RE: May 1, 2012 Council Agenda
The pdf version of the full agenda package is available on the town website at:
An Html version is at:
Following are some comments on a few select agendas items.
Agenda Item 4.3 – Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees AND Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (Sauble Beach Development Corporation)
As usual, council is breaching the Municipal Act by not disclosing the general nature of the matter being discussed “in closed”. I do not believe that there are “personal matters about an identifiable individual”. And I do not believe that there is “litigation or potential litigation” that warrants closed session. And I do not believe that there is “advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege” that warrants closed. The Ombudsman was very clear. The Ombudsman said that council “may” go into closed for “litigation” or “solicitor advice”, but council is “not required” to go into closed for “litigation” or “solicitor advice”. The Ombudsman also said to err on the side of discussing in open, and being transparent. So what is council hiding? Why is that the people of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula are kept in the dark about deals that are being made that affect them?
Rhonda’s lawsuit was made to shut up the criticism. It backfired. This new strategy for curtailing criticism, namely trying to keep the bad deals secret until the deals are sealed, will backfire too. With a vengeance.
Agenda Item – 4.4 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board (Litigation Update)
The same thing applies to this item. “Litigation update” tells us nothing. So what are they hiding?
Agenda Item 8.8 PW18-2012 Donating the Installation of Dog Park in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula
This seems to be a good idea. But some questions need to be answered first. What is the current use of the area under consideration? What are the alternative future uses? How do residential neighbours feel about the proposal and the noise impact?
Agenda Item 8.11 EDC02-2012 EDC Terms of Reference
Economic Development Officer (EDO) Mulasmajic is currently the recording secretary of the EDC. Now the EDC wants more staff resources supporting the committee. The EDC wants the Deputy Clerk to take over as recording secretary, so that the EDO can provide other support. There is already too much taxpayer money being absolutely wasted on this rogue committee. The proposed change should be rejected.
Agenda Item 8.12 EDC03-2012 Chamber Appointment to the EDC
A call for expressions of interest must be advertised. The EDC should not be deciding who sits on the committee. Council should decide.
Agenda Item 8.28 CLK55-2012 Deep Geological Repository, Request for Support
Council does not represent the people of TSBP on issues outside of the TSBP scope. This is one of those issues. Members of council speaking as individuals can take a position. Council should decline to take a position.
Agenda Item 10.3 By-Law 58-2012 Being a By-Law to Authorize the Appointment of the Clerk as Head of the Municipality for the Purposes of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
I showed in commentary 22 that this by-law is illegal.