June 23, 2004
Mayor M. McIver
Members of Council
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
| Cc. |
1. |
C.A.O., C. Robins |
|
2. |
The Bruce Peninsula Press |
|
3. |
The Northern Bruce Peninsula Property Owners’ Coalition |
I apologize that it has taken so long to reply to the letter C.A.O., C. Robins, sent me dated March
12, 2004, but was only recently able to talk to our Secretary Reg Fortune and ascertain what
exactly took place during his conversation with her the last week of February. Also, as you are
aware, the executive of our Association was tied up discussing other business during the latter half
of April.
First, let me apologize in advance if I ruffle any feathers in the following letter/response, but I have
never been considered a diplomat or politician, and believe in speaking my mind when dealing
with serious issues. The following issues are considered to be of the utmost seriousness by our
Association.
Our first concern is in the opening paragraph of C.A.O. Robins’ letter. She states the reason for
sending the answer to myself is, our Secretary had requested the answer be sent to me because
he had resigned his position with our Association out of frustration in dealing with the delays in
receiving answers from Council. First, our Association's Secretary’s resignation is not effective
until our General Membership Meeting in July; he is still the Secretary of our Association until then.
I’m sorry, but the reason why he is resigning is not a concern of the C.A.O.. He may have outlined
them to her
as an example of the frustration we are feeling in dealing with the Council and
Administration, but it is not the Administration’s responsibility to get involved in our Association’s
internal affairs. It would have sufficed for the C.A.O. to send the letter to me with the simple
statement that our Secretary had requested her to.
The second concern deals with the matter of communication between the Ratepayer Groups
and/or Associations and Council and the Administration. In the letter to us, the C.A.O. states,
Council recognizes the local Ratepayer Groups do have a mandate within the community. The
C.A.O. goes on to say, the Administration is giving some thought to the most effective way to
address concerns raised by the groups, but, whatever that method is, it has to be effective and
efficient from the Council’s and Administration’s perspective.The C.A.O. goes further by stating
there are now seventeen Ratepayer Groups in the Municipality of Northern Bruce, and it has
become apparent that Ratepayer Groups do not necessarily represent the opinions of all
ratepayers in a particular area. This brings two things to mind. First, the wide proliferation of
Ratepayer Groups and Associations in the Municipality would normally indicate, to an analytical
person, there is a problem and a great number of the residents of the Municipality feel
disenfranchised by the present set up of Council and/or the method of electing it. Second, the
feeling of many, there is not an adequate flow of information to the electorate. I would like to point
out, the C.A.O.’s statement about the Groups not reflecting the views of
all ratepayers, illustrates
the problem and shows a disconnect with the situation, considering that
all Council Members,
except the Mayor who was acclaimed, were elected by less than fifty percent of the eligible voters,
therefore, do not represent the opinion of
all ratepayers themselves. Furthermore, the C.A.O. and
Administration do not represent anyone’s views, but are
employees of the Municipality and should
only be responding to issues raised with Council, as Council directs them to and should indicate
such in their response.
The third area of concern also deals with the issue of communications with the Ratepayer
Associations. The C.A.O. states, in answer to a concern we raised in our letter, about our issues
with Council, such as the length of time it took to answer our September 2003 letter (approximately
2 months), that we are free to address memos to Council relating to specific issues and wait for
a response. As a matter of clarification, the C.A.O. stated, the answer to our first letter by the
Clerk was copied to Council.
That letter was specifically written to Council and copied to the
Municipality and should have been answered by Council, or the Clerk at the direction of Council,
and should have stated that.
Not by the Clerk and copied to Council unless this Council is
prepared to abrogate its responsibility of dealing with the Ratepayer Groups and/or Associations
to the Administration.
It is interesting to note, this and the previous Council make a habit of receiving letters with specific
requests, as this one contained, for information purposes only at Council meetings, instead of
treating them as requests for decisions by our elected representatives. This allows the members
of Council to duck out of taking a stand on issues raised that they may be held responsible for
come the next election. What our Association would like to forcefully suggest is, any
communication from a Ratepayer’s Group and/or Association requesting an action or decision, be
taken by Council, be addressed by Council at the next Full Council meeting and answered by
either the Council or the Administration, at the direction of Council, clearly stating such, at least
two weeks
prior to the next Full Council meeting thus allowing said Ratepayer’s Group and/or
Association time to prepare a presentation and rebut the decision at the next meeting, if they feel
it is required.
As to the matter of communications with the public by the Administration and the matter the Mayor
took great offence to, over our comments concerning the last budget.
First, in the answer to our letter, the C.A.O. states, she feels, in her opinion, the Municipality is
making great efforts to communicate with the public, i.e.: the Municipal Web Site posts the Council
Meeting Agendas and the Minutes of Council Meetings. The Minutes are also printed in the Bruce
Peninsula Press where there is also The Northern Bruce Notice Board, and, of course, the
information is always available at the Municipal Offices. These are the same answers that were
trotted out by one of the candidates running for re-election at the all candidates meeting in Lion’s
Head last fall. We will answer with the same comments that were made at that time. One - a great
part of the population of the Municipality is made up of seniors who do not have computers, the
disposable income available to purchase them, or the inclination to use them. Also, there have
been many times where the Web Site has been as much as two months out of date. Two - the
Bruce Peninsula Press does the best job they can, but with their printing schedule, especially
during the winter months, the minutes have on occasion also been as much as two to three
months out of date. Three - does it really make sense to expect pensioners and others, who take
an active interest in how the Municipality is being run, to travel the roads of the Peninsula during
the winter months, to get current up to date information? If this administration were serious about
communicating with the electorate, it would be quite easy to do. At the present time, the schedule
of Council Meetings and Committee of the Whole Meetings, is posted on the bulletin boards at all
post offices in the township. As someone is already making the trip, why not have him or her post
the Minutes and Agendas at the same time. Problem solved.
As to the subject, according to the quotes in the press, that the Mayor was so upset over our
comments to the budget and the near secrecy with which this Administration operates the
Municipality. We find it astounding that in this day and age, any Administration would restrict the
ability of the electorate to participate in the operation of its Municipality by holding back information
to the last minute the way it is done in the Northern Bruce. If it is not an actual violation of the
Municipal Act, it should be. It's as near as “damn it” is to swearing.
The Budget itself was a prime example. Now we may be in error, and if so we apologize, but,
when and where were the Public Meetings advertised and held, where the Department Heads
presented, to the Budget Committee, their department’s estimates for the coming year and
discussed them in a public forum to validated their inclusion into the Budget? No member of our
Executive can remember them being advertised to the Public. To make matters worse, the Budget
documents for the year 2004 were supposed to be available on April 19, only two days prior to the
meeting scheduled for the first public discussion, and just one week before the Council was to
meet to pass the Budget on April 26, 2004. I hate to be facetious, but wow, a whole week to
understand a document with 18 pages of information and then, only the line items with no details.
To make it even worse, when one of our Association's members contacted the Municipal Office
on the morning of the 19th of April to ask them to hold a copy for us to be picked up later that day
for our perusal, he was informed, it would not be available till the day of the first public meeting
which was the 21st. In other words, the first look the Public got at
a major document and piece
of legislation that affects every member of our Association and
all taxpayers of the Municipality,
was a mere five days before it was due to be voted on, and, why weren't these meetings held in
the evening to make it easier for taxpayers to attend without having to take time off work. Even
one of the Councilors mentioned to the press, “Council got the Budget on very short notice”. So,
if we were in error in any of the comments we made in our presentation on the Budget, the Mayor
and bureaucrats of the Municipality have no one to thank but themselves.
Another example, to support our contention, is the manner in which By-laws are formulated in the
Municipality. The public’s ability to understand and comment on them is tightly controlled by the
Administration’s manipulation of the availability of information. We admit that most By-laws are
of a housekeeping nature and are not a concern. But, does the Administration really think that
by publishing in The Northern Bruce Notice Board, a proposed By-law will be passed at a
particular Council Meeting, constitutes the necessary flow of information to the electorate when
they withhold access to the actual written By-law till the Friday prior to the Meeting where they are
passed, usually with
all three readings and votes taking place at the same meeting? This allows
for no study or discussion by the Ratepayer Groups and/or Associations and their members on
matters that may concern them, or amongst the general electorate as a whole, and there is no
rational reason for it. Now we will admit, in rare emergency circumstances, this short time frame
may be required, but under normal circumstances, all proposed By-laws should be published and
available to the public at least thirty days prior to them being presented to Council for adoption.
If the Administration states that this is not possible, then it shows a complete lack of planning and
foresight on their part, or heaven forbid, a deliberate attempt to restrict public participation, input,
and possible organized dissent.
To paraphrase one of the statements in our presentation to Council on the 2004 Budget,
the
public’s business has to be seen and done in full public view with the participation of all
interested parties if democracy is to be truly upheld. I hope we do not have to wait
another
two months for an answer
from Council to this letter as I will be writing again in a few days about
a couple of new issues. We will try to get the answers from Council, this time, to the issues we
wrote about last September that still have not been answered to our satisfaction.
Thank You,
Nigel H. Allwood
President, Stokes Bay Ratepayers Association
160 Tamarac Rd.
PO Box 34
Stokes Bay, ON
N0H 2M0