Craig Gammie's Commentary

Agenda item 7.1 Mark Wunderlich and Bill Cheshire-Development at 800 Frank Street Wiarton

The agenda item title is very misleading. Mr. Wunderlich and Mr. Cheshire are not “developing” the property at all. They are selling it. Mr. Wunderlich says he is looking for some kind of town policy reassurance, but it sounds to me more like he is making demands. He seems to be demanding that council provide sewers and water. He seems to be demanding that Council remove conservation authority restrictions. He seems to be demanding that council remove zoning restrictions.   Council should tell him to go through the proper processes with the proper people. Council cannot and should not give any reassurances regarding the outcome of the processes.

Agenda item 7.2 Doug Pedwell, Huron Fringe Birding Festival-Update on Festival and Events in South Bruce Peninsula

Members of council are having trouble finding enough time to focus on the real policy issues. This bird presentation seems to be very interesting, but it has nothing to do with council activities, and is a distraction, and should not even have been on the agenda.

 Agenda item 8.1 FS10-2014 Wiarton Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion

This is discussed in a separate commentary 4-13. (criaggammieblog.com)

Agenda item 8.3 CLK27-2014 Potential Surplus Property /8.4 CLK28-2014 Amabel Water System Surplus Property

This may be a bad time to be selling these properties. Council should give some consideration to holding instead.

Agenda item 8.5 ADM19-2014 Policy A.6.1 Professional Conduct

This is discussed in a separate commentary 4-11 (criaggammieblog.com)

Agenda item 8.6 PAC02-2014 Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment, Pt Lot 23 Div S Claude W/S and S Pt Lot 23 Div S Claude W/S (Wiarton), 2373389 Ontario Limited

 This is discussed in a separate commentary 4-12 (criaggammieblog.com)

Agenda item 8.8 PSB01-2014 Parachute-Safe Communities Designation Program

This is a report from the police services board. I find it very odd that the PSB, which is supposed to be completely independent of council, is writing reports to council.

That said I agree with the PSB chair Yvonne Harron. Council should look favourably on the parachute recommendation.

Agenda item 8.12 ADM23-2014 Ratification of 2014-2017 SEUI Local 2-BGPWU Collective Agreement

The staff report (non-union staff that is) says:

 Wage adjustments: Since union staff are used as male comparitors in the pay equity plan, the negotiated wage increases for union staff all apply to non-union employees in order to maintain pay equity and fairness. This provision is reflected in the attached by-law.

 What?? Non-union staff give themselves a raise every time union staff get a contract raise. And council allows this? Ludicrous. Who’s driving the bus? Doesn’t anyone understand that taxpayers are stretched to the limit?

Craig

On the April 15 TSBP council agenda is this item: Agenda item 8.1 FS10-2014 Wiarton Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion

I support sensible and controlled residential growth.   But it must be paid for by those who benefit, they being the developers and their customers. Residential growth should not be paid for by general taxpayers.

Financial Manager Michael Humble proposes to expand the Wiarton sewage treatment plant to allow residential growth. The municipal share is estimated at about 2 million dollars, but that is just an estimate, not a quotation.

In his report Michael Humble refers to a funding sources table as appendix “A”. But there is no appendix. Nevertheless it is clear that he proposes that the money for the municipal share of the sewage treatment plant expansion should come from a debenture held against general taxpayers, with those taxpayers to be paid back “later” from a pot of development charges.

A debenture on the backs of taxpayers is bad, unfair policy.

The costs should be paid for by developers, up front. Current taxpayers should not have to risk their money for sewage treatment plant expansion.

Michael Humble justifies making all taxpayers pay by saying that all taxpayers will benefit through lower taxes:

In his report he says:

 The broader Municipality will benefit from increased development activity and an enhanced assessment base for property tax purposes.

 This is rubbish. It is true that total town-wide assessment goes up with new residences. But costs and the associated town budget go up too. The only way existing taxpayers would benefit would be if the extra assessment goes up more than the new extra costs. But given history, the opposite is more likely. It is more likely that costs will go up more than assessments, leaving current taxpayers paying more. In any event, if there were a benefit to existing TSBP taxpayers, it would be very small.

With the debenture proposal existing taxpayers are being put at significant risk. They will have to make principal and interest payments on the sewers debenture until enough developers have paid sufficient development charges to pay off the debenture.   And there is a risk that there will be a recession or sudden low housing demand and the developers will simply back out, leaving the existing taxpayers on the hook for two to four million, or more by some estimates. If the real cost is 4 million and no developers come, the cost to the taxpayers will be about $270,000 per year for 25 years. That would make everyone’s tax bills about 3 per cent higher than they would otherwise be.

Michael Humble contradicts himself in his report.

On the one hand he is asking council to approve the project and approve use of a debenture held against general taxpayers (but which he hopes will be fully paid back by developers sometime “later”).

On the other hand he proposes a study for:

 The primary goal of the background study will be to derive a fair cost-sharing arrangement for the cost of growth-related studies and infrastructure investments between the existing residents and future development. (emphasis added by C. Gammie)

 So “on the other hand” the project will be funded by taxpayers, but part and only part is to be paid back by developers (that is if they come at all). This leaves general taxpayers (in Wiarton, Allenford, Oliphant, Sauble Beach, Red Bay, Howdenvale, etc.) on the hook for at least part, and maybe all, of the costs.

Then Mr. Humble says:

 “It is unreasonable and unfair to expect existing system users or taxpayers to bear the cost of growth-related expenditures on behalf of developers.”

 It seems to me that this is directly contradictory to his previous statement or statements. Do developers pay or not? Do general taxpayers pay or not? Do taxpayers take on the risk through a debenture or not?

With all the contradictions in his report it is really difficult to know what Mr. Humble is really proposing. On the other hand it is very clear how council should respond.

Council must decline to approve the capital project, and must decline to approve the financing scheme.   Staff should be sent to find a way to get developers to pay for the growth, without any taxpayer involvement. If there absolutely must be taxpayer funding, there must be a mechanism in place to ensure that the general taxpayers will be paid back, fully, with appropriate interest, and without any risk whatsoever.

Finally Farrow-Lawrence and Humble try to use scare tactics with this little gem:

 Council may decline to approve the capital project and accompanying funding commitment from the Federal and Provincial governments. Since we would then be in contravention of our funding commitment, the Municipality will be asked to repay the approx. $409,000 that has already been advanced to us. Given the extraordinary efforts on behalf of Federal and Provincial staff to secure approval for this request, we would also put ourselves at a severe disadvantage if we were to apply for funding for any project in the future.

 This is absolute rubbish. If council declines it will have no impact on future requests. Humble’s words are just scare-tactics. (In Farrow’s report she just parrots Humble’s words.)

The proposal might be especially objectionable to the residents of Colpoys Village, Mallory Beach, and Oxenden, as many draw their water from Colpoys Bay downstream of the Wiarton treatment plant effluent pipe, and so not only would they be paying for the Wiarton sewage treatment plant expansion, but also they would have to deal with the prospect of more Wiarton sewage treatment plant effluent contaminating their drinking water.

Craig

On the April 15 agenda is a proposal by the Planning Advisory Committee to change some property on Claude Street from residential to commercial zoning, so that a large commercial operation can be built there. (Agenda item 8.6 PAC02-2014 Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment, Pt Lot 23 Div S Claude W/S and S Pt Lot 23 Div S Claude W/S (Wiarton), 2373389 Ontario Limited).

Council should reject the proposal.

Our system is founded on the rule of law. Laws and by-laws are made for the protection of citizens. Citizens should be able to have confidence that the laws and by-laws that protect them will not suddenly and arbitrarily and without a clear public interest reason be changed to their disadvantage. That assurance is part of our system. That assurance is paramount.

The zoning by-law is no exception. One purpose of the zoning by-law is to give residents some certainty that when they live in or move into an area zoned “residential” they will not suddenly find that the property next door has been, without valid public policy justification, rezoned from residential to commercial, and that construction has started on a large busy grocery store, or worse.

If a property is zoned residential then the residents who want it to stay residential have a right to have it stay residential, and to say “no” to the zoning change application. And the residents should not be forced to feel that they have to justify their refusal. They have a right to say “no” to the change without having to argue their case. And residents have clearly said no to the Claude Street rezoning proposal.

Yet the Planning Advisory Committee has virtually ignored the residents. The Planning Advisory Committee not only ignored the residents saying “no”, but also put them on the defensive, first challenging them to give their reasons, then when they did provide reasons patronizingly saying to the concerned residents “don’t worry – we’ll address all your concerns after the zoning by-law has been changed”, and “don’t worry – we’ll make sure the developer turns their heating and ventilating fans away from you. We believe that you will still be able to get to sleep at night. We believe your worries are unfounded.”

Members of the Planning Advisory Committee even condescendingly dismissed the residents’ very valid concerns.

Then the Planning Advisory Committee implied that the developer has rights, maybe even more rights, than the residents.

If the residents or even some residents don’t want the zoning change, then there shouldn’t be one. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.   The residents should not be told that the developer has rights too so the residents need to compromise and adjust.. The residents should not be asked to or expected to compromise, especially when that compromise would result in loss of enjoyment of their property and their community.

Now council faces a decision. Council should do the right thing for the residents and refuse the zoning change application.

Will they?

Or will they side with the Planning Advisory Committee and throw the residents under the bus?

I hope that affected residents will attend the April 15 meeting as a show of protest. But they should be aware of the new rules prohibiting criticism. (See commentaries 4-9 and

4-11 on craiggamieblog.com)

Craig

On the April 15 council agenda is item 8.5 – Policy A.6.1 Professional Conduct, a proposed set of rules for members of the public at or in town facilities.

I have no problem with rules for members of the public at Town facilities. Like no skateboards indoors or where a danger or nuisance to others. Like no running on the pool deck. Like no yelling in town hall. Good common sense rules like these are necessary for order and for the protection of the public.

But the proposed “Professional Conduct Policy” goes way beyond. Some or even much of the professional conduct policy is rules made up solely for the improper purpose of stopping criticism of council members, committee members and staff, and for chilling participation of members of the public.

The proper parts of the policy can stay, but the improper parts need to go.

An example of what has to go is the rule that you can’t use abusive or demeaning language at any town facility (rule 2.9).

Consider what would happen if a resident runs in the fall municipal election and attends an all-candidates meeting at a town-owned facility, (say the Wiarton arena), and says:

 “In 2010 candidate John Close promised a 15 per cent property tax reduction. Instead of a reduction Mayor John Close delivered a twenty per cent increase in taxes. Then the Mayor falsely claimed that he had delivered zero increases in each of his council’s four budgets. And then when residents pointed out that “zero increases” was a lie, the Mayor admitted that the increase was actually 20 per cent, but then the Mayor wrongly tried to shift the blame for the twenty per cent increase in taxes onto MPAC, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.”

 With the proposed policy in place, which prohibits demeaning language, and prohibits anything that the Administrator or anyone designated by the Administrator to act in her place is willing to say is demeaning language, and in fact prohibits anything that the Administrator (or appointee) thinks should be prohibited, Ms. “X” will be in immediate trouble.

For saying the statement above, Ms. “X” will be interrupted, and then staff will call the police and have Ms. “X” removed from the facility and banned from that facility for as long as the Administrator or mayor or anyone appointed as enforcers by the Administrator and Mayor, see fit. (See rules 5.3 and 5.4).

According to the policy Ms. “X” would not even get a warning as long as the offense was considered (by the Administrator or by the Mayor or their “appointed” enforcers) as relatively serious.

And to make sure Ms. “X” never comes back the administrator can use taxpayers’ money to get some sharp-suited Waterloo lawyers to: 1) apply fines to Ms. “X”; 2) lay charges against Ms. “X”; and 3) prosecute Ms. “X”. (See rule 5.6).

For criticizing the current Mayor on his false promises and bad record, Ms. “X” could be put through hell, and could be financially crippled. And all this could be carried out by any staff member “appointed” by the Mayor or the Administrator as an enforcer. And all of this could happen without council even becoming aware of it, or approving it.

Or consider what would happen if someone, let’s call him Mr. “Y”, looks at a draft town policy that he sees as contradicting itself, and so he comes to council, asks to speak, is granted permission, says “This policy is contradictory”, and displays a small placard that says “you can’t suck and blow at the same time”.

Exactly the same thing could happen to Mr “Y” as could happen to Ms. “X”. Because the Administrator will jump up and say Mr. “Y” has breached rule 4.1 (display of a statement that the administrator finds to have sexual connotations), or that Mr. “Y” has breached the general rule against saying something that the Administrator (or anyone appointed by the Administrator to act in her place) thinks Mr. “Y” shouldn’t be allowed to say.

And as with Ms. “X”, extreme harm could be could be unfairly inflicted on Mr. “Y” without council knowledge or approval.

What makes the (part of) the policy so objectionable is the hypocrisy on the part of the apparent authors of the policy, namely the mayor and Administrator Farrow-Lawrence.

On May 24, 2011 the mayor issued a press release (council did not see it until after it was released) and also talked to the press, falsely accusing contributors to a blog called bruceonthebruce, of: committing “criminal” acts; being a “plague”; being a “blight on the community”; and being “likely to commit acts of physical violence against women” if not immediately apprehended and brought to justice.

To me that sounds like demeaning and derogatory language. To me that sounds like a breach of the rules now being pushed by the Administrator and apparently by the Mayor. It seems grossly hypocritical to me. But then he’s the Mayor, so the rules don’t apply to him. Right?

And Administrator Farrow-Lawrence recently swore, under oath, that:

 “As administrator of the Town, I have seen a pattern of harassing, threatening, and untoward behaviour by Mr. Gammie towards the Town’s staff.  Mr. Gammie has personally attacked , harassed and threatened Town staff through his personal interactions with them, ….”

 With that, Farrow-Lawrence swore that she saw personal interactions between me and staff where I “personally attacked, harassed, and threatened” such staff.

Farrow Lawrence didn’t start her job until January 28, 2013, well after I was banned.

I was banned from town hall on November 20, 2012, learning about it on November 23^rd from staff. After November 23^rd I had no contact at all with any staff other than Farrow-Lawrence, except to check in to the May 11, 2013 public meeting at the arena regarding septic inspections, a harmless, fleeting interaction between me and a staffer, an interaction that Farrow-Lawrence did not observe.

So there is absolutely no way Farrow-Lawrence could have seen personal interactions between me and staff at all, let alone “personal interactions where I personally attacked, harassed, and threatened staff”.

Her sworn statement was an outright lie. It’s a lie that she physically saw anything, and it’s a lie that I attacked or harassed or threatened staff, and it’s a lie that there was any bad behaviour, and it’s a lie that there was a pattern of bad behaviour. But her words are also demeaning, derogatory, and disrespectful, and thus constitute a grievous breach of the very rule she wishes to impose on the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

“Hypocritical” and “outrageous” don’t even begin to adequately describe her actions.

Farrow-Lawrence claims that the Professional Conduct Policy is made in order for the Town to comply with a section of the Ontario Health and Safety Act. That’s rubbish. The Act does not require any such thing.

Council should carefully extract what little good there is in Farrow-Lawrence’s draft policy, and send the rest to the garbage bin.

Craig

Agenda Item 7.1 Community Foundation Grey Bruce-South Bruce Peninsula Community Fund

I wish Mrs. Brindell well with her fundraising. Her program is noble. But there is just no way that council can justify forcing residents to give to charitable organizations. Giving to charities is a private decision, and residents must be allowed to make that choice themselves. If council members so crave the good feeling they get from giving, they should give their own money.

Agenda Item 8.6 FS08-2014 Debt Management Policy

This item I have discussed as a separate commentary 4-9.

Agenda Item 8.7 PW4-2014 Roads Needs Study

The road needs study provides some useful information. But the road needs study is a very crude tool and should be used with caution in deciding where taxpayer funds should be spent.

One problem is that the tool does not adequately consider drainage issues. Like at Hope Bay Road.

Agenda Item 8.8 PW5-2014 Master Servicing Plan

The Pubic Works Manager wants to spend $100,000 on a servicing study for Wiarton. He claims that the study is being done for the benefit of the residents of Wiarton. The study in fact is of absolutely no benefit to the people of Wiarton, or to the people of TSBP. The study will cost the people of TSBP. The study benefits only developers.

The proper way to determine available capacity of the Wiarton Sewage treatment system is to take the total capacity of the system and subtract current flows to the plant, subtract anticipated flows from lots on the system but currently not built upon, and subtract future load from septic system pumpouts in all of TSBP. When the available capacity is calculated this way, it comes out zero or negative. There is no available capacity.

So for new development there will have to be capacity added. This is the responsibility of the developer, not the taxpayers of TSBP.

Water supply is a little different. There may actually be some excess capacity. But the developer should pay for determining that too.

New servicing and the $100,000 study should be the responsibility of the developers.

The MPW request should be denied.

Agenda Item 8.9 PW6-2014 Oliphant Water Treatment Plant Upgrades-Update for April 2014

The original Oliphant water project cost $100,000 per connected user in Oliphant. It should never have proceeded. And it didn’t work anyway. Now they want to spend another $20,000 per connected user to try to get it working. That’s throwing good money after bad. And it’s not even the users’ money that’s being thrown away. Some of the money is coming from all Ontario taxpayers and another part is coming from all TSBP property taxpayers.

The repair should be put on hold so that alternatives can be properly considered.

Agenda Item 8.12 CLK20-2014 Resolution of Concurrence for Bell Mobility Inc., Communication Tower at 849 Sauble Falls Parkway, File W4569

The consultation was inadequate, even if it met guidelines. Comments should be invited by the town, through the town.

Agenda Item 8.14 CLK22-2014 Procedural By-Law

There are serious problems with the procedural by-law. I have addressed some of the in a separate commentary (4-7).

Agenda Item 8.16 CLK24-2014 Oliphant Lake Bed Update

The Oliphant Lake bed issue is a jurisdiction issue. The issue is whether the town has the jurisdiction to make and enforce by-laws at Oliphant. The issue is not about who owns the lakebed or shoreline.

In a diversion, the clerk has written a report not on the jurisdiction issue, but rather on the ownership issue.

The issue is not who owns the land. The issue is whether the beaches at Oliphant are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the town of south bruce peninsula. And they clearly are. So the town can make by-laws which cover the Oliphant beaches. Yes the land claims need to be considered. But the by-laws and measures being asked for do not have and will not have any negative impact on the land, and will only have positive impacts, and therefore will not prejudice the land claim or claims in any way.

The Clerk’s report should be thrown in the garbage. And the project should be given to someone who has at least a bit of understanding of the concept of policymaking. There are many who do understand that concept and who do not require a salary of over $100,000 a year to do it.

Whose agenda is at play here anyway?

Council needs to quit stalling and make some proper by-laws for the Oliphant situation.

Craig

Procedural by-law 93-2009 contained this:

A12.1 …. Correspondence containing obscene or defamatory materials shall not be presented to council.

This could have been problematic if whoever decided what was obscene or defamatory abused that privilege to shut out criticism. As far as I know the rule was not abused during the last council or before.

But it has been abused during this council’s term. On February 2, 2011, when I asked that a letter of mine be sent to council and place d on schedule “B” in a council agenda package, clerk Cathrae, with the mayor’s support, deemed my letter “defamatory” and refused to give it to council or put it on schedule “B”. (See Craig’s Commentary 1-15)

My letter was not defamatory by any stretch. My letter was censored because it was critical. The Cathrae/ Close censorship was a clear attack on my freedom of expression. And there were others censored.

On April 1, 2011, two months later, to give staff even more censorship power, a definition of defamatory was added to the procedural bylaw (56 – 2011):

A1.6 “Defamatory” means injurious to reputation, slanderous or libelous.

The definition was wrong. It fails to capture the fact that a statement must be false to be defamatory. Defining “defamatory” as they did above leaves the prohibition (“defamatory shall not be presented”) open to serious abuse. It makes it so that any staff member can censor any criticism just by declaring it defamatory, regardless of whether it actually is defamatory or not.

Which is exactly what Cathrae did with several letters to council.

Bylaw 106 – 2013

But apparently Cathrae did not feel that the rule was clear enough to justify her censorship of all criticism or strong enough to give her the control that she wanted. So in the October 2013 amendment of the procedural by-law she added a “code of conduct for members of the public” which included a section prohibiting anyone from orally using “defamatory” language in a meeting. And she also added that whether correspondence was defamatory or not would be “determined by staff”. These provisions were made to give staff a tool to prohibit anyone from orally criticising a staff or council member.

Bylaw 106 – 2013 contains:

A1.8 “Defamatory” means injurious to reputation, slanderous or libelous.

A2.6.5 No person shall use indecent, offensive, defamatory or insulting language or speak disrespectfully of any member of Council or any employee of the Town.

Al2.4 Correspondence or any material containing obscene or defamatory
language, as determined by staff, will not be directed to the appropriate
department for action or response and will not be placed on any Council
agenda.

And then Cathrae added four sections that allowed the mayor to expel anyone accused (by Cathrae) of “defamation”, and allowed council to set the term of the “expulsion” to life:

A2.6.7. Behaviours in this section are not all encompassing. It shall be noted that any behaviour deemed to be unbecoming will be subject to the progressive action as outlined herein.

A2.6.8 When ruling on conduct matters, the mayor will warn the offender of the improper behaviour and will request that the behaviour ceases. This will be considered the only warning.

A2.6.9 If the behaviour continues the mayor will expel the offender from the meeting. If required, assistance may be sought from local authorities.

A2.6.10 Council may by resolution, set terms for the expulsion and return, at their discretion.

March 18, 2014 proposal

It appears that Cathrae felt a need for even more power, so she proposed (March 18, 2014) expansion of the scope of “defamatory” to make it even clearer that criticism would be deemed by staff to be defamatory:

A1.8 “Defamatory” means attacks of character , attacks of reputation, name calling, injurious to reputation, slanderous or libellous.

A12. 4 Correspondence or any material containing obscene or defamatory language, as determined by staff, will not be directed to the appropriate department for action or response and will not be placed on any Council agenda nor will the correspondence be read at any public meeting.

The changes were getting really ridiculous. First the definition of defamation was even farther from reality and closer to prohibiting all criticism, second staff was neither competent nor impartial enough to be deciding what is defamatory, and third there is no authority in the Municipal act for council to make a by-law for expelling people. So I sent in a letter to that effect.

Staff reacted to my letter pretty much as expected. They deemed some comments in my letter to be defamatory, they refused to circulate the letter to council, and they refused to read it at the March 18 public meeting. So I sent the letter, as originally written, that is complete with the so-called “defamatory” parts, directly to council.

Then just before the public meeting it appears they realized how ridiculous their actions were, and they decided to read my letter, absent the part deemed defamatory, into the record at the March 18, 2014 public meeting.

April 1, 2014 proposal

Then Cathrae proposed another revision. She took out the word “defamatory” completely. In the definitions section “defamatory” was replaced by “deprecating”, and “derogatory” was added to the list of prohibitions:

A1.8 “Deprecating” means attacks of character , attacks of reputation, name calling, injurious to reputation, derogatory, slanderous or libellous.

A12. 4 Correspondence or any material containing obscene, derogatory or deprecating language, as determined by staff, will not be directed to the appropriate department for action or response and will not be placed on any Council agenda nor will the correspondence be read at any public meeting.

A2.6.5.1: No person shall use indecent, offensive, derogatory, deprecating or insulting language or speak disrespectfully of any member of Council or any employee of the Town.

This was the most ridiculous change yet.

“Deprecating” means “critical”.

When I complained to council that “defamatory” had been defined in such a way as to allow staff to interpret it as meaning “critical”, and that it would be improperly used to censor criticism, Cathrae just changed the rule to prohibit “deprecating” instead of “defamatory”.

So that’s where we are. The rule prohibits criticism. Staff gets to decide what is and what is not criticism (deprecatory). Staff can censor any written document that they feel is criticism. The Mayor can expel any member of the public from any meeting for uttering “criticism”. Council decides the punishment (up to a lifetime expulsion).

Loss of Freedom of expression

The constitution of Canada is the supreme law.

The constitution schedule A (charter of freedoms and rights) section 2 (b) says:

2. (b) Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
………
(b) freedom of ….. expression, ……

The TSBP defamation provision is counter to section 2 (b) of the Charter, and is a direct attack on freedom of expression. I fear the defamation provision will be used to curtail that freedom.

The “defamation” / “deprecation” provisions are just another step away from democracy and towards tyranny, a change that has included, among other things: John Close calling bloggers “criminals”, a “plague”, a “blight on society, and, “potentially violent offenders”; getting rid of schedule “B”; Rhonda Cook’s groundless tax-funded lawsuit against some bloggers; defining “workplace harassment” to include criticism on a blog; allowing three readings of by-laws in one meeting; the draconian code of conduct for residents; and the indemnification by-law.

In a separate policy Cathrae and Close have already defined “workplace harassment” to include any “unwanted actions”, and to include any “unwanted comments” on the internet (which includes blogs). I’ll bet Cathrae is already working on a rule that allows council to ban anyone from any public meeting and from any town building, and to prohibit any member of the public from corresponding with any member of staff, if that member of the public is deemed (by staff of course) to have committed “workplace harassment”. With such a rule you could be banned for life if you criticize staff or council on the internet.

So you more timid bloggers should brush up on your sycophant vernacular. Because if you criticise Ceasar (or anyone else at town hall), and not praise him, it is you who may end up getting buried (by Cathrae’s law).

(I’m already banned for life, so I can continue to gently and constructively criticize).

Who’s behind this nonsense?

In this commentary I have portrayed the draconian provisions of the procedural by-law as the work of Clerk Cathrae. But I recognize that there could be someone in the background, perhaps a member of council, pulling Cathrae’s strings.

But regardless of who’s behind it, it has to stop.

Does anyone on council have the guts to put an end to this staff nonsense?

Craig

In the agenda package for the April 1, 2014 council meeting there is a draft Debt Management Policy (agenda item 8.6 FS08-2014).

It’s common sense to, among other things, get the best interest rate possible, conform to provincial statute debt limits, and limit amortization period to 25 years. As far as I know, this type of common sense guidance has been well followed. There are no problems, and I see no threat of any breach. So an official written policy covering these things is not really necessary.

But if TSBP Financial Officer Michael Humble feels better with an official written policy, then by all means he should do it, as there is nothing wrong with having a formal written debt management policy for minimizing the tax burden on residents of the town related to capital expenditure.

My concern is about all the stuff in the draft policy that has nothing to do with debt policy.

It appears to me that the policy has been drafted not to benefit the residents of TSBP, but rather to provide detours around the proper capital expenditures decision process, and to provide detours around the capital budgeting process, and to shut the public out of both of those processes. It appears to me that the draft debt policy is made to serve someone’s private agenda, at the expense of the public interest.

Is taking on debt a Federal and Provincial Requirement?

The report says:

“debt will continue to be an ongoing component of the town’s capital financing structure, as identified and required by Federal and Provincial Infrastructure initiatives.” (emphasis added by C. Gammie)

I cannot find any provincial or federal document that says that debt finance is a “requirement”. And it doesn’t make any sense.

Council currently has flexibility to pay for the unsubsidized part of capital projects using reserves or debt or some combination. That flexibility must be retained. The policy as drafted require at least some use of debt financing, and as such would remove that flexibility. I have no idea why anyone would want to do that. It would certainly not benefit the residents. The policy must be changed.

Should/can developments be subsidized with taxpayer dollars?

The draft policy seems to suggest that current residents should pay for infrastructure for new development. This is wrong. And regardless of whether new development infrastructure (e.g. sewage plant expansion) is paid for by debt or reserves or reserve funds or other sources, the burden should not be put on all current residents of TSBP.

The hidden agenda here seems to be to get all TSBP taxpayers to pay for water and sewer infrastructure for one or more new developments.

Should any part of any user-pay system capital expenditures be paid by all taxpayers?

The draft policy suggests that user pay system expenditures can be covered by general taxes, that is taxes on users and non-users of the system.

This practice is wrong and it is illegal.

The hidden agenda here may be to justify putting the cost of Wiarton sewer system repairs on all TSBP taxpayers, in order to limit complaints about costs from those actually on the Wiarton system.

Another hidden agenda may be to reissue the Sauble sewers proposal and put the cost on all TSBP taxpayers, for the sole purpose of making the project appear more palatable, so that the project can be rammed through.

Both would be grossly unfair, especially to those neither in Sauble nor in Wiarton.

“Benefit to community” insufficient grounds

The draft policy implies that if someone claims that there is a benefit to the community related to a capital expenditure then the project should proceed.

That’s nutty.

Council must consider not only the benefits of any particular capital expenditure project, but also the costs. And much more should be considered in the decision process too.

I believe the policy is proposed to justify Sauble sewers, airport runway repairs, and any other pet projects being pushed by certain staff and certain council members, projects that simply would not make sense when put through a proper decision process, projects that would be rejected if put through a proper decision process.

“Strategic priorities” insufficient grounds

The draft policy implies that capital projects that are “strategic priorities” should proceed.

The policy even suggests that “strategic priority” projects be discussed and approved outside the budget process.
That’s nutty too. Each capital project proposal must be decided separately. It matters not whether it’s on someone’s “strategic priority” list.

Again the draft policy seems to be made to push pet projects through that would fail a proper decision process.

The policy even suggests that “strategic priority” projects be discussed and approved outside the budget process.

That simply shuts taxpayers out of the discussion. That’s unacceptable.

A Proper debt policy

Whether capital projects are financed by debt or by reserves is not as big a deal as Mr. Humble indicates. Furthermore, the decision of whether to proceed with any capital project should be made independent of a decision of whether to finance the municipality or user portion using debt or a reserve or reserve fund. The debt or reserve/reserve-fund issue should not enter the decision process until after the decision of whether to proceed with the capital expenditure project is made.

The debt policy might suggest what part of the financing should be from debt and what part from reserve funds, and these may vary for different kinds of projects, but the policy should not be suggesting and evaluating criteria for deciding what capital projects should proceed and which should not.

All considered, it sure looks like most of the draft debt policy was put forward not for the public interest, but rather to advance someone’s private agenda.

We thought Mr. Humble would be immune to the influence of individual council members, and that he would be resistant to these kinds of shenanigans. So from my perspective the draft policy, coming from Mr. Humble, is a huge disappointment.

It would be very wrong for council to accept the draft debt policy.

Craig

Agenda Item 8.5 PW3-2014 Hepworth Community Centre

Tom Gray seems to be recommending that we sell the Hepworth Community centre. But he does not provide council and the public enough information to make a good decision. He has failed to provide any information on how many use it, who uses it, what for, and what revenues are taken in. Council should defer a decision, and should send the report back to be fixed. The MPW should also predict revenues with alternative fee structures, and also should also consider closing other community centers instead. Maybe the highest net costs center should be closed.

Agenda Item 8.8 ADM15-2014 Workplace Violence & Harassment: Enhanced Security Measures

The staff report recommends $10,000 be spent for office modifications to protect staff from “difficult customers”.

It all sounds reasonable if there really is a problem or potential problem. But is there a problem?

Several residents who criticised staff got letters from John Close and Rhonda Cook in 2011 which began with these words:

“If we are made aware of any further slanderous, rude or negative behaviour on your part, [there will be consequences].”

Many other threats were sent out in 2012 and 2013.

If you criticise, or display what they consider negative behaviour, they will sue you, or try to get you charged, or ban you, or prohibit you from speaking to staff, or censor your submissions, or punish you somehow.

John Close has claimed in a press release that any “unwanted comment” is “workplace harassment”, and based on his definition, any criticism of staff gets a cry of “harassment, harassment.” Because of this there have been many allegations of “workplace harassment” levelled at residents.

And if you mention even a former staff member’s name in a letter to council, it will be censored out.

In every case I know of there was no evidence of improper behaviour, or rude behaviour, or harassment, or defamation, or anything else, other than criticism (which is almost always “unwanted”).

It’s got so bad that all you have to do is say a staff members name and you are accused of workplace harassment. Even some council members get accused of harassment if they dare to criticize a staff member. It has become absolutely ludicrous.

And now they want $10,000 of taxpayers’ money to protect themselves from those very, very bad “difficult customers” who dare to criticize.

Given the false allegations going around, please forgive me if I take a vague report from staff of “a history of dealing with difficult customers at the Town Hall” with a good measure  of skepticism.

The current TSBP harassment policy requires that senior staff follow-up on all complaints of harassment or violence and requires that a report for each incident be written.

The Administrator should be instructed to review all of those harassment and violence complaint reports and determine if there is indeed a problem or real potential problem, and if so then propose corrective and preventive measures. But until then, the request for $10,000 should be denied.

A second recommendation in the report is:

And further that Staff prepare reports for Council’s consideration of by-laws enacting policies dealing with a public code of conduct and video surveillance applicable at all Town facilities.

We do need rules for town facilities. But the rule must be made for real problems, and must not be made just as another tool to stop people from legitimate participation or to stop residents from criticizing.

I am concerned that any resident who comes into the town hall office and is the least bit critical will be accused of “workplace harassment” and will be banned from town hall, for life, and will be prohibited from corresponding with staff. Or if a resident is really critical, he or she will be turned over to the authorities who administer the Gulag.

We already have a ridiculous and draconian public code of conduct for council and committee meetings, a code that is designed mostly to shut out criticism. The one for all facilities should be done properly and should be made only for legitimate and proper purpose. We will have to make sure the by-law cannot be abused so as to punish someone that some staff member just happens not to like. We will have to scrutinize the draft code very carefully.

Administrator Farrow-Lawrence’s report further indicates the following:

“The foregoing security measures will not impede Staff from offering the same high level of customer service and welcoming atmosphere to members of the public.”

Farrow-Lawrence gets 4 stars for her good sense of humour.

Agenda Item 8.8 ADM14-2014 Stop-the-Drop Initiative

According to the staff report, some mayors and Administrators met with Colin Dobell March 7, where they heard Mr. Dobell’s recommendation of a $75,000 research project to be funded by “participating municipalities”.

Farrow-Lawrence is not recommending that we participate. I agree. But council should make it even more clear to Mr. Dobell. Council should be clear that the town will not participate in any way. Not financial, not staff participation, not anything else. Because Great Lakes Water level is not a TSBP issue.

Dobell is also asking the mayors to represent the residents in discussions with federal or provincial governments on the water level issue. This too should be denied. The mayor has no legitimate mandate to represent the residents of TSBP on a federal-provincial issue. We have an MP and an MPP who have that role.

Craig

On October 27, 2010, to an OSST reporter, Mayor John Close said this about Sauble septic systems:

“I don’t think provincial or federal governments could take the embarrassment of Walkerton again”

Contrary to Close, there is no similarity between Sauble and Walkerton. Close made it up. It was false propaganda to support Close’s communal-sewers-at-Sauble agenda.

On March 11, 2011 a Wiarton Echo reporter asked:

“Does [the septic inspection plan] put the intent for a full sewage system for Sauble Beach on the back burner?”

Mr. Close replied:

“Absolutely no…..We will be tendering for new plans with specialty engineering firms with particular disciplines and in August we will be prepared to make some decisions. We want to be able to tell the naysayers that this will work.”

This makes clear John Close’s agenda – communal sewers at Sauble.

In an August 22, 2011 letter to Ontario Minister Bardolucci, Mr. Close indicated:

“Areas of our Town (especially in Sauble Beach) were experiencing difficulties managing their septic waste and maintaining healthy and potable water.”

This too was false propaganda to support Close’s sewers-at-Sauble agenda. There was and still is no evidence of Sauble Beach having difficulties managing their septic waste or maintaining healthy and potable water.

In the September 10, 2011 OSST, about Sauble sewers, this was written:
“Mayor John Close said he was just doing his due diligence in making senior levels of government and the public aware of the history of a problem of septic systems contaminating well water throughout the town as the town explores implementing a septic re-inspection program.”
Contrary to Close, there was and is no “history of a problem of septic systems contaminating well water throughout the town”. Mayor Close made it up. It was more false propaganda to support his sewers-at-Sauble agenda.

And now Mayor Close is at it again.

In the first phase of a TSBP septic inspections program, systems in the Northeastern part of the town were inspected. Results were in a report that was in the March 4, 2014 council agenda package.

On March 6, 2014 John Close was interviewed by an OSST reporter about the septic inspections report. Of the results, Close apparently said:

“[I am] surprised at the number of problematic systems found in the first year of South Bruce Peninsula’s septic re-inspection program. …..I would have thought in and around 10% [receiving grades of medium to high risk]. But 25%, that’s one in four. That’s our drinking water, that’s where we swim. It’s a concern to me.”
It wasn’t about Sauble this time, but still, once again, Mayor Close got it wrong.

Contrary to Close, there is no indication in the report of 25% “problematic” systems. Contrary to Close, there is no evidence from the report (or anywhere else) that 25% are medium to high risk of contaminating drinking water or “water where we swim”.

Genivar, who conducted the study, was supposed to determine the age of each system and use the information to decide which systems to inspect first. That made perfect sense. They improperly used a classification system of “low-risk”, “medium risk”, and “high risk”, based only on age, even though age is a virtually useless indicator of risk. But as long as the “low” “medium” “high” classifications were being used only for deciding which systems to inspect first, there wasn’t a problem.

But then someone, apparently Genivar, decided to use the risk classification system for a completely different purpose. They modified the system to make it look more scientific and then they assessed the level of “risk” of each system, not prior to inspection, as was planned, but rather after each septic system was inspected. But even with the new scientific appearance, the “low” “medium” “high” classification system is still bogus.

The bogus risk-classification system doesn’t mean the whole study was useless. Septic systems were inspected using a Ministry guideline, and remedial action letters were issued based not on risk classification, but rather on the inspection results. The inspections themselves, and the decisions to issue remedial letters, and the decisions on who will get repair orders, were all done completely separate from the bogus risk classification system. Except for the bogus risk classification system, the program is proper and necessary and useful, and should be continued.

The risk classification system adds nothing to our knowledge of risk. The classification system adds no useful decision making information at all. The risk classification results were not used for anything, except by John Close to muddy the waters.

And Mayor Close has muddied the waters, creating a huge misinformation problem. Close claims that 25% of systems were “medium to high risk” [of contamination] when in fact there is no evidence from the survey or the report or anywhere else to substantiate that such a claim is true.

Why is this a problem?

Because it presented an opportunity for John Close to get into the press once again supporting his agenda of getting a communal sewage system at Sauble.

I am all for a proper septic inspection program. But I don’t like John Close deliberately misrepresenting the program results just to grab a headline and to further his agenda of getting sewers at Sauble Beach.

When the Sauble systems are inspected and a report is issued in 2015 or 2016 look for John Close to go to the press in panic mode with more false propaganda something like this:

“I am surprised at the number of problematic systems found at Sauble. Twenty-five per cent of the septic systems are at medium to high risk. That’s one in four. That’s our drinking water, that’s where we swim. This is a grave concern. We must have communal sewers at Sauble before someone gets killed like at Walkerton!!”

The Sauble septic inspection results will be out January 2015 at the earliest. The Municipal election is October 27, 2014.

It is most fortunate for the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula that there is a very good and easy way to put an end to John Close’s false propaganda.

Craig

The main budget issue – free parking for tourists

The very controversial policy to have free parking for tourists at Sauble was passed December 3, 2013 by a 5 to 3 vote with Paul McKenzie, Janice Jackson, and Matt Standen unsuccessfully voting against the free parking proposal, and John Close, Jay Kirkland, Jim Turner, Marilyn Bowman, and Karen Klages voting for free parking for tourists. (Chris Thomas was absent).

The draft 2014 budget, which came up for vote and discussion January 21, 2014, included about $245,000 extra taxes to make up for the net revenue lost by going to free parking.

The irregularity/deception

Councillor Kirkland was absent January 21, 2014.  Councillors Jackson, Standen and Thomas signalled they would vote against the budget, largely because of the extra $245,000 taxes required to make up for the lost parking revenue.  Mayor Close and Councillors Turner, Klages, and Bowman, who apparently did not care that they were taking an extra $245,000 in taxes from the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, were keen to have free parking for tourists, and signalled they would be supporting the draft budget.

This effectively put the budget in Paul McKenzie’s hands.  If he voted for the budget it would pass.  If he voted against the budget it would be a tie vote, and the budget, and the extra $245,000 tax, would fail (all motions fail on a tie vote).  And staff would then have to go back and generate a new budget, without the extra $245,000 tax, and thus without free parking for tourists.

Councillor McKenzie faced a difficult dilemma.  He indicated he was dead set against  free parking for tourists and against the extra $245,000 taxes that would have to be collected from all TSBP residents to make up for the lost parking revenue, but he did not really want to bring the whole budget down.   So he asked whether he could vote for the budget and also bring the free parking resolution of December 3^rd back for reconsideration.

Clerk Cathrae responded to Councillor McKenzie’s question.  She told McKenzie and all of council that in the last version of the procedural by-law, the rule regarding reconsideration of a decided matter had been changed so as to allow any member, regardless of whether they were on the prevailing or losing side of the decision, at any time after the meeting where the matter was decided, to bring any decided matter back for “reconsideration”.  Paul McKenzie, confident he could bring the parking matter back, vote for the budget, and passed it.

But Clerk Cathrae had not answered Mr. McKenzie truthfully.

Clerk Cathrae had said the losing side could now bring a matter back after the meeting where the matter was decided.  That was false.  The rule regarding the losing side is that the losing side can never bring a decided matter back for reconsideration.  Not at the same meeting, not at a subsequent meeting, never.

And Clerk Cathrae also said that the rule had been changed to allow this.  That too was false.  The rule regarding the losing side has never changed.

Was the budget vote improper?

How could Ms. Cathrae, the clerk for several years now, have got it all so wrong?

Someone desperately wanted free parking for tourists, someone desperately wanted $245,000 extra taxes on the residents, and someone desperately wanted the bad budget passed.

If on January 21, 2014 the Clerk had answered Councillor McKenzie truthfully, by saying that the good councillor could not bring the parking decision back for reconsideration, (because it could only have been brought back in the December 3 meeting by the prevailing side, and because he had been on the losing side, and because the December 3 meeting had long passed), Councillor McKenzie would almost certainly have voted against the budget, and the budget would have failed, and staff would have had to come up with a new budget, without the extra $245,000 taxes, and without free parking for tourists.

In my opinion there is only one plausible explanation for Ms. Cathrae telling Councillor McKenzie that he could bring the parking decision back for reconsideration when in fact he couldn’t.  It appears to me that Ms. Cathrae wanted to deceived Councillor McKenzie into voting for and passing the budget.  And it appears to me that she did exactly that.

What’s wrong with deceiving a councillor?

 I am not saying that I know for sure that the deception of council member McKenzie in order to influence his vote was deliberate, but if it was, it is a very serious matter.

First of all, it cost the taxpayers at least $245,000, which is not good.

And it may have been criminal conduct.

This is condensed from the Canadian Criminal Code section 123. (2):

Influencing municipal official

123. (2) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who, by deceit or by any unlawful means influences or attempts to influence a member of council to vote in favour of or against a measure, motion or resolution.

Corrective Action Required

If the budget vote was really improperly influenced by deceipt, as I believe it was, Councillor McKenzie should be allowed to recast his January 21 vote, while keeping the votes of all others the same.  That would fail the budget, and fail the free parking.  And it would save the taxpayers $245,000.

And Clerk Cathrae should be sanctioned.

The great cover-up of the great deception

Paul McKenzie was deceived into passing the budget.  It seems that an elaborate dance was created to cover-up the deception.

Below the dance moves are documented.  If you can follow the moves, you will be able to judge for yourself whether the deception was deliberate or not.

What was said in the January 21, 2014 council, meeting is documented above.

The draft minutes of the January 21^st meeting were completely inconsistent with what was actually said in the meeting.  If you looked only at the draft minutes you would think that Cathrae had on January 21^st stated the reconsideration rule correctly.  Here is from the minutes:

Councillor Bowman  ….  asked what the procedure would be to reconsider the resolution to eliminate Paid Parking. She questioned whether bringing it back would require it to be brought forward by the prevailing side. The Clerk/CEMC explained that that would be the case for reconsideration in the same meeting. After the meeting has occurred, staff have taken action and as such, an alternate resolution would be required.

 (“An alternate resolution would be required” means that after the meeting the decided matter cannot be brought back for reconsideration, by either side.)

While according to the draft minutes it appeared that Ms. Cathrae had correctly stated the rule, in fact she had not.

It looked like a cover-up to me.

The exposé

 When the draft minutes of the January 21^st came up for approval in the February 4^th council meeting, Councillor Jackson indicated that the draft minutes had stuff included that was not said in the meeting, and had important stuff omitted that was said in the meeting, and so the minutes did not properly reflect the January 21^st discussion.  Ms.  Jackson was very polite in explaining the problem, but the message was still very clear.  To fix the minutes, Councillor Jackson proposed that these two sentences (which had never been said) be removed:

The Clerk/CEMC explained that that would be the case for reconsideration in the same meeting. After the meeting has occurred, staff have taken action and as such, an alternate resolution would be required.

In addition Councillor Jackson proposed that the following three new sentences, which in fact had been said, be added in place of the ones she insisted be removed.

The Clerk/CEMC explained that both sides can bring an issue back. Another Councillor asked when that was changed from being the just the prevailing side with the ability to bring an issue back. The Clerk/CEMC explained that Council made that change during the last update of our Procedural Bylaw.

Ms. Cathrae objected to the removal of her two contested draft minutes sentences, but grudgingly agreed with Councillor Jackson’s additional three sentences, and after a long discussion council decided to add Councillor Jackson’s three sentences but leave the Clerk’s two original sentences in.

No one seemed to notice that the minutes as agreed now said two opposite things.  The minutes now said not only that either side can bring back a decided matter for reconsideration at any time after the meeting where the matter was decided, but also that neither side can bring back a decided matter after the meeting where the matter was decided.

 The cover-up of the cover-up   

 It gets even more interesting.  After the February 4^th discussion, the January 21^st draft minutes were modified.  But they were not modified as council had agreed on February 4^th.  Contrary to the council agreement of February 4^th this sentence was removed from the draft minutes:

After the meeting has occurred, staff have taken action and as such, an alternate resolution would be required.

With this change, the inconsistency in the minutes was removed, and the cover-up was covered up.

The reversal

When Councillor Jackson pointed out to the clerk (or deputy) that the words “After the meeting has occurred, staff have taken action and as such, an alternate resolution would be required” had been removed contrary to the February 4th agreement, the clerk put the words back in, making the minutes say two opposite things again. And that’s how the minutes currently read on the town’s website.

 The audio recording

If there was such a controversy over what was actually said in the January 21^st meeting, then why, one might ask, didn’t someone just listen to the audio recording?

Because it turns out that by the strangest coincidence the audio recording of the January 21^st meeting got corrupted, and is inaudible, just at the point where all this discussion of the “reconsideration” rule took place.

The February 4^th discussion

Because there was so much confusion, the reconsideration rule was discussed again at length in the February 4th meeting, where Clerk Cathrae clearly said that: 1) in the same meeting where a matter is decided only the prevailing side can bring the decided matter back for reconsideration, but, 2) at any time after the meeting where the matter was decided either side can bring it back for reconsideration.  The first part is consistent with the procedural by-law. But the second part is absolutely contrary to the by-law.  The procedural by-law was not read or consulted at all in the February 4^th meeting.

In the February 4^th meeting Councillor Bowman summed up the discussion nicely:

08:58 on the audio tap: MB:  I was under the impression it was prevailing side only, so it’s been great that this has been brought forward.  Now we know that at the same meeting the prevailing side are the only ones that can bring it forward again, but the next meeting or any subsequent meeting thereafter, it can keep coming up and coming up and coming up, which is really too bad, but it can.

 The February 4^th draft minutes

The February 4^th draft minutes read:

Council discussed how an item can continue to come up at future meetings unless there is a resolution to close the item.

 The February 4^th draft minutes are correct, but the minutes do not capture very well the point made that after the meeting in which a matter is decided, either side can bring the matter back (over and over) for reconsideration.

The Jackson motion for reconsideration

In spite of some back-and-forth, everyone was repeatedly assured that the losing side could bring a decided matter back for reconsideration any time after the meeting in which the matter was decided.   So Councillor Jackson decided to make a motion, in the February 18^th meeting, to bring the free-parking-for-tourists matter that had been decided December 3, 2013 back for reconsideration.  It may have looked like a new matter, but it was not.  It was a motion to reconsider.

Mayor Close was absent, apparently holidaying in Cuba.   Jim Turner chaired.  It was anyone’s guess how the chair would handle Councillor Jackson’s motion.  Would he rule Councillor Jackson’s motion out of order because the written rule did not allow the losing side to bring a decided matter back?  Or would he allow Councillor Jackson’s motion because the Clerk had repeatedly assured everyone that the losing side could bring a decided matter back for reconsideration at any time?

No point-of-order was raised.  The chair allowed Councillor Jackson’s motion to be made, discussed, and voted.  The motion, which proposed reducing the daily rate from $15 to $10 and proposed a free pass for each taxpayer residence, was defeated on a tie vote.

Then they had a real problem

But this left a bit of a problem.  The oral rule (Councillor Jackson can bring it back) had been used in place of the proper written rule (Councillor Jackson can’t bring it back).  This set a bit of an awkward precedent.  It seemed to mean that Councillor Jackson (or anyone else) could keep bringing the parking matter that had been decided December 3, 2013 back for reconsideration, as many times as she wanted.  It seemed to mean that she could keep bringing it back every meeting until enough pro-free-parking councillors were absent and the pro-pay-parking councillors could get Councillor Jackson’s motion passed.

That of course would not be acceptable to the free-parking supporters.  And it could seriously cripple council.

So Clerk Cathrae proposed to change (her word is “clarify”) the rule again.

Clerk Cathrae’s final word – the rule change proposal of February 18th

The agenda of February 18^th contained the following proposed “clarification” to the reconsideration rule:

Reconsideration at a future meeting is not permitted. Any member wishing revisit a decision must put forward a notice of motion in the manner outlined in this by-law for Council discussion, consideration and  action. (bold added by Craig)

This is not really a clarification of the rule, as the rule was already clear.  It is in my view a signal that now that the deception and cover-up and cover-up of the cover-up have met their purpose, and are no longer necessary, and could in the future be a problem, we’re going back to the original written rule.

In the January 21^st and February 4^th meetings Clerk Cathrae made perfectly clear that the losing side could bring a decided matter back for reconsideration anytime after the meeting in which the matter was decided.  At the February 18^th meeting Councillor Jackson was allowed to bring a matter that had been decided December 3 back for reconsideration.  Twenty minutes after Councillor Jackson’s motion was defeated the rule was “clarified” to say that reconsideration at a future meeting is not permitted.

(The rule clarification still needs to be presented at a public meeting before council can vote on it.)

Summary – Sixteen times around the dance floor

The rule is 1) the prevailing side (and the prevailing side only ) can bring a decided matter back for reconsideration in the same meting in which it was decided, and 2) neither side can bring a decided mater back for reconsideration after the meeting in which it was decided.

Between January 21, 2014 and February 18, 2014 the rule appeared to go from the written rule (neitherside can bring a decided matter back for reconsideration after the meeting where the matter was decided), to either (Jan 21 draft minutes), to both either and neither (January 21 minutes second draft), to neither (January 21 third draft minutes), to both either and neither (January 21 minutes final), to either (February 4 discussion), then confirmed as either (February 4 draft minutes), then further confirmed as either (handling of Jackson February 18 motion), then finally “clarified” as neither (February 18 proposed “clarification” of the reconsideration rule).

Could someone please pass the Gravol?

Please log in to my blog at http://craiggammieblog.com to leave your comments.

Craig