THE ISSUES - BRUSH DISPOSAL FEES
OVERVIEW
It used to be that taking a truckload of brush to the dump would cost $25. Then, someone (apparently, just one person) complained to the Mayor. After first approaching the Waste Management Committee for clarification, the Mayor then brought up the issue with Council (as new business - not originally on the published agenda) at an afternoon working session, which is generally not convenient for the public to attend. The result? They immediately eliminated all brush fees - and they broke a rule or two doing it. But when challenged, the official response was (paraphrasing ...) yes, we might have skipped a step or two, but it is our prerogative to break our own by-laws - they're not provincial or federal laws, so we're not really bound by them.
Whether or not you feel that all residents should be subsidizing those who dispose of brush at the dump (which is what the current arrangement amounts to), is almost irrelevant. Don't you think that Council ought to feel some obligation to follow its own rules - or at least be embarrassed and apologize when it gets caught skipping steps without good reason?
Whether or not you feel that all residents should be subsidizing those who dispose of brush at the dump (which is what the current arrangement amounts to), is almost irrelevant. Don't you think that Council ought to feel some obligation to follow its own rules - or at least be embarrassed and apologize when it gets caught skipping steps without good reason?
DETAILS
NOTE: This was topic #2 of 5 in a
comprehensive survey/petition which we circulated in the Fall of 2012.
If you're interested in reading the original background material for this topic (which we
circulated as part of the survey at the time), along with Council's
official written response (which they subsequently mailed out to the
300+ participants), we have a separate page dedicated just to that. A word of warning - there might be a lot of reading there, too.
[Click] to see the Background Info and Council's Official Response regarding Brush Disposal Fees.
Otherwise, if you trust us, you can skip that and just keep reading on, below.
Our "position statement" on the topic was as follows
[Click] to see the Background Info and Council's Official Response regarding Brush Disposal Fees.
Otherwise, if you trust us, you can skip that and just keep reading on, below.
Our "position statement" on the topic was as follows
I feel Council should immediately reverse its recent decision to eliminate the fees associated with disposing of truck loads of brush at the Waste Site. Fees should be reinstated at their previously established rate, or at a rate which recovers actual costs - which ever is the lesser.
As with all 5 topics, the results were extremely clear and compelling. 91.3% of residents agreed with our position to have brush disposal fees reinstated.
( click on the image to view a larger version )
Bear with us - there's a lot more to explain here than you might expect. It may seem like a straightforward issue on the surface, but it is one of the best all-encompassing examples of Council's total lack of integrity, credibility, and accountability. There are actually two aspects to this issue - the primary one is procedural, and the secondary one relates directly to Council's decision, itself. We'll deal with the procedural aspect first, since it is the more disturbing of the two.
A (single) resident complained to the Mayor about fees being charged for the disposal of brush at the Waste Site, and as a result, the Mayor brought those concerns to the attention of the Waste Management Committee. The Committee minutes for that meeting (August 8th, 2012) summarize what transpired quite effectively:
A (single) resident complained to the Mayor about fees being charged for the disposal of brush at the Waste Site, and as a result, the Mayor brought those concerns to the attention of the Waste Management Committee. The Committee minutes for that meeting (August 8th, 2012) summarize what transpired quite effectively:
The issue of fee rates for brush was brought to the committee for discussion. The committee agreed that because of the cost involved in grinding and landfilling that the fee needs to remain in effect.
So far, so good - all above board and perfectly acceptable.
We're told that the resident was apparently not satisfied with the answers provided by the committee, so the Mayor brought up the issue again. This time, it was under "new business" at a Working Session of Council for which an agenda was never published to the Township website (presumably, because the meeting was originally only intended to deal with a closed session matter?). It is also worthwhile to note that the meeting was held in the afternoon. All things considered, it is not reasonable to expect that any member of the public could/would have been present.
In the strictest sense (procedurally speaking), the Mayor did indeed have every right to request that the topic be discussed under new business ... and it was obviously Council's prerogative to agree to it. But it was ill-advised to have handled it that way.
Before we go much further, we should also point out that there are some subtle attendance issues involved in all of this, too. The only Councillors present at the August 8th, 2012 Waste Committee Meeting were Councillors Brayton and Johston - Councillor Prettejohn was absent. Then, at Council's September 17th, 2012 Working Session, Councillor Johnston was absent - leaving only Councillor Brayton (and the Mayor) who would have been familiar, first-hand, with the discussions of the Waste Management Committee. At Council's Working Session, Councillors Downey, Prettejohn, Renaud, and Smith would all have been hearing the issue for the first time. Since there was no public at that meeting of Council, we'll never know the true nature of the discussions which took place and whether or not the topic was examined as fully as it had been when the Waste Management Committee addressed it.
This is the point where "all above board and perfectly acceptable" no longer applies ...
You see, at that Working Session (September 17th, 2012), Council decided to eliminate the brush disposal fees altogether, effective immediately. Here is how it is described in their minutes:
We're told that the resident was apparently not satisfied with the answers provided by the committee, so the Mayor brought up the issue again. This time, it was under "new business" at a Working Session of Council for which an agenda was never published to the Township website (presumably, because the meeting was originally only intended to deal with a closed session matter?). It is also worthwhile to note that the meeting was held in the afternoon. All things considered, it is not reasonable to expect that any member of the public could/would have been present.
In the strictest sense (procedurally speaking), the Mayor did indeed have every right to request that the topic be discussed under new business ... and it was obviously Council's prerogative to agree to it. But it was ill-advised to have handled it that way.
Before we go much further, we should also point out that there are some subtle attendance issues involved in all of this, too. The only Councillors present at the August 8th, 2012 Waste Committee Meeting were Councillors Brayton and Johston - Councillor Prettejohn was absent. Then, at Council's September 17th, 2012 Working Session, Councillor Johnston was absent - leaving only Councillor Brayton (and the Mayor) who would have been familiar, first-hand, with the discussions of the Waste Management Committee. At Council's Working Session, Councillors Downey, Prettejohn, Renaud, and Smith would all have been hearing the issue for the first time. Since there was no public at that meeting of Council, we'll never know the true nature of the discussions which took place and whether or not the topic was examined as fully as it had been when the Waste Management Committee addressed it.
This is the point where "all above board and perfectly acceptable" no longer applies ...
You see, at that Working Session (September 17th, 2012), Council decided to eliminate the brush disposal fees altogether, effective immediately. Here is how it is described in their minutes:
Mayor Pickard requested discussion by Council on the disposal of residential brush at the Township’s landfill site. Staff was instructed to draft an update to By-law 02-17 to permit tires and residential brush into the landfill site. It was agreed that residential brush is to be accepted at the landfill site, free of charge, effective immediately.
Effective immediately? Can they do that? Isn't there some procedure to go through? Those are good questions. The fact is that a fundamental amendment to a by-law can normally only be carried out by an amending by-law - which itself requires first, second, and third readings, etc. This requirement was confirmed by both the Mayor and the Administrator-Clerk when they were asked about the specific procedures for amending a by-law. The question was posed, and the clarification given, during Public Question period of Council's September 24th, 2012 meeting.
After the Mayor and Administrator-Clerk had confirmed the procedural requirements, Council was sent an administrative letter of complaint asking those very things (and more). But rather than taking the opportunity to show some integrity by apologizing for Council's misstep, the official response was quite defiant and amounted to a textbook example of "spin doctoring". See for yourself - check out the link to the full letter of complaint, and the Township's full response, in the "Resources and Supporting Materials" section at the bottom of this page.
Here is one of the specific questions which was posed in the letter of complaint:
After the Mayor and Administrator-Clerk had confirmed the procedural requirements, Council was sent an administrative letter of complaint asking those very things (and more). But rather than taking the opportunity to show some integrity by apologizing for Council's misstep, the official response was quite defiant and amounted to a textbook example of "spin doctoring". See for yourself - check out the link to the full letter of complaint, and the Township's full response, in the "Resources and Supporting Materials" section at the bottom of this page.
Here is one of the specific questions which was posed in the letter of complaint:
Doesn’t a change of fee structure, of any kind, normally require at least a formal motion?
And here (in part) is how the Administrator-Clerk addressed that question in the Township's official written response:
Normally, a change to a by-law such as a fee structure change requires an amending by-law but Council is not bound to follow its by-laws. Council can choose not to enforce its own by-laws, and provide instruction thereto.
EK-COG Note: Emphasis shown above on the word "but" appeared in the official response.
Elsewhere in the Township's official written response, the Administrator-Clerk went on to say this:
When direction is given to staff on a subject which Council has authority over, a formal resolution is not always required. Further, the Township adopts a confirming by-law on a monthly basis which addresses this issue as follows:
1. The action of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitely at its meeting held on September 10, 2012, September 17, 2012 and September 24, 2012 in respect of each recommendation contained in the reports of the Committees and each motion and resolution passed and other action taken by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley at its meeting is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.
2. The Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley referred to in the preceding section hereof. (excerpt from By-law 12-51 adopted by Council on October 9, 2012)
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
So, if we combine those two responses and translate them into plain English, it comes out like this: there was a proper way to change the fees, but we're not obliged to do things properly - and besides, there's a slick little by-law maneuver we go through at the beginning of each month to wrap everything up in a nice bow and put us in the clear for anything we may not have done properly in the previous month ... so, it's all good.
Seriously? It is difficult to imagine that anyone would find that to be an acceptable answer.
After the initial letter of complaint, Council was given another opportunity to redeem itself when we presented our 5-part survey/petition - in which the reinstatement of brush fees was examined. Yet, once again, Council chose to remain entrenched and defiant ... despite overwhelming support to have the brush fess reinstated (91%+ of the 298 responses).
In their official response to our survey, Council pointed to a provision in the Waste Management By-law (02-17), which allows them the latitude to waive various fees as an exception. Here is the clause they quoted:
Seriously? It is difficult to imagine that anyone would find that to be an acceptable answer.
After the initial letter of complaint, Council was given another opportunity to redeem itself when we presented our 5-part survey/petition - in which the reinstatement of brush fees was examined. Yet, once again, Council chose to remain entrenched and defiant ... despite overwhelming support to have the brush fess reinstated (91%+ of the 298 responses).
In their official response to our survey, Council pointed to a provision in the Waste Management By-law (02-17), which allows them the latitude to waive various fees as an exception. Here is the clause they quoted:
6.2. Council may by resolution authorize the waiving or reduction of tipping ticket requirements, permits and permit fees or grant minor variances to provisions of this By-law for community groups, special activities and other circumstances where Council in its unfettered sole discretion deems that such actions are within the public interest and not contrary to the intent of this By-law.
First of all, there was no resolution passed at the Working Session. Also, it seems pretty clear to us that the above provision is intended for use in isolated cases - in other words, as exceptions, rather than as a fundamental change in policy. Our interpretation is indeed backed up by Council's own words, as their official response goes on to say the following::
This clause permits Council to make decisions about various exceptions during the course of business as issues arise, without the inherent delay of amending the by-law. It allows for some flexibility to the rules.
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
So, it seems that Council is indeed well aware that the provision is intended for exceptions ... not for fundamental changes in policy. Why, then, did Council try to use it as a justification for handling the elimination of brush fees the way it did? At first, it sounds pretty impressive and relevant, doesn't it. But once you cut through the chaff, all they really achieved was weakening their own position.
But it gets better. This is the very next statement contained in Council's official response:
But it gets better. This is the very next statement contained in Council's official response:
Also, as municipal by-laws are Council’s laws, it has the option to enforce or not enforce provisions of the by-laws.
Wow! The sheer audacity re-stating that position is incredible. Remember, this deflection first appeared in the Township's response to the initial letter of complaint. Clearly, it must be a prevailing attitude ... and with such a fundamentally compromised "corporate culture", how can Council claim to have any integrity?
In case you're missing the significance of what is being said in the above statement, here it is in plain English: by-laws are only our own rules, and since we were the ones to make the rules, we can go ahead and break them at our leisure.
So, since by-laws are essentially rendered worthless by that stance, why waste any time or effort enacting them in the first place? By the way, that slick little by-law maneuver they go through at the beginning of each month (aka. the confirmatory by-law) is only another one of Council's own by-laws - so its probably not worth much, either.
Does any of this sound like the behaviour of an open, transparent, and accountable Council? We didn't think so.
As for the decision, itself, to eliminate the brush fees ...
You could argue that Council is perfectly at liberty to make such a decision, and you'd be right. But good government is not about what you can do - it is about what you should do.
In 2012, Council and staff spent considerable effort reviewing all kinds of charges and fees; everything from swimming pool permits to applications for large solar farms. As a result, a number of fees were adjusted (upwards) to more closely reflect the actual costs incurred when providing the various services. And, for the past few years, Council has been crying the blues about extreme budget pressures from rising OPP costs, shrinking Provincial transfer payments, etc.
In the face of all that, how can Council justify the sudden elimination of the long-standing brush fees? How is it fair that all those residents who don't take brush to the dump must now, through their taxes, subsidize those who do? In the recent Asset Management Survey (which Council paid a consultant to oversee), the result clearly indicate that residents are in favour of "user pay", rather than raising taxes.
What's wrong with this whole picture?
In case you're missing the significance of what is being said in the above statement, here it is in plain English: by-laws are only our own rules, and since we were the ones to make the rules, we can go ahead and break them at our leisure.
So, since by-laws are essentially rendered worthless by that stance, why waste any time or effort enacting them in the first place? By the way, that slick little by-law maneuver they go through at the beginning of each month (aka. the confirmatory by-law) is only another one of Council's own by-laws - so its probably not worth much, either.
Does any of this sound like the behaviour of an open, transparent, and accountable Council? We didn't think so.
As for the decision, itself, to eliminate the brush fees ...
You could argue that Council is perfectly at liberty to make such a decision, and you'd be right. But good government is not about what you can do - it is about what you should do.
In 2012, Council and staff spent considerable effort reviewing all kinds of charges and fees; everything from swimming pool permits to applications for large solar farms. As a result, a number of fees were adjusted (upwards) to more closely reflect the actual costs incurred when providing the various services. And, for the past few years, Council has been crying the blues about extreme budget pressures from rising OPP costs, shrinking Provincial transfer payments, etc.
In the face of all that, how can Council justify the sudden elimination of the long-standing brush fees? How is it fair that all those residents who don't take brush to the dump must now, through their taxes, subsidize those who do? In the recent Asset Management Survey (which Council paid a consultant to oversee), the result clearly indicate that residents are in favour of "user pay", rather than raising taxes.
What's wrong with this whole picture?
RESOURCES and SUPPORTING MATERIALS
Under construction. We are busy preparing
additional substantiating resources (documents, newspaper articles, etc.) to
publish in this section. Please check back in a little while, or link
up with our Facebook page to be notified of updates.
[Click] - Minutes of Waste Management Committee's August 8th, 2012 meeting. These minutes reflect the discussion the committee had with regards to charging for the disposal of brush at the waste site. Pay attention to who was in attendance - particularly, Councillors.
[Click] - Minutes of Council's September 17th, 2012 meeting. These minutes show the conducting of a Working Session in the afternoon, where the original meeting agenda only included a single item - a closed session. Again, pay attention to who was in attendance - particularly, Councillors.
[Click] - Minutes of Council's September 24th, 2012 meeting. These minutes show the inquiry regarding the way in which by-laws are amended (see page 3).
(will be added soon) - Letter of Complaint sent to Council, raising serious procedural concerns with respect to the way Council suddenly eliminated brush disposal fees.
(will be added soon) - Township's Official Response to the Letter of Complaint.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article on the lead-up to the presentation of our survey/petition to Council.
Note: Our petition lead-up also got coverage on CKWS TV's evening news - but the online video clip is no longer available on their website, so we are no longer able to link to it.
[Click] - Background Info Package which was provided to anyone who participated in our survey/petition.
[Click] - Sample Survey/Petition Sheet.
[Click] - Survey Guide outlining the design details and methodologies used in the survey/petition to ensure that it was accurate, meaningful, and statistically representative of the entire population.
[Click] - Presentation/Speech. The "script" which EK-COG's spokesperson, Brant Burrow, used when we were recognized as a delegation at Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting, in order to present Council with our survey/petition results.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article covering Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting at which we presented the compelling results of our survey/petition.
(will be added soon) - Township's Full/Official Response to the Survey/Petition.
Stay tuned ... more materials to come.
[Click] - Minutes of Waste Management Committee's August 8th, 2012 meeting. These minutes reflect the discussion the committee had with regards to charging for the disposal of brush at the waste site. Pay attention to who was in attendance - particularly, Councillors.
[Click] - Minutes of Council's September 17th, 2012 meeting. These minutes show the conducting of a Working Session in the afternoon, where the original meeting agenda only included a single item - a closed session. Again, pay attention to who was in attendance - particularly, Councillors.
[Click] - Minutes of Council's September 24th, 2012 meeting. These minutes show the inquiry regarding the way in which by-laws are amended (see page 3).
(will be added soon) - Letter of Complaint sent to Council, raising serious procedural concerns with respect to the way Council suddenly eliminated brush disposal fees.
(will be added soon) - Township's Official Response to the Letter of Complaint.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article on the lead-up to the presentation of our survey/petition to Council.
Note: Our petition lead-up also got coverage on CKWS TV's evening news - but the online video clip is no longer available on their website, so we are no longer able to link to it.
[Click] - Background Info Package which was provided to anyone who participated in our survey/petition.
[Click] - Sample Survey/Petition Sheet.
[Click] - Survey Guide outlining the design details and methodologies used in the survey/petition to ensure that it was accurate, meaningful, and statistically representative of the entire population.
[Click] - Presentation/Speech. The "script" which EK-COG's spokesperson, Brant Burrow, used when we were recognized as a delegation at Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting, in order to present Council with our survey/petition results.
[Click] - Recorder & Times article covering Council's November 26th, 2012 meeting at which we presented the compelling results of our survey/petition.
(will be added soon) - Township's Full/Official Response to the Survey/Petition.
Stay tuned ... more materials to come.
PLEASE ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS
The clearest, most effective message you can send to Council, is to attend their meetings. So long as the public gallery is empty, they will get the impression that no one cares.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.