Re: June 5, 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.
4.4 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board (Litigation Update)
There are at least three legal proceedings commenced that are private matters and that do not name the town or involve the town. I believe the town (that is the taxpayers) are defending or responding to all three. I also believe that the decisions to defend/respond do not have proper council approval.
It’s all done behind closed doors so no one can find out anything.
You would think that council would have learned from the Cook lawsuit fiasco to stay out of private matters.
4.5 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees (Sauble Beach Development)
This item should be in open. Council is discussing it in closed session for one reason and one reason only. To hide the fact that their discussions and decisions are contrary to the public interest.
6.2 Economic Development Committee-February 8, 2012 (Revised)
The following was in the February 8 draft Economic Development Committee (EDC) minutes.
“Mr. MacMillan discussed ……that it was most unfortunate that one individual would be trying to sabotage efforts to enact positive changes such as trying to bring higher educational institutions into our community to benefit our citizens and students.”
I protested that the above was fraudulent, as nothing like the words above was actually said in the meeting. It was all made up after the February 8 meeting and inserted into the minutes as if it had actually been said. I also protested that the fraudulent words were defamatory.
On April 17th Council sent the fraudulent, defamatory minutes back to the EDC for adjustment. The EDC secretary removed the defamatory, fraudulent material, and a bit more. The revised page of the February 8th minutes, showing the removed text as “redlined”, is on page 21 of the agenda package. .
Good for council.
6.7 Sauble Water and Sewer Report Ad Hoc Committee-May 28, 2012 and
8.13 SWSRAHC3-2012 Request for Council Support to Alter the 2012 Workplan
to Facilitate a Pollution Study
The Sauble Sewers Ad Hoc Committee issued an RFP for a Sauble pollution study. I indicated in commentary 2-10 that data was already available, and that the pollution study was a waste of $70,000 dollars. The committee got no viable proposals. From the May 28 meeting minutes it appears that the committee is trying to rescue the study by reducing the number of samples. It won’t work.
The committee has introduced the word “seeps”. I think “seeps” is a new committee word for “beach drains”. But in fact the beach drains are not seeps. Seeps are groundwater coming to the surface. Beach drains are surface water. If the intent of introducing the word “seeps” is to declare that the beach drains are contaminated by septic systems, that won’t work either.
7.2 WaterPower Group, David Presley and Mark Powell-Power Station at Park
The “Waterpower Group” wants council to pass a resolution in support of its proposed electricity-producing water turbine project at Park Head.
Their presentation is in the agenda package starting on page 70. In their presentation, they say:
• New Ontario Feed-In-Tariff Guidelines (as of April 2012)
• Ontario Power Authority (OPA) requires proof that communities support sustainable energy projects
• “Point System” will give projects higher priority to be developed
• Short “window of opportunity”
These presentation statements are false, or at least very misleading.
The Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program rules currently in place are actually dated July 15, 2011, not April 2012. The April 2012 rules are only draft at this point. The rules in place do not require municipal resolutions in support of anything. And even the draft April 2012 rules do not “require” a municipal resolution of support.
Council should not even hear the delegation. And council should not make the “required” resolution.
The project itself has some merit. It’s too bad the proponent has stooped so low as to try to scam council and the public. On the other hand, who can blame them for believing that scamming is the norm for getting things done in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.
Their lack of honesty just might sink the project.