Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "He Is No Machiavellian Prince":
Please try and get your numbers accurate:
sucks up about half a million and growing
************************
In 2010 it was $343,000.plus $147,000 for maintenance and utilities, It was not a full year The payment was for that part of the year the facility was occupied. A matching grant was paid for a $50,000 donation
No rent was paid. .
Also the residue of the budget for the renovation , furnishings and equipment were turned over to the board in an amount in excess of $300.000.
T he agreement calls for 3% increase. annually. The payment for 2011 was $347,000. Plus cost for maintenance and utilities which would also have increased to more than $147,000.
Still no rent paid.
In 2012, the 3% increase brought the payment to $356,000.. Plus the cost of maintenance and utilities again incrementally more.
Still no rent being paid.
I understand in 2011, $15,000 was raised in "charitable" drives and that was matched by the town..
In last year's report, reference was made to a financial calculation for volunteer hours contributed.
No doubt another match of funds expected.
It should be understood town payments are not in the form of a grant..
The title of the agreement is " Contract for Purchase Of Culture" ..
We are purchasing with taxpayers' dollars, culture for the masses.
We set \ up the board. We paid for the lawyer to file the articles of incorpoation. We paid for the lawyer working on their part of the agreement. We handed over a building that cost $2.3 million plus $700,000 from a federal heritage to renovate for a state of the art modern museum.
Then we made a deal to purchase an unknown quantity or quality of culture for an ever-growing amount which is probably closer to full million that half a million.a year.
Where is the public interest served with a deal like that.
Who was minding the store?
Who is minding the store ?
De'il the yin as far as I can see.? ..
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Never The Way It Seems
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It Seems Limbo Is The Answer":
I never thought to be arguing in favour of the Jazz Gang. But if we charge them for the use of that park, we can't we simply charge the Center for their use of the Church Street building? What is fit for one should apply to the other. More so in the case of the Center as they have to bring in the Museum. Can't have a 2-tier system of rules. Last time I checked, Council set the rules. Make them equable
*******************
We do not charge for use of the park We charge for use of the bandstand.
Despite that they do not pay to use the park andtherefore have no jurisdiction over the park, , we allow them to erect a chain link fence and keep people out who own the park , unless they pay a fee to enter their own park .
We allow the bandstand fee payers to rent space to vendors in the park. Spac they themselve have not paid for.
We have given them money as well on the pretext local business benefits from the activity.
When the phrase "arms length authority" is employed, the above is an example of "political interference" envisioned. that makes a business like operation unachievable.
For the politician ,it is a down-payment on future support in the inevitable election.
Council adopts a policy that users will pay a fee for costs of facility operation.
In so doing,, the community is assured everyone is being treated fairly. Most people don't have time to pay attention. The assurance is nothing more than should be expected . So they accept it. Most would never think of asking to be exempted from fees, simply on the understanding of fairness. .
But there are some who have no compunction. For example, a fund-raising organisation for a hospital or a charity. They might raise upwards of a hundred thousand dollarsand yet they believe, in the personal triumph of a big figure, it justifies a request for waiver of a couple of hundred dollar user fee. .
And because they don't. recognise the anomally, politicians choose to see it either. Or if they do they don't have the intestinal fortitude to say no.
They fear being accused of being unsympathetic to the cause. In fact, they will go as far as to say the good works of charity is "what it's all about".
In the last term, people were encouraged to come to Council with outrageous demands.
Like a couple who wanted newly installed baseball lights removed because they could see the poles from their dining room window when the leaves were off the trees.
We were prepared to do it too. A.s an alternative, we were willing to plant mature evergreens to obscure the view of the poles in the winter.
The property was for sale. It had been re-designated to a higher value land use than the single family residential it occupied.
I don't believe the trees were planted after all but we wereready to do it.
It was a climate of irrational entitlement with the underlying benefit always to the politicians.
No matter how shallow or feeble, they could always find a righteous reason for a ridiculous decision and take their chances the general population were not paying attention.
That was a miscalculaton.
But they did their best to change that as well.
I never thought to be arguing in favour of the Jazz Gang. But if we charge them for the use of that park, we can't we simply charge the Center for their use of the Church Street building? What is fit for one should apply to the other. More so in the case of the Center as they have to bring in the Museum. Can't have a 2-tier system of rules. Last time I checked, Council set the rules. Make them equable
*******************
We do not charge for use of the park We charge for use of the bandstand.
Despite that they do not pay to use the park andtherefore have no jurisdiction over the park, , we allow them to erect a chain link fence and keep people out who own the park , unless they pay a fee to enter their own park .
We allow the bandstand fee payers to rent space to vendors in the park. Spac they themselve have not paid for.
We have given them money as well on the pretext local business benefits from the activity.
When the phrase "arms length authority" is employed, the above is an example of "political interference" envisioned. that makes a business like operation unachievable.
For the politician ,it is a down-payment on future support in the inevitable election.
Council adopts a policy that users will pay a fee for costs of facility operation.
In so doing,, the community is assured everyone is being treated fairly. Most people don't have time to pay attention. The assurance is nothing more than should be expected . So they accept it. Most would never think of asking to be exempted from fees, simply on the understanding of fairness. .
But there are some who have no compunction. For example, a fund-raising organisation for a hospital or a charity. They might raise upwards of a hundred thousand dollarsand yet they believe, in the personal triumph of a big figure, it justifies a request for waiver of a couple of hundred dollar user fee. .
And because they don't. recognise the anomally, politicians choose to see it either. Or if they do they don't have the intestinal fortitude to say no.
They fear being accused of being unsympathetic to the cause. In fact, they will go as far as to say the good works of charity is "what it's all about".
In the last term, people were encouraged to come to Council with outrageous demands.
Like a couple who wanted newly installed baseball lights removed because they could see the poles from their dining room window when the leaves were off the trees.
We were prepared to do it too. A.s an alternative, we were willing to plant mature evergreens to obscure the view of the poles in the winter.
The property was for sale. It had been re-designated to a higher value land use than the single family residential it occupied.
I don't believe the trees were planted after all but we wereready to do it.
It was a climate of irrational entitlement with the underlying benefit always to the politicians.
No matter how shallow or feeble, they could always find a righteous reason for a ridiculous decision and take their chances the general population were not paying attention.
That was a miscalculaton.
But they did their best to change that as well.
Biting The Thread
"5:43 PM and 5:45 PM Gottcha double-posting again. Thought you were lying last time to pretend there was another idiot. Duhhhhhh!" Is there some quota that YOU have imposed, 7:18?! I'm not aware of any limit; it all depends on Cllr Buck's decision to publish ... or not. You were wrong with your previous 'gotcha' (seriously, how old are you?). I wasn't lying, and the other commenter identified their comment. But, that's okay, you carry on amusing yourself playing 'spot-the-_____'. (p.s. You missed the comment I left @ 5:40 - "Duhhhhhh!"
*******
I am cutting this thread of f now. Enough a'reddy.
*******
I am cutting this thread of f now. Enough a'reddy.
It Seems Limbo Is The Answer
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Wait And See":
Please, could someone please tell me what happened to the termination clause? Was it dropped entirely, postponed or is it hovering somewhere in limbo? We have to stop getting side-tracked into arguments about programming. This is about dollars, sense and the Museum. Aurora still holds all the legal, moral and fiscal high ground if it has the guts to use its position this time.
*************
The Abel and Pirri motion included a clause to provide twelve months notice of termination .
Initially, Abel moved to defer the resolution entirely. That failed.
The motion was debated to a conclusion with a majority appearing to be in support. At the last minute. Humphryes moved and Thompson seconded the termination notice caluse be deleted. The majority approved it with a commitment that something or other would be accomplished accomplished within a specific time
or the termination clause would be activated. .
The time limit appeared to be March 27th. We are now into May.
Gremlin are afoot creating mischief.
The board chair is apparently quoted he was coerced into agreeing to have Councllors on the board.
I think Councillors on the board would be as useful as mammaries on a bull .
We are still pumping money into the facility. as well as additional funds on a "facilitator".
Sometimes it seems the only administration needed is a single individual capable of writing specifications and awarding contracts.or making requests for proposals.
Please, could someone please tell me what happened to the termination clause? Was it dropped entirely, postponed or is it hovering somewhere in limbo? We have to stop getting side-tracked into arguments about programming. This is about dollars, sense and the Museum. Aurora still holds all the legal, moral and fiscal high ground if it has the guts to use its position this time.
*************
The Abel and Pirri motion included a clause to provide twelve months notice of termination .
Initially, Abel moved to defer the resolution entirely. That failed.
The motion was debated to a conclusion with a majority appearing to be in support. At the last minute. Humphryes moved and Thompson seconded the termination notice caluse be deleted. The majority approved it with a commitment that something or other would be accomplished accomplished within a specific time
or the termination clause would be activated. .
The time limit appeared to be March 27th. We are now into May.
Gremlin are afoot creating mischief.
The board chair is apparently quoted he was coerced into agreeing to have Councllors on the board.
I think Councillors on the board would be as useful as mammaries on a bull .
We are still pumping money into the facility. as well as additional funds on a "facilitator".
Sometimes it seems the only administration needed is a single individual capable of writing specifications and awarding contracts.or making requests for proposals.
Wait And See
Anonymous said
Clr Ballard says the reason he doesn't support having Council representation on the cc board is "that it promotes political interference in the arts". Fine. The the cc board shouldn't be accepting any tax dollars or using any town buildings either, Councillor.The quote from ClrBallard no doubt derives comes from something he heard.
In the context of "political interference"., reference is as follows.
The advantage of "arm's length governance" for the facility, is to avoid political interference in management.
"Political interference" means the principle of operating in a business mode cannot be achieved.
Business mode means the facility operates on at least a break-even basis.
It means no dependence on public resources.
It means paying for all overheads.
The recommendation was made by one of a succession of financial advisers..The purpose being to prevent the facility from becoming a sink hole for public funds.
But lo... with full political interference and apparently no input from a financial adviser, legal counsel,
or any other professional in the administration, in what must have been the only time ever, the woman did not retain legal counsel, the agreement was drawn up by the former Mayor to become precisely that which was not intended .A sink hole for public resources.
The previous post responded to a comment stating the town solicitor launched the current expedition with his complete, accurate, concise and straight forward report.
The comment was neither concise nor accurate.
"The expedition was launched" when the solicitor was directed by Council to review the contract and report on its shortcomings and omissions..
Council approved a motion put forward by myself , over initial objection from the Mayor on the basis of the solicitor's workload.
It's not always easy to tell who is doing the talking from the chair. But I distinctly recall asking the question; "Why would you not want the contract reviewed and reported by the solicitor?"
Though he had nothing to do with the contract, not being in office at the time, it was almost as if the Mayor had something to hide.
The only thing I can think of would be that no person, except the former Mayor, had anything to do with the contract on behalf of the town. I have heard a shreddng machine was running non-stop in the Mayor's office between election day and the end of term.
The town has a Chief Executive Team that costs upwards of a million dollars a year
.
One can see how Councillor Ballard , in a Grangerism, might eagerly grab the words "political interference" and use them inappropriately .relevant to "the arts"..
The Centre's articles of incorporation are relevant in any discussion of an ongoing agreement with the
town. about how the board will be constituted.Charitable status, in my opinion is not likely relevant.
Do the articles permit political representation on the board.?
Will two Councillors on the board take direction or be accountable to Council.
If not, what is the purpose of having Councillors on the board.
Particularly Councillors who have publicly stated they are in full support of how the board is operating the facility and that funds to do so should continue to be provided by the municipality..
How will that make a difference?
Is that really the intention?
Or is the real intention to create a sham of change while spending staff time and treasury funds.?
Or alternately ,is it the intention to drag things out , with progress reports regularly until the end of the agreement just to calm the multitude.?
We shall have to wait and see.
Because that's what the majority has decided..
Friday, May 4, 2012
We Shall See
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "He Is No Machiavellian Prince":
It is difficult to imagine the circumstance that caused the town solicitor's to request a meeting with councillors to advise them on a matter relating to the agreement, and that he advised such meeting should be held in camera.
This from the Town Solicitor whose December 2011 report launched the present expedition. His report was clear, concise, eminently sensible, totally accurate.
It would be most interesting to have his explanation for the request
*******************
I have been remiss in using the town solicitor's name in the blog. I will refrain from doing so in future.
Having said that, the solicitor's responsibility is to provide Council the benefit of professional advice.
I have disagreed , though not with this solicitor, about what qualifies under the Municipal Act for in camera discussion. I have not attended such a meeting.
For example, I disagreed that a critical comment about the former Mayor that appeared on the Aurora Citizen Blog, was the town's business. In my view, it did not qualify for Council discussion, in public or in camera
It should never have taken place. .
On that basis, neither I nor Councillor Collins Mrakas attended that meeting .
The current solicitor had solicitor/ client advice to provide.It was provided in camera. If Council makes a decision to waive solicitor/ client privilege, the information could be made public.
The solicitor would be asked to advise.
The municipality's interest is foremost in a Councillor's responsibility. The Oath of Office compels compliance
A Councillor who puts the municipal interest at risk in legal terms is in Breach of Trust..
It is difficult to imagine the circumstance that caused the town solicitor's to request a meeting with councillors to advise them on a matter relating to the agreement, and that he advised such meeting should be held in camera.
This from the Town Solicitor whose December 2011 report launched the present expedition. His report was clear, concise, eminently sensible, totally accurate.
It would be most interesting to have his explanation for the request
*******************
I have been remiss in using the town solicitor's name in the blog. I will refrain from doing so in future.
Having said that, the solicitor's responsibility is to provide Council the benefit of professional advice.
I have disagreed , though not with this solicitor, about what qualifies under the Municipal Act for in camera discussion. I have not attended such a meeting.
For example, I disagreed that a critical comment about the former Mayor that appeared on the Aurora Citizen Blog, was the town's business. In my view, it did not qualify for Council discussion, in public or in camera
It should never have taken place. .
On that basis, neither I nor Councillor Collins Mrakas attended that meeting .
The current solicitor had solicitor/ client advice to provide.It was provided in camera. If Council makes a decision to waive solicitor/ client privilege, the information could be made public.
The solicitor would be asked to advise.
The municipality's interest is foremost in a Councillor's responsibility. The Oath of Office compels compliance
A Councillor who puts the municipal interest at risk in legal terms is in Breach of Trust..
He Is No Machiavellian Prince
My home is my grand-daughter Stephanie's home for now.. The blog type is larger with her assistance.
.
I haven't been able to watch Alison's program for some time because somehow the plugin became disabled.
This morning that was fixed as well.
Part of the show was about the culture centre agreement negotiations and in camera meetings relating to same, which are a puzzlement.
Everybody knows where I stand on the agreement and the" arm's- length "board of governance that sucks up three quarters of a million dollars of public resources a year and growing, plus all they can earn in their operation. without accounting for any of it.
We tried it. It's a bust. Money is pouring out of the treasury into the hands of people who have no sense of how inappropriate that is and don't need to give a tinker's damn. .
We have Councillors who think it's fine as well. In their judgement ,all we need to do is tweak the agreement and put a couple of councillors on board. Councillors who have publicly and repeatedly stated everything the board is doing with public money is wonderful and they should just keep right on doing it.
Councillor Pirri thinks it's perfectly fine for property owners to pay the bar bill for whatever brand of art and culture is ordered , when those of a fine arts mind, belly up to the bar to state their preference..
After I've put everything I have into a debate and Council has made a majority decision., there's nothing more to be said in a formal meeting. .
There are people who fancy it means I should forever after hold my peace
If something is rotten in Denmark I'm supposed to pretend it doesn't stink.
It applies in a formal Council meeting. Majority rule is how we govern ourselves. Once the majority has made a decision, the issue cannot be re--hashed over and over again. . When you lose a vote you live with it.
There is nothing in any rule book that determines a majority decision is necessarily correct , If it turns out to be a bummer, I recognise no requirement to deny myself the gleeful satisfaction of saying "I told you so" It's small comfort but it's all there is.
.
So, Alison was troubled by the in camera meeting . What could we be discussing?
Mr. Mar, town solicitor, asked for the meeting to advise Councillors on a matter. related to the agreement. It was his advice the meeting be in camera.
Mr. Mar is free to advise Council . Since I voted against the current arrangements I don't have a stake .. They will not ,under any circumstance, satisfy my concern the taxpayers of the town are being badly shafted. How Mr. Mar advises Councillors, whose decision it was, is of no critical importance to me.
I will however put forward a motion next week to waive solicitor/client privilege on the matter to allow it to be disclosed..
We understand from a comment ,Councillor Ballard , who has an interest in maintaining the status quo because he shares responsibility for the mess, is busy coercing the Board Chair to state the board was coerced by Mayor Dawe into agreeing to have Councillors serve on the board..
That should make an interesting dilemma for the Mayor.
His response to my position that we should scupper the contract, was " it would not be honourable' We must think of the town's reputation.".
He said that to me;
The great Gaels of Ireland,
Whom the Gods made mad
For all their wars are merry
And all their songs are sad.
What will it take, I wonder, to make the Geoffrey mad enough to recognise an enemy when he sees one.?
Will he have to fall on his sword, , fatally injured, before he realises how many knives are sticking out of his political hide ?
.
I haven't been able to watch Alison's program for some time because somehow the plugin became disabled.
This morning that was fixed as well.
Part of the show was about the culture centre agreement negotiations and in camera meetings relating to same, which are a puzzlement.
Everybody knows where I stand on the agreement and the" arm's- length "board of governance that sucks up three quarters of a million dollars of public resources a year and growing, plus all they can earn in their operation. without accounting for any of it.
We tried it. It's a bust. Money is pouring out of the treasury into the hands of people who have no sense of how inappropriate that is and don't need to give a tinker's damn. .
We have Councillors who think it's fine as well. In their judgement ,all we need to do is tweak the agreement and put a couple of councillors on board. Councillors who have publicly and repeatedly stated everything the board is doing with public money is wonderful and they should just keep right on doing it.
Councillor Pirri thinks it's perfectly fine for property owners to pay the bar bill for whatever brand of art and culture is ordered , when those of a fine arts mind, belly up to the bar to state their preference..
After I've put everything I have into a debate and Council has made a majority decision., there's nothing more to be said in a formal meeting. .
There are people who fancy it means I should forever after hold my peace
If something is rotten in Denmark I'm supposed to pretend it doesn't stink.
It applies in a formal Council meeting. Majority rule is how we govern ourselves. Once the majority has made a decision, the issue cannot be re--hashed over and over again. . When you lose a vote you live with it.
There is nothing in any rule book that determines a majority decision is necessarily correct , If it turns out to be a bummer, I recognise no requirement to deny myself the gleeful satisfaction of saying "I told you so" It's small comfort but it's all there is.
.
So, Alison was troubled by the in camera meeting . What could we be discussing?
Mr. Mar, town solicitor, asked for the meeting to advise Councillors on a matter. related to the agreement. It was his advice the meeting be in camera.
Mr. Mar is free to advise Council . Since I voted against the current arrangements I don't have a stake .. They will not ,under any circumstance, satisfy my concern the taxpayers of the town are being badly shafted. How Mr. Mar advises Councillors, whose decision it was, is of no critical importance to me.
I will however put forward a motion next week to waive solicitor/client privilege on the matter to allow it to be disclosed..
We understand from a comment ,Councillor Ballard , who has an interest in maintaining the status quo because he shares responsibility for the mess, is busy coercing the Board Chair to state the board was coerced by Mayor Dawe into agreeing to have Councillors serve on the board..
That should make an interesting dilemma for the Mayor.
His response to my position that we should scupper the contract, was " it would not be honourable' We must think of the town's reputation.".
He said that to me;
The great Gaels of Ireland,
Whom the Gods made mad
For all their wars are merry
And all their songs are sad.
What will it take, I wonder, to make the Geoffrey mad enough to recognise an enemy when he sees one.?
Will he have to fall on his sword, , fatally injured, before he realises how many knives are sticking out of his political hide ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)