On the December 4, 2012 agenda there was an item:
“8.8 JACKSON11-2012 Amabel Sauble School Financial Responsibility”
In the agenda package there was a copy of a power point presentation apparently put together by a parent of a Sauble school student.
The presentation correctly indicated that the town is paying $16,000 per year to the School board which covers 5% of the school’s $320,000 annual operating cost.
The presentation then says:
“Designated Usage of Space at Sauble School – Municipality 21%”
The minutes capture Tracey Neifer correcting that as follows:
“Manager of Financial Services Neifer explained that the 21% is not used by the Town 24/7 but we have access to the 21% of the space after hours.’
The town is not designated 21% at all. The 21% is a false.
The presentation writer also implicitly assumes that the town’s share of school costs is based on per cent of designated use of space.
That too is false. There is an agreement between town and school. I got the agreement from our School board trustee Terry Bell, so I assume it is current. That agreement clearly sets out who pays what. Nowhere in the agreement does it mention dividing up costs based on “designated space”. And nowhere does it say the Town is designated 21%.
The presentation writer then concludes, from the false 21 per cent premise, and from the false “designated space” assumption, that we (the town) should be paying $67,000 (21% of operating costs), and that we are shorting the school by $51,000.
Those conclusions, being based on a false premise and a false assumption, are of course invalid.
In the minutes of the December 4 meeting it is indicated:
“Manager of Financial Services Neifer indicated that the $51,000 came as a presentation from a parent.”
In other words, it was not from an analysis of the agreement.
The agreement was not included in the agenda package.
During council’s long discussion of this item, the tone went quickly from the $51,000 that a parent concluded that the town should pay to the $51,000 that the town agreed to pay.
The minutes captured this as:
“She [Councillor Jackson] feels that the Town should be paying for the 21% that we have agreed to pay.” (Emphasis added)
Again, from the information I have, there never was any such 21% agreement.
It appears that at least one councillor had concerns. The minutes captured that concern as:
“A member of Council discussed having more information before giving out taxpayers money.”
It took three tries, but finally a motion was passed to give the school an extra $51,000, conditional on the board keeping the school open. Here is the motion record from the minutes.
R-812-2012
It was MOVED by J. Jackson, SECONDED by M. Standen
THAT Council gives pre-budget approval to an upset limit of $51,000 contingent on the ARC recommendation that the Amabel Sauble Community School remains open;
In a recorded vote it was passed unanimously.
The town is under no obligation to pay the $51,000. Because the $51,000 decision was made based on completely false information, council needs to rethink it.
The issue will then be whether the Town should pay the $51,000 anyway, even if it is not required by the formal agreement.
There are two perspectives on that issue.
One perspective is that that the town must give the school the $51,000 anyway because it’s for the children and it’s an investment in our future, (and other sundry reasons provided by those favouring donating the $51,000).
The second perspective is that the $51,000 should not be given as it is not fair or ethical to take more from the taxpayers and make all taxpayers poorer and risk a few more losing their homes especially when giving money to schools is not within the authority of the Town anyway.
Although one councillor sort of alluded to the second perspective, it was never really discussed.
I am guessing that’s because taking the second perspective would have made any councillor very unpopular with one of the most vocal segments of the voting public.
It will be very hard for any council member to take the side of the taxpayers, even if they feel it is right to do so.
Maybe some readers of this commentary could encourage a few councillors to speak up, on either perspective.
Craig
Bruce on the Bruce 
Craig, council has already paid the 51,000.00 and still owe money besides this . you better talk toTerry Bell, or better still phone the School Board they will fill you in.
Keerist:
As I have indicated to you several times, I already have the information. Council has authorized the payment of the $51,000 conditional on the board deciding to keep the school open, but has not paid it as the board has not yet decided.
And there is no money owing.
Craig
There are many ways to lie Craig – one is to tell only part of the truth or lie by omission:
From minutes of council Dec. 4, 2012:
“AND THAT the municipality enters into further talks with the School Board regarding partnerships”
The $51,000 has not been paid and will not be paid unless the school stays open and the BofE successfully concludes negotiations with the town regarding partnerships.
You say: “The town is under no obligation to pay the $51,000. Because the $51,000 decision was made based on completely false information,”
False information Craig, or a differing point of view?
You really don’t understand how things work, do you?
Others are allowed, in this neighborhood, to express a different point of view from yours.
Unless or until a new motion is passed to not pay after all conditions are met, the money will be paid because council is obliged to act on decisions it makes – or does your copy of the municipal act say council has the obligation to act on Craig’s view of reality and to Hell with everyone else?
You also say: “council needs to rethink it.” – maybe so – but would it not be a prudent act to wait 1) to see if the Board keeps the school open, and 2) if the negotiations on funding are entered into let alone completed?
I can just imagine council refusing to pay the $51,000 because of “false information”. You would probably use a blog to accuse staff of embezzling the funds and head for court charging council members with breach of public trust, mopery, dopery and let’s not forget good old conflict of interest, costing the town a hundred and $51,000!
The “public” portion of the ARC has been completed with a recommendation from the parents and interested parties to keep all schools open – did you expect anything else? Now it’s up to the Board, the Ministry and the other advisors, including two municipal councilors (I believe Jackson and Turner) to make the final decision. That’s when we’ll find out if either or both councilors have the best interests of the whole town at heart or will cave in to political and public pressure. Any bets Craig?
You could ask Councilor Jackson what she thinks next time you drop by her place to use the phone (funny you’re so involved with TSBP but you don’t keep your local phone active over the winter) but I hear Councilor Turner, given your past performance, is smart enough not to talk to you – except in the presence of a lawyer.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should Craig.
Try a little patience – and for keerist sake, give keerist a break! He answered your question as if you were actually a sane person of reasonable intelligence – it’s not his fault your last vacation was down a rabbit hole and you chose the wrong pill!
The Martian
In my opinion its not about councils decision on a new funding formula, or even the amount. Its about the total cost to run a school that doesn’t, and will not have in the future, enough students to justify it. If we don’t have enough use, a school should be closed. If the other uses can’t coiver the bills, then they should be in another space. We have a new medical building sitting empty. Why not there?
I never get why school buildings are sacred cows. Its not as if the kids will have to forgo an education if one closes. Its very simple. We have no money, we have too many schools for the amount of usage. One has to close.
Whatever the amount to be (or will be) paid by the TSBP, it will get this council out of the situation. This funding is short term only, because who really wants to deal with adding MORE costs to the water system users AFTER the school closes and the water bill for the school – now being paid by the Town – gets spread out over the users.
Close the school, turn it into a senior’s home, then generate private taxes AND a new volume water user. Hmmmm – didn’t we already do that with another school?
yabder 4:
The town was already meeting its formally agreed payments. There was no agreed-upon obligation to pay more.
So exactly what “situation” is the $51,000 getting council out of?
Craig
yabder4
didn’t we already do that with another school?
well that is what was supposed to happen after a councillor bought the property dirt cheap.
The Sauble school should be closed – it should never have been built in the first place! Frankly, I am getting tired of hearing the mantra “the school is the hub and heart of our community” … bullshit.
The school, the failing and expensive water systems, and the abandoned sewer project are all the result of the same misguided thinking.
Alice