STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY
It seems that Council is reluctant to ask Staff the tough questions, and to put their foot down. Don't believe us? In this section, we spell it out in black and white.
[Click] for more details. (under construction)
[Click] for more details. (under construction)
COUNCIL'S VINDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR
In the summer of 2013, there was a claim made by a long-time public works employee, against the Mayor and another staff member. As one Councillor put it, "it came from the waste site" (the dump). That incident cost more than $12,000 in legal fees, and after it was over, Council passed a motion barring staff and members of the Waste Management Committee from attending training or conferences in 2013. (See Cover-Ups - Manipulating The Minutes, below, for more about that.)
Now, the operation of the dump has apparently been "restructured" to require only one full-time staff member - the other employee no longer works for the Township. Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.
[Click] for more details.
Now, the operation of the dump has apparently been "restructured" to require only one full-time staff member - the other employee no longer works for the Township. Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.
[Click] for more details.
COVER-UPS - CLOSED MEETING INVESTIGATION
Contrary
to the opinion expressed by several candidates at the 2014 Council
Candidates Debate, "no complaints" does not necessarily equate
to "no problems".
Although we had been refraining from submitting closed meeting complaints for some time, out of consideration for costs, revelations which came to light in the days following the debate have compelled us to move forward with at least one request for an investigation.
In the summer of 2013, we had sent Council a letter asking some tough questions about the handing of a particular issue. We were very careful to omit any references to any names or even gender - specifically to eliminate any possible concerns about privacy. We explicitly requested the letter to be received as part of the public record (in the same way other letters have been).
What was Council's response? We received a letter from their lawyer, telling us that there had been no wrong-doing and that our letter would not be received in public forum. Council never even acknowledge the lawyer's letter in public. What do you suppose they were afraid of?
[Click] for more details.
Although we had been refraining from submitting closed meeting complaints for some time, out of consideration for costs, revelations which came to light in the days following the debate have compelled us to move forward with at least one request for an investigation.
In the summer of 2013, we had sent Council a letter asking some tough questions about the handing of a particular issue. We were very careful to omit any references to any names or even gender - specifically to eliminate any possible concerns about privacy. We explicitly requested the letter to be received as part of the public record (in the same way other letters have been).
What was Council's response? We received a letter from their lawyer, telling us that there had been no wrong-doing and that our letter would not be received in public forum. Council never even acknowledge the lawyer's letter in public. What do you suppose they were afraid of?
[Click] for more details.
COVER-UPS - MANIPULATING THE MINUTES
In a related matter - Council's official minutes for its September 23rd, 2013 meeting include the recording of a particular motion as follows: "On a verbal motion, moved by E. Brayton, seconded by D. Downey, Council directed that no staff or member of the Waste Management Committee will attend a conference in 2013."
But that's not true - there is a significant piece of the real motion missing (because it really wouldn't look good). Several letters have been written to Council as a whole, and to each member individually, pointing out the omission and requesting that the minutes be corrected to reflect what was actually voted on at the meeting.
There have been no responses, and nothing has been done to correct the minutes. But we're not finished with this yet.
Check back, as we will soon have a page dedicated to this cover-up example - complete with audio of the meeting(s).
But that's not true - there is a significant piece of the real motion missing (because it really wouldn't look good). Several letters have been written to Council as a whole, and to each member individually, pointing out the omission and requesting that the minutes be corrected to reflect what was actually voted on at the meeting.
There have been no responses, and nothing has been done to correct the minutes. But we're not finished with this yet.
Check back, as we will soon have a page dedicated to this cover-up example - complete with audio of the meeting(s).
THE DUMP
For a while, it looked like the dump might be sold off. Then, when pressed for an answer, the Mayor first said (in one breath) that it was not for sale - and then (in the next breath) he backpedalled and left the door open. After that, things seemed to settle down for a while. Budget time came around, and the prospect of selling it was back on the table again for consideration. It was one of the options included in a staff report, and it caught the favourable attention of at least one Councillor.
In a subsequent report, staff recommended that the dump should be mothballed and turned into a transfer station, instead - supposedly to save money. But there must be another reason, because the numbers don't add up.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; a few supporting documents still pending)
In a subsequent report, staff recommended that the dump should be mothballed and turned into a transfer station, instead - supposedly to save money. But there must be another reason, because the numbers don't add up.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; a few supporting documents still pending)
DISMANTLING PUBLIC COMMITTEES
Ever since the (now-defunct) Finance Committee was formed in 2012, consisting only of Council members and supported by staff, the majority of the Township's public committees have been a target for elimination. The public committees would be replaced by a Committee of the Whole system - a committee consisting only of Council members (no voting members of the public). The official line has always been about saving costs.
But the truth is, eliminating most of the existing committees would only save about 0.25% in taxes (less than $10,000, total). When you consider the hours of work done by these committees, and the public voice that they bring to the table (with an actual vote), one quarter of one percent seems like extremely good value.
Do you suppose this is more about control, and the inconvenience of active public participation, than it is about money?
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; one supporting document still pending)
But the truth is, eliminating most of the existing committees would only save about 0.25% in taxes (less than $10,000, total). When you consider the hours of work done by these committees, and the public voice that they bring to the table (with an actual vote), one quarter of one percent seems like extremely good value.
Do you suppose this is more about control, and the inconvenience of active public participation, than it is about money?
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; one supporting document still pending)
BRUSH DISPOSAL FEES
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?
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; a few supporting documents still pending)
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?
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; a few supporting documents still pending)
CURBSIDE GARBAGE (and RECYCLING) PICKUP
When it was suggested to Council that a Township-wide curbside pickup program could likely be put in place for around $6/mth ($72/yr), one Councillor responded with a very closed-minded phrase - "in your dreams". Council was subsequently shown a detailed plan backing up the claim of a $72/yr service, and it has steadfastly ignored it ever since. Instead, whenever the topic of curbside pickup is brought up, Councillors cite outdated (and so far, unsubstantiated) information claiming that it would cost more than $300/yr per house, and that no one wants it. Frankly, neither of those claims passes the sniff test.
Staff have stated that the existing system is the most economical one, and therefore, best for the residents. That system works as follows: all residents in the north end (formerly Kitley) pay a $103/yr levy for Township-organized curbside pickup, and residents in the south end (formerly Elizabethtown, comprising 75% of the population) are simply left to make their own arrangements - either "self serve" at the dump, or calling a private contractor. Council won't even bother to pose the question to the south end. Instead, Councillors continue to claim that they know what the people want.
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye - there are actually some significant budget/tax implications, too.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - several details available, but not yet complete)
Staff have stated that the existing system is the most economical one, and therefore, best for the residents. That system works as follows: all residents in the north end (formerly Kitley) pay a $103/yr levy for Township-organized curbside pickup, and residents in the south end (formerly Elizabethtown, comprising 75% of the population) are simply left to make their own arrangements - either "self serve" at the dump, or calling a private contractor. Council won't even bother to pose the question to the south end. Instead, Councillors continue to claim that they know what the people want.
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye - there are actually some significant budget/tax implications, too.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - several details available, but not yet complete)
RECYCLING CONTRACTS
In January 2012, the Chair of Waste Management Committee presented Council with a cost-saving proposal involving the re-jigging of some recycling contracts. It would have meant spending some money to buy our own containers (the big bins at the waste site), instead of relying on the ones being provided by the current contractor - and it would have meant (legally) opting out of some existing contracts. By now, the new bins would have been paid for, and we would have been saving thousands and thousands of dollars in transportation and processing fees - year after year.
Instead, Council did nothing - and when questioned (by way of the survey/petition), they played with semantics and tried to make the Waste Management Committee the scapegoat. Nice try, Council, but it doesn't wash.
In the spring of this year (2014), Council basically took over the Waste Management Committee and folded it into a Committee of the Whole (something they have been itching to do for some time - if you're not already familiar with that topic, [click] for more details). Shortly after the take-over, staff prepared a new report to Council which regurgitated many of the same concepts that the previous Waste Management Committee had already advocated long ago. All of a sudden, since these are now recommendations coming from staff, Council is showing its true hypocritical colours and jumping on board with the plan.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - several details available, but not yet complete)
Instead, Council did nothing - and when questioned (by way of the survey/petition), they played with semantics and tried to make the Waste Management Committee the scapegoat. Nice try, Council, but it doesn't wash.
In the spring of this year (2014), Council basically took over the Waste Management Committee and folded it into a Committee of the Whole (something they have been itching to do for some time - if you're not already familiar with that topic, [click] for more details). Shortly after the take-over, staff prepared a new report to Council which regurgitated many of the same concepts that the previous Waste Management Committee had already advocated long ago. All of a sudden, since these are now recommendations coming from staff, Council is showing its true hypocritical colours and jumping on board with the plan.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - several details available, but not yet complete)
OMBUDSMAN
In order to hold a closed meeting, Council is required to follow a certain procedure, including providing public notice of the meeting. There are other requirements as well, and if any of these are not followed, the public has the right to request the closed meeting to be investigated.
By default, the system is set up for investigations to be handled by the provincial Ombudsman, at no additional charge to the Township. That is very significant, because it removes the barrier of cost from the process. Unfortunately, the Municipal Act also allows Councils to select someone else to handle any of their investigations - but those services cost money. Any reasonable taxpayer would likely be reluctant to cause their own Township more expense by requesting an investigation.
In tough financial times, you would think most Councils would elect to leave well enough alone, and stick with the "free" (provincially-provided) service. But not our Council. They have selected a third party called LAS - Local Authority Services - at a cost of $330/yr for a retainer, plus $225/hr for any actual investigations (which take about 18 hours each, on average - or roughly $4,000 apiece). LAS is a subsidiary of AMO - Association of Municipalities of Ontario. You can think of AMO as a sort of "union" for municipalities. Get the picture?
Council claims that the provincial Ombudsman is too "sensational" for their liking, and they've tried to justify their choice with all kinds of numbers and statistics. Ironically, those very statistics cancel out their own argument.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; a few supporting details still pending)
By default, the system is set up for investigations to be handled by the provincial Ombudsman, at no additional charge to the Township. That is very significant, because it removes the barrier of cost from the process. Unfortunately, the Municipal Act also allows Councils to select someone else to handle any of their investigations - but those services cost money. Any reasonable taxpayer would likely be reluctant to cause their own Township more expense by requesting an investigation.
In tough financial times, you would think most Councils would elect to leave well enough alone, and stick with the "free" (provincially-provided) service. But not our Council. They have selected a third party called LAS - Local Authority Services - at a cost of $330/yr for a retainer, plus $225/hr for any actual investigations (which take about 18 hours each, on average - or roughly $4,000 apiece). LAS is a subsidiary of AMO - Association of Municipalities of Ontario. You can think of AMO as a sort of "union" for municipalities. Get the picture?
Council claims that the provincial Ombudsman is too "sensational" for their liking, and they've tried to justify their choice with all kinds of numbers and statistics. Ironically, those very statistics cancel out their own argument.
[Click] for more details. (under construction - nearly completed; a few supporting details still pending)
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.