Dear Concerned Citizens,
The Council Meeting Agenda for January 11, 2013 had some very positive elements and some very disconcerting elements.
POSITIVE ELEMENTS
· Item 11 H(i) Resolution re: Proposed Changes to Procedural By-law – some clarification and efficiency changes seem good.
· Item 11 H(i) Section 9(1) (b) if our interpretation is correct, questions from the Public re items on a Council Agenda will be addressed in open forum at the respective Council meeting. This may reduce the need for Question Period which is being eliminated.
· Section 12 – re censuring, seems positive but so far the censuring of the Mayor doesn’t seem to have had any impact. Tomlinson still shoots his mouth, talks publicly of firing the previous CAO, and Council does nothing.
· Section 14 – New provision to read “A Mayor's/Chair's objective role means he or she does not participate in the debate.” Again, a noble gesture but given council’s failure to follow through on the Mayor’s censure-ship and no reprimand for the Mayor’s disgraceful/disrespectful interview in the Almaguin News January 3rd, don’t count on this rule being adhered too.
· Section 20 - General (10) “The Mayor shall call a semi-annual public meeting….” This should be strengthened with a program description, e.g. Report from Council, and time-frame built into the By-Law, e.g. May long weekend, Labour Day long weekend.
· (iii) Resolution re: “Clerk Administrator Performance Evaluation Process” Why single out the Clerk Administrator? Shouldn’t a Performance Evaluation Process be introduced for all staff, possible one for management and a different one for non-management. Whatever council does, the Mayor needs to be kept out of it. His track record warrants as much separation between the Mayor and Staff including all confidential information. Tomlinson can’t keep his mouth shut, too busy being a big shot.
· Councillor Wills re (ix) “…creating a “Council Newsletter” Excellent idea and long overdue. We have had nothing from the Mayor in 2 years re direction and objectives for the Town and according to his interview of January 3rd, he is still trying to figure things out.
· 12. Correspondence – Reminder to Council – Please review Council Information document for matters of interest to be brought to the next Council meeting.” This, of course, is directed to Councillor Dingwall who shows up at meetings consistently ignorant of what’s going on. Or is it just apathy? Putting this message on the Agenda serves little purpose because Dingwall won’t have seen it. However, we know Councillor Dingwall is an avid reader of the Blog so, as a public service, I'm repeating the message here. OK Barry?
DISCONCERTING ELEMENTS
· Item 9(4)(5) Eliminates “Question Period”. Some tough questions have come before this Council that were not on the Meeting Agenda, such as depletion of Reserves, huge deficit discovered in March 2012 ($600,000), make work projects for the high cost CBO, e.g. illegal septic inspection program, passing minor variances and waiving fees for the Proudfoot Campaign Manager while ignoring neighbouring property environmental concerns, etc., etc. If it is not an Agenda item, this appears to be another opportunity to hide what council is doing, especially from the seasonal folks.
· Item 10 (b)(1) & (2) – Question Period (b) “...questions and answers will be shared with the rest of Council and the public without debate or discussion”. This appears to usurp council’s authority by restricting members of council from participating in the decision-making of a final position (on a possibly controversial item), being taken by the Town. This appears to violate the Municipal Act and the democratic process of council.
· Question Period (c) - once again “…without debate” seems to usurp Council's role and authority. More "Proudfoot Democracy".
· Section 12 – censuring seems to be a very hollow act considering the Mayor has been censured with little effect. He still shoots his mouth off, talks publicly in the press about confidential staff issues, and he seems to have reverted to his attitude of much "ado about nothing", and no remorse. Council has had an opportunity to put some teeth in the “censuring” authority by appointing an Integrity Commissioner. Why Council is not doing this raises the question of how sincere this Council is in cleaning up the Mayor’s act.
· New Section 3 CONDUCT TO BE OBSERVED. We don’t understand what that means but it seems to be somewhat restrictive and bureaucratic. What problem is being addressed here?
· AND MOST DISCONCERTING – Item 11 (ix) “…establish an Advisory Committee to prepare a recommendation for Council 2013 concerning the size and composition of Council”. This is an euphemism for reducing the size of council from 7 to 5.This is a Jim Skelton/Proudfoot Property Owners Association (PTPOA/SLAPOA)/Grass & Loon Lake Residents Group (GLLRG) initiative which was part of dissolving the Wards System and placing Proudfoot Associations in a majority position at the council table? How’s that working out? With all the power in one corner of the town, favouring one segment of the community while beating up on the rest with punitive by-laws, phony septic inspections, no winter clearing of public sidewalks, no Lions Park pavilion, and now destroying the financial health of the Town? Jim Skelton/SLAPOA/GLLRG are not satisfied with mere control, they want to decimate any representation from the rest of Kearney, kill economic growth, drive the Town of Kearney into Third World status, and perpetuate divisive tactics for the unsuspecting seasonal folks. DON’T LET IT HAPPEN, AT EVERYONE’S PERIL!!
· Reducing Council from 7 to 5 - Kearney’s image with the rest of the world is abysmal. Negativity, divisiveness, corruption, financial mismanagement, bullying and harassment of staff, censuring of the Mayor, council request for Mayor’s resignation, the Mayor’s tongue displayed in households across the country (what is he, 12 years old?). Reduce council to 5 and that will be the final nail in the town’s coffin. There will be a fight, probably the nastiest thing the town has ever seen, and the end result, regardless of the outcome, will be cataclysmic!!
· Reducing Council from 7 to 5 - Kearney’s Regatta, has been reduced to a minor event at best, and for 2013, a Kearney Regatta is still up in the air. This council has no will to ensure a Regatta, nor to remove all of the restrictions the Mayor placed on the 2012 Regatta. Councillor Wills has had enough and we applaud her supreme efforts, in spite of Mayoral interference, restrictions, bullying, and harassment. I notice that the Proudfoot Regatta proceeds uninhibited year after year...
· The real consideration for council is to bring back the Ward System. Thanks to Barry Dingwall and Steve Sainsbury, the Town of Kearney has experienced ½ term without a Ward System, and all the power residing in one corner of the Town. All for the good of everyone, right boys? Over the past 2 years the Proudfoot-controlled council has virtually decimated the town of Kearney in all aspects. It hasn’t worked, we have been violated, and our town is in tatters. Bring back the Ward System. Hold a referendum and let the people, all people, of Kearney speak. And keep the Proudfoot Associations out of the debate!!!
Thanks!
(Please don't publish my name or email.)
No comments:
Post a Comment