Contradictions and confusion highlights of the June 4 Council meeting.

Council meeting of June 4, 2013, Confusion, arrived at the meeting to see a representive of the Blairmore Smoke Eaters and two lawyers at the meeting. Next thing we know CAO Thompson is back and forth talking to these people who prior to the meeting starting leave. Mayor Decoux calls the meeting to order, asks CAO Thompson what that was all about. He informs council that he was off the previous week when communications between the office and the lawyers took place. The communications obviously did not work that well because the lawyers had the impression they could talk to council and the administration had the impression that they were not to talk to council. CAO Thompson stated he would clear it up and provide a formal apology if the mistake was on their end.

Contradictions, the new Economic Development Officer was introduced to council the Mayor stated “our team is now complete”, the new EDO is a lady named Sherry Poole. Bit of a contradiction on the same day that the administrative team grows by one and now becomes complete. The employees are informed that the municipality is contracting out road grading because they do not have enough operators working in Public Works to do it themselves. Mayor Decoux also announced there will soon be another wine and cheese event so the Chamber, Community Futures, Business leaders can meet the new EDO.    

Election news: Andrew Saje announced that he will, not be running in the up coming election. He also informed the public that he made a very lengthy submission in writing to the Municipal Inspector that he is having his lawyer summarize and will be realizing to the public in the not to distant future.

CAO Thompson also informed council that there will be more information coming about the hotel deal shortly.

Andrew Saje raising the issues-Public Relations

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:

http://www.calderbateman.com/staff/victor-tanti/

Trying to deflect attention away from the real issues.

I know some people are looking for me to get into a debate about how many administrators this council let go versus the last council. Or how many union jobs disappeared in the last three years versus the previous three plus the current status of labour relations between CUPE and the municipality all of those will be answered in due time. 

Now is the time to deal with the issues at hand, the Fire Master Plan and the release of a statement from a standing member of council that due process is not being followed,  that the Mayor and CAO are in complete control of the agenda, and that at least one councilor is very frustrated. 

Politics is all about timing and providing an article that says don't judge us on what we have done judge us on what we have done compared to other councils creates many questions. Yes your right previous councils were not perfect, but when I left council any councilor could add any issue they wished to the agenda. As long as it was supplied to administration the Wednesday prior to the meeting it was added to the agenda debated and voted on.   

The Fire Master Plan is up for vote tonight if you want to call your councilors it's not to late the numbers are listed below, which ever side of the issue you stand on here is your chance to speak your piece.

Bruce Decoux 562 7743

Larry Mitchell 562 8537

Jerry Londsbury 562 2405

Seigbert Gail 564 4465

Brian Gallant 562 7963

Emile Saindon 753 2403

Andrew Saje 563 8584

Comment posted by one of my readers that really says it all:

The real question raised by Mr. Andrew Saje is whether our councillors get proper presentations of differing opinions when they are faced with serious and important decisions. One of the most important and expensive decisions, which will have far reaching consequences, is the recent restructuring of the fire department. Initially, our council hired a consultant to work with our separate fire departments to bring about an amalgamation that was effective and cost efficient. Was a plan prepared and was this plan presented to our council as a whole and then voted down. Or, as it now appears, was this plan stopped at the two person “agenda committee.”? For all we know this plan was discussed at council and voted down by our duly elected councillors - or it was not. In politics, if things do not APPEAR right, questions are always raised. Taxpayers have a right to know if there was an alternative plan, or the initial spending on the first fire consultant did not fit with some other plans?