly foolish statement from a consultant that town administration of the mid-nineties built a facility to meet the needs of the population and staff of the day. It was the first sentence out of her mouth.
My immediate reaction was... Oh.... My..... God.
Eventually we did deal with one proposed capital item for replacement of an elevator and repairs to inefficient and extravagant ice-making machinery at the Auirora Family Leisure Centre.
After lengthy discussion,we did not approve the recommendations.
But guess what, they slipped through procedure and went forward anyway.
The Mayor's rational was "you didn't call it for discussion"
The Chief Administrative Officer said the session was simply for Council to have "input" into the decision-making process.
Like children, we were allowed to have our say.
I found the concept stunning but it seemed I was the only one.
Does it mean I am off kilter?
Am I spinning my wheels and exhausting my energies to accomplish nothing?
Am I simply a person who can never be satisfied?
If I find recommendations,time after time,falling far short of logic,does the fault lie with me,Dear Brutus?
It would be a relief to think so. The Municipal Act requires only that I vote yea or nay.
The public record reflects no comments.
Energy expended in argument is lost in the ether. May even contribute to global warming.
It might be nice instead to smile like an angel, raise my hand in blessing and think:
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with string
These are a few of my favorite things
When the dog bites
when the bee stings
And I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
Then I don't feel so bad.
How long can it last?
Not without reason
I arrived at a point last week when the weight became overwhelming.
I was reminded of limits. I needed to step back for a bit and take stock.
A long drawn out budget process and summer recess means town issues have backed up and piled up.
From my perspective,directions undertaken in the last term should have been,at the very least,halted.
They have not.
Capital items during budget discussions, were deferred for later in-depth study.
When the day came for that to happen , half the time was taken up with presentations from consultants on Strategic Plan and re-designing the town hall to accommodate extra staff resulting from re-organisation.
I had to listen to an astoundingly foolish statement from a consultant that town administration of the mid-nineties built a facility to meet the needs of the population and staff of the day. It was the first sentence out of her mouth.
My immediate reaction was... Oh.... My..... God.
Eventually we did deal with one proposed capital item for replacement of an elevator and repairs to inefficient and extravagant ice-making machinery at the Auirora Family Leisure Centre.
After lengthy discussion,we did not approve the recommendations.
But guess what, they slipped through procedure and went forward anyway.
The Mayor's rational was "you didn't call it for discussion"
The Chief Administrative Officer said the session was simply for Council to have "input" into the decision-making process.
Like children, we were allowed to have our say.
I found the concept stunning but it seemed I was the only one.
Does it mean I am off kilter?
Am I spinning my wheels and exhausting my energies to accomplish nothing?
Am I simply a person who can never be satisfied?
If I find recommendations,time after time,falling far short of logic,does the fault lie with me,Dear Brutus?
It would be a relief to think so. The Municipal Act requires only that I vote yea or nay.
The public record reflects no comments.
Energy expended in argument is lost in the ether. May even contribute to global warming.
It might be nice instead to smile like an angel, raise my hand in blessing and think:
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with string
These are a few of my favorite things
When the dog bites
when the bee stings
And I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
Then I don't feel so bad.
How long can it last?
Monday, 12 September 2011
Comments
It's always interesting to discover which post will trigger a dialogue.
"It's A Vent" brought 13 comments the last time I looked. That's phenomenal.It's also a bit overwhelming. I have difficulty keeping up.
I click on publish.And reject. Then at some other time I click on Comments and there's a whole list needing direction that I thought I already dealt with.
Generally, I don't post if the comment is downright nasty. Or somebody thinks he/she should be able use my own blog to disrespect me.
If that's what you have in mind, buck off and write your own blog and find your own readers.
I thought I read an uncomplimentary comment about Norman Jewison. It referred to men in Bolton. I didn't know if it meant Bolton in our neck of the woods or Bolton, Hollywood. Or why the men of Bolton would know anything about Norman Jewison or the women would have shared his wife's confidence.
I don't even know if he has a wife. I admire his work.I don't have to know every detail of his life.
What's more it makes not a whit of difference to what I think of his work. All of it. If Norman Jewison is the director,I know I have something to look forward to.
******
Look at that lengthy comment about how to use blueing in the washing machine. I've no idea where that came from. It certainly sounds like Mrs/Stewart's blueing is still available.
It doesn't say it's only good for natural fibres. Which I think it is.
Does it work on man made fibres. I don't think it does .
Now, let's see if I get a response to that from out of the ether.
"It's A Vent" brought 13 comments the last time I looked. That's phenomenal.It's also a bit overwhelming. I have difficulty keeping up.
I click on publish.And reject. Then at some other time I click on Comments and there's a whole list needing direction that I thought I already dealt with.
Generally, I don't post if the comment is downright nasty. Or somebody thinks he/she should be able use my own blog to disrespect me.
If that's what you have in mind, buck off and write your own blog and find your own readers.
I thought I read an uncomplimentary comment about Norman Jewison. It referred to men in Bolton. I didn't know if it meant Bolton in our neck of the woods or Bolton, Hollywood. Or why the men of Bolton would know anything about Norman Jewison or the women would have shared his wife's confidence.
I don't even know if he has a wife. I admire his work.I don't have to know every detail of his life.
What's more it makes not a whit of difference to what I think of his work. All of it. If Norman Jewison is the director,I know I have something to look forward to.
******
Look at that lengthy comment about how to use blueing in the washing machine. I've no idea where that came from. It certainly sounds like Mrs/Stewart's blueing is still available.
It doesn't say it's only good for natural fibres. Which I think it is.
Does it work on man made fibres. I don't think it does .
Now, let's see if I get a response to that from out of the ether.
Why...Oh Why
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Generational Difference":
"Whites were not kept white with bleach. They were boiled in washing soda and bleached on the drying green."
When I was a child, whites were kept white with "laundry blueing." A "Dolly Blue" was tossed intothe water and it did its magic. There is no comparison in my opinion; other methods leave whites looking yellow. I used to be able to buy blueing most recently at Weston Produce but since it has closed I have not been able to find it. Current detergent products such as Oxiclean just don't cut it; they contain chemicals that are toxic to the environment. Blueing is non-toxic.
Sometimes, what's old is new.... and may often be better.
*******************************
I thought blueing went into the rinse water. It didn't actually keep whites white, It added a tinge of blue. I've used it. Shopper's Drug Mart may be a good place to look. Or Hey...Mike Evans Hardware store on Yonge Street.
On a related topic; I have recently decided to stop ironing.
I saw a young woman in a doctor's office wearing pants like a pair I own. They were cotton so their appearance would have been improved by ironing and a crease. But they weren't. I doubt they made a bad impression. Not on me. It was a long wait. I had nothing else to think about.
I thought, she's right. What does it matter? Another way to cut down on the expense of hydro.
********
I posted negative comments about Norman Jewison yesterday because I wanted to ask;
What does personal behaviour have to do with genius.
Rabbie Burns was said to be a profligate. Did it take from his art or was it part of who he was? He died at thirty-nine.
Pierre Trudeau was not a canny politician. Without his determination and focus, could he have brought home the Constitution and created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Excellent legislators went down to defeat because of it. Was that the price that had to be paid for Canada to gain her independence and become a just society.
Would it have happened had he been concerned about immediate consequences?
It didn't happen before Trudeau and hasn't since.
When Frank Sinatra died,I felt sadness. A light went out and the world became a colder,darker place.
Somebody said; He was a nasty piece of work, you know.
I said:
No,I do not know. Even if it's true,why should it matter?
I will still sit in my car,after arrival, to hear the end of a Sinatra rendition.
He lifted my spirit. He touched my soul. I will be forever grateful.
I could fill pages with names,famous and otherwise,whose work makes a difference.
The point is; why do we seem to need to qualify and withhold credit for excellence when we are its obvious beneficiaries.
"Whites were not kept white with bleach. They were boiled in washing soda and bleached on the drying green."
When I was a child, whites were kept white with "laundry blueing." A "Dolly Blue" was tossed intothe water and it did its magic. There is no comparison in my opinion; other methods leave whites looking yellow. I used to be able to buy blueing most recently at Weston Produce but since it has closed I have not been able to find it. Current detergent products such as Oxiclean just don't cut it; they contain chemicals that are toxic to the environment. Blueing is non-toxic.
Sometimes, what's old is new.... and may often be better.
*******************************
I thought blueing went into the rinse water. It didn't actually keep whites white, It added a tinge of blue. I've used it. Shopper's Drug Mart may be a good place to look. Or Hey...Mike Evans Hardware store on Yonge Street.
On a related topic; I have recently decided to stop ironing.
I saw a young woman in a doctor's office wearing pants like a pair I own. They were cotton so their appearance would have been improved by ironing and a crease. But they weren't. I doubt they made a bad impression. Not on me. It was a long wait. I had nothing else to think about.
I thought, she's right. What does it matter? Another way to cut down on the expense of hydro.
********
I posted negative comments about Norman Jewison yesterday because I wanted to ask;
What does personal behaviour have to do with genius.
Rabbie Burns was said to be a profligate. Did it take from his art or was it part of who he was? He died at thirty-nine.
Pierre Trudeau was not a canny politician. Without his determination and focus, could he have brought home the Constitution and created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Excellent legislators went down to defeat because of it. Was that the price that had to be paid for Canada to gain her independence and become a just society.
Would it have happened had he been concerned about immediate consequences?
It didn't happen before Trudeau and hasn't since.
When Frank Sinatra died,I felt sadness. A light went out and the world became a colder,darker place.
Somebody said; He was a nasty piece of work, you know.
I said:
No,I do not know. Even if it's true,why should it matter?
I will still sit in my car,after arrival, to hear the end of a Sinatra rendition.
He lifted my spirit. He touched my soul. I will be forever grateful.
I could fill pages with names,famous and otherwise,whose work makes a difference.
The point is; why do we seem to need to qualify and withhold credit for excellence when we are its obvious beneficiaries.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Crosby Stills and Nash and Norman Jewison
You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.
*********************
The highlight of my Labour Day week-end was watching Fiddler On The Roof. I've lost count of the times I've seen it.
The first was in the old movie theatre on Main Street, Newmarket. I went twice in one week. The Aurora Theatre group did it on stage. I went. Every time it's on television, I watch it.
The story,,,,music.... lyrics... pathos ...drama... wit...dialogue . scenery....and characters .are all unforgettable.
I recite the lines and sing along the songs while I watch.
Golda, do you love me?
The first time I saw you , was on our wedding day.
I was shy.
So was I
But my father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other
Golda.... Do you love me.
I suppose I do
It doesn't change a thing but after twenty-five years. it's nice to know.
**********************
It's the relevance and reality that captures my heart. It's about iron-clad traditions. one after the other, faltering and changing by a father's love for his children; and the children's need for a father's love and approval.
It's about the triumph of life over death. Of light over darkness.
**********************
Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.
*********************
The highlight of my Labour Day week-end was watching Fiddler On The Roof. I've lost count of the times I've seen it.
The first was in the old movie theatre on Main Street, Newmarket. I went twice in one week. The Aurora Theatre group did it on stage. I went. Every time it's on television, I watch it.
The story,,,,music.... lyrics... pathos ...drama... wit...dialogue . scenery....and characters .are all unforgettable.
I recite the lines and sing along the songs while I watch.
Golda, do you love me?
The first time I saw you , was on our wedding day.
I was shy.
So was I
But my father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other
Golda.... Do you love me.
I suppose I do
It doesn't change a thing but after twenty-five years. it's nice to know.
**********************
It's the relevance and reality that captures my heart. It's about iron-clad traditions. one after the other, faltering and changing by a father's love for his children; and the children's need for a father's love and approval.
It's about the triumph of life over death. Of light over darkness.
**********************
Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
-
Anonymous said...
- You should get 20 copies of this week's posts and comments put into file folders and distributed to members of Council and all Department heads. The folder should be titled: WE THE PEOPLE Maybe someone will pay attention.
************************************Here's something else you need to know about. The report speaks about the need to build a snow "storage site " and treatment plan to protect the ground water supply as well as to protect the well head area.
Our ground water supply comes from an aquifer deep down. Many layers of material separate it from the surface. Including an impermeable layer of clay.It's a geological feature of our area.We are the headwaters area for Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario. Water comes from springs deep within the earth.
We have bottomless lakes.The theory is they are connected by an underground river.
Lakes are spring fed. Swamps dry up in the summer.
Forty years ago when we tapped into this aquifer, the water was carbon tested. It was thousands of years old. It was cold. clear and pure. The Region tests regularly. Nothing has changed.
A second supply to augment the ground water comes from Lake Ontario.
So, even if there is salt in the snow that gets scooped up from the Yonge Street Centre Block.it has no impact whatsoever on the water supply.
We do not take water from the wellhead area identified by the Region as in need of protection.
The water supply is in no need of protection by a million dollar snow storage site and treatment centre.
The question of how much salt there is in the snow, remains unanswered. The previous site used for twenty years is now the location of a flourishing community garden. So much for the argument of salt pollution.
I had salt left over from winter this year. There's no point in storing it. It absorbs humidity and turns into brine. I used it to kill weeds on my crushed brick driveway. They didn't come back where the salt hit them. That has to be a first.
I know about salt absorbing moisture from the atmosphere from using it in my basement before I could afford a de-humidifier.