|
|
by Fred Kirby
August 3, 2005
The governance review of BMTS
continues. If the Municipality of Kincardine owns the BMTS and subscribers
are its customers, then the municipal taxpayers ought to be the
shareholders. Taxpayers must to have their rights defined with regard to
ownership of BMTS. At present, Kincardine taxpayers have fewer rights with
regard to BMTS than any corporate shareholder in Canada and the USA.
If the individual expenses and salaries of council members are available
to the public on an annual basis, the same should apply to the council
members in respect to BMTS. Furthermore, the basic information on
council’s deliberations in setting their salaries and other organizational
documents that are not specifically confidential to BMTS’ operation must
be freely available.
Taxpayers should not need to depend on information given by council any
more than stockholders should need to depend on the word of Boards of
Directors. Both taxpayers and shareholders are owed the protection given
by transparency.
In the BDO Dunwoody Report on Governance, referred to last week, speaking
of the time when Bruce Township became the sole owner, it reads, “When
Council consider issues regarding BMTS, it did so not as a Board of
Directors, but as a Council operating either as a Council or sitting as a
committee of Council.” (p.3) Does the same apply to the Kincardine
Council?
With regard to remuneration, Council, at amalgamation, decided that all
but the mayor would receive $8,000 annually and the mayor would receive
$10,000. These salaries do not include expenses. Without being able to
read the relevant documents, the public cannot know if the money council
gave itself is fair. The first mayor, Gord Jarrell, viewed BMTS governance
as simply another council committee and, I understand, disagreed with the
pay package. Making all documentation public would clarify the issue.
BMTS should be operated to the benefit of its customers, shareholders, and
employees. At the election, less than 18 months away, we need to choose a
council, especially a mayor, with business acumen prepared to govern BMTS
with all parties in mind.
August 17, 2005
The sordid Victorian
melodrama, “My Water Is Better Than Your Water” written by Howard Ribey
and Randy Roppel, continues to play in Tiverton. Tearful water music is
scored by Ed Roberts and performed painfully with off-key cries of fury by
the Tiverton Ratepayers Association chorus.
This latest production is again financed by the taxpayers of Kincardine
Municipality whose Mayor and Deputy Mayor believe they have deep wells of
gold. This wealth, of course, is really the taxpayers’ money and the well
is not deep but our two senior council members ignore such realities. They
operate in the belief that concepts such as integrity, hard decisions,
prudence, and openness are just words signifying nothing, to be used only
at election time to persuade the gullible.
And where is the rest of council in this sorry tale of denial? Maureen
Couture is the one Councillor, of whom I am aware, who wants this show
cancelled. If others agree with Maureen, where are their voices? Is it
true the Deputy Mayor has promised to book this farce into the new art
centre he desires if Tiverton will support him?
If there ever was a case of putting a fox to guard the henhouse, then this
appointed committee is certainly one. In truth, it is putting a pack of
wolves to guard the municipal henhouse. Apart from Donna Hardman,
Compliance Officer and Engineer Steve Burns, this committee has more
conflicts of interest than the Bush White House has in determining if the
invasion of Iraq was justified. This crowd would claim there is water in
the Niger desert if only to prove a point.
If council lacks confidence in the engineering firm, then it should
discontinue its working relationship. If council honestly, not
politically, felt the need for such a review committee, then it should
have appointed unbiased people. But that would require leadership and
“hard decisions”
And after all, the plays the thing, isn’t it?
August
24, 2005
The ward system faces its
demise. Sadly, the comments of those opposed to its elimination are
uninformed and irresponsible. We should expect better.
Apart from the shortcomings of the first-past-the-post voting system, all
elections in Canada are democratic. To say changing voting by wards to
voting for council across the municipality is non-democratic adds nothing
to the debate. Moreover, nowhere have I seen evidence councillors elected
from Ward One always vote against the interests of Ward Two and Three. If
such a cabal exists prove it or cease false accusations. Is it from
ignorance or duplicity that protesters ignore the fact that two of the
three elected mayors have not come from Ward One and the current deputy
mayor is from Tiverton? If it were not for blind emotions, those claiming
the domination of Ward One would acknowledge that Wards Two and Three are
well represented on municipal committees, committees which, to a large
extent, drive the agenda of council. Furthermore, Tiverton residents need
to realize that council has, to a fault, given Tiverton residents every
opportunity to voice their opinion regarding the well/pipeline issue.
Where is the domination?
Roppell shows irresponsibility by his thoughtless inflammatory remarks
about war. Hewitt made a similar comment last year. In a world where
states and neighbours murder, rape and destroy as they tear themselves
apart, we do not need councillors placing this issue into that frame. If
the ward system encourages people to operate in such a moral vacuum, then
the quicker we rid ourselves of wards the better.
There are occasions in high population centres or large territories when
electing area representatives is valid. This is not one of those
occasions. We have a common heritage and shared values. We are blessed
with a municipality that offers much to everyone. It is attractive from
Scott Point to Glammis and Tiverton, with good roads throughout, wonderful
beaches and a decent shopping area in our downtown. We should be counting
our blessings not fostering hate.
In my municipality there is no place for a divisive ward system. It is one
municipality: let us act accordingly and make it work for all citizens.
August
31, 2005
Before I speak to the ward
issue, I must comment on the reaction against the proposal to eliminate
the wards. There is no place in civil debate for hateful telephone calls.
There is no place in civil society for families of our elected officials
to be openly threatened. These incidents occurred in Tiverton against our
deputy mayor and his family. Such despicable acts are the work of cowards.
The families of politicians have to accept much because of their spouses’
and parents’ service to the community. Absence from home is a minor
drawback in comparison to the tough criticism they hear or read in the
thrust and parry of political debate. That is enough to live with.
Politicians, also, do not deserve the venom of the ignorant. That is not
how the game of politics is played.
Those who talk of war should be ashamed of the craven creatures their
irresponsible comments bring out.
As for replacing the ward system with voting-at-large: I listened to forty
speakers and letters read at the August 24 meeting. Emotion driving
substance is the heart of debate; emotion without substance contributes
nothing. The meeting had far too much of the latter.
Democracy was much mentioned but has no place in the discussion.
Democratic considerations might arise if a change of ward boundaries were
the issue. But that is not what is happening here. Voting-at-large means
that all citizens get to vote for all candidates and those elected
represent all citizens in the municipality. No one is being deprived of a
vote or a representative - though as in all elections be they municipal,
provincial or federal - we do not always get the representative we want.
Preferential voting would make the choice fairer.
The arguments claiming taxation without representative were numerous but
were never shown why that would be with voting-at-large. Piling statements
upon statements is not proof; it is verbiage. And references to the
American Revolution have no bearing on this debate. Lack of
representatives was a fact for the colonists; here it is a canard
undeserving of consideration.
Those arguing in support of change made their case without sarcasm, signs,
or threats. They gave reasons and quoted figures to back their arguments.
Both sides had the same time to prepare.
Council should not waver, for the reaction will be the same whenever the
issue arises. What votes are lost are lost already. The Rubicon is
crossed; replace the ward system now.
|
