Further issues raised by Councilor Saje’s letter, after having already spoken about the Agenda Committee and who (Bruce/Myron) controls council’s agenda.
Let’s talk about the G+P meeting of December 18, on the advertised agenda for that meeting was one issue posted In Camera, Personnel in the released minutes for that meeting was added a further In Camera issue Legal.
During that In Camera session according to Councilor Saje’s letter the issue of Public Relations came up and the hiring of Victor Tanti from Calder Bateman the argument was made later that council did not need to vote on this issue because it would be covered by the “advertising budget”.
If you accept the advertising budget argument is justified why would this “advertising” even be brought to council? Following that line of reasoning will other advertising that falls under the budget be brought forth In Camera as either a Personnel or Legal issue for council “opinion”.
Next can anybody tell us which category advertising would fall into Personnel, or Legal?
I agree with Councilor Saje if this was such a routine issue why not bring it up in a regular meeting?
I agree again with Councilor Saje especially after the number of consultants that have cashed a Municipality of Crowsnest Pass cheque over the last thirty months “hiring another consulting firm should not be routine”
Many more questions are created by the release of Councilor Saje’s letter.
Should the public be concerned about Council doing business in this fashion? Was this the only issue dealt with in this fashion? Why did Council feel the need to hire a Public Relations Consulting Firm? Is Councilor Saje’s letter a full accounting of all of his concerns? Are there more concerns?
Want to see your new Public Relations Consultant Victor Tanti check him out at the following address: