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:
