Survey  Results

Home>Kincardine>2007>Septembert

by Fred Kirby                              September 5,  2007

There cannot be transparent government when politicians and managers do not speak plainly and state facts clearly so that citizens can form sound opinions as to the truth and consequences of municipal issues. There is something terribly wrong when those in senior positions, be they politicians or staff, do not accept their responsibilities. We hold children to a higher degree of truth and responsibility than we do our governors.

It is my policy for this column not to critize staff; it is their political masters who are ultimately responsible both for staff decisions and for the manner in which they are carried out. Because of the messy saga at the Medical Centre, I make an exception.

John DeRosenroll, CAO, is quoted as saying of the Medical Centre and its litany of mistakes, “We didn’t design or construct it….” John’s remark is correct as far as it goes but he does not complete the sentence to include all the parties involved, he turns a true statement into spin and spin deceives.

It was a Kincardine committee that decided to hire the particular architect even though doubts were raised in committee regarding his capability to design such a structure. The committee had a choice. The building was to be constructed on a hillside some distance from the hospital. The committee might have waited until it and the hospital could agree on a more suitable site. It had a choice. Did the committee really believe that traveling such a distance between the hospital and clinic would be fun in Bruce County weather?

When the architect presented his work, who signed off on it? One cannot build a deck on the back of their house without submitting plans, and one can be told a particular plan is not suitable and changes must be made. Who agreed to a Medical Centre that had no canopy or road access to facilitate dropping patients off at the door, especially people with mobility limitations? It was not the architect or the builder. If a layman can stand beside a construction boss overlooking the drains being installed and comment that the drains will not work, why did our own staff accept the design and work being done? Yes, the town did not design or build the Centre, but are we to understand that the town did not approve the plans and did not oversee the construction. The public deserves an explanation before the next repairs are bungled.

There have been two floods in the basement of the Medical Centre. After each occurrence we are told the problem is solved. Are we to believe that each flooding and the current mould have no relation to one another?

It is time the mayor showed leadership. This is not a hamlet but a multi-million dollar corporation. It requires a council and senior staff who are competent and effective at that level. Plain speaking would be a good start for correcting the core problem.

September 12, 2007

The funding of religious schools, with all the arguments for and against, has once more raised its head thanks to John Tory. In this instance I do believe that Mr. Tory is sincere in his desire to fund faith-based schools. History suggests that extending funding to faith-based schools, other than to Roman Catholics, will not garner many votes.

Though I respect Mr. Tory for a principled decision, I cannot agree with him. Nor do I agree with Mr. McGuinty with his cynical comments about the consequences of such funding yet supports continued funding of the Roman Catholic system. If Mr. McGuinty feels so strongly that faith-based schools are divisive, then he should also cease funding the Roman Catholic system; but Mr. McGuinty, if anything, is expedient. Whatever works to give him power is ok with him.

I have no quarrel with religion though it is based on dogma which can be accepted but never proven. We learn from history that faith can be a power for good or a power for evil and you can make your own choice as to which is which. Secularism is another world view which many identify with the public school system; it should not be so identified. Public education in a democratic nation under the rule of law should not be based on any particular world view, for the scope of public education is greater than any world view - be it faith-based, secular, secular humanism, or any of the isms that abound in our small world.

It is not a matter of rights or costs. Nor is it a question of the Roman Catholic Church’s system being funded. The latter is an historical anachronism which was agreed upon in a different world - a world of bigotry, of Orange Lodge marches, where Protestants and Catholics eyed one another with great suspicion, where a father in my home town disowned his son because the boy married a Catholic girl. Funding of a separate Catholic system has long outlived its original purpose and should now be scrapped. What is lacking is political will.

To use public funds for faith-based schools, regardless of what curriculum is used and what training its teachers will have, means that government will still be funding and thereby supporting the teaching of dogma in an educational system. The propagation of any faith with its foundation based on irrefutable statements has no place in an institution for enquiring and developing minds.

Let public education be open to all people and open to explore all ideas; let it be closed to dogma and propaganda regardless of its faith or particularism. They are an important part of many lives, but not of our public education.

September 19, 2007

The sad saga of incompetence continues.

The latest fiasco concerns the disposition of the land-locked 100’ x 200’ municipal property lying between Reynold’s Drive and the Russell Meadows Non-Profit Housing project. Four homeowners on Reynold’s Drive and the Board of Russell Meadows are both interested in having possession of this land-locked property which is of no use to anyone but these two parties.

I acknowledge my bias. I am a strong supporter of public housing. There are different classifications all governed by federal and provincial regulations and guidelines. For any member of the Economic and Development committee or member of Council to say they do not support Russell Meadows because it is a Rent Geared to Income (RGI) class is wrongheaded. Regulations mandate that a percentage of units must be at market rent and because the tenants’ circumstances change, the percentage of tenants paying market rent will always be fluid.

Russell Meadows would like to own the complete land-locked property to develop more units. It is a fact that the need is great. If the circumstances were different, I would not hesitate, as I earlier did, to fully support the position of Russell Meadows for it is a sound concept with attractively designed buildings and grounds kept as well as many private properties. But the circumstances are not different. The town has made a proper cock-up with regard to the property. The four homeowners on Reynold’s Drive whose properties back onto the land-locked property appear to have been shabbily treated from the beginning.

The land-locked property originally was designated to be a park. At least one owner checked this out before buying his lot and building on it. Others, I am told, also had that same understanding from the developer, real estate agent and the municipality. There was an easement marked for all residents to have access to the park but the municipality sold the easement along with three adjacent lots to a developer and the future park became a land-locked piece of land. The public needs to be told why that happened and what the plans were for the disputed property after it was made land-locked.

Jumping to the present, I am informed that after Council tendered the property, one of the homeowners submitting a tender was notified by email the day and time for the opening of the tender. When he arrived on time for the opening, he was told that the tenders had been opened a half an hour earlier. Last week, the same person wanted to speak to the issue at Council on September 19 but was denied the opportunity to do so because of incomplete information given him. I am not talking about junior staff who try to serve the public the best they can; nor do I include the relatively new Municipal Clerk who breathes fresh air and transparency into the management. We are talking about Council members and senior staff who continue to mess up the business of this municipality at great cost to the taxpayers and inconvenience, if not harm, to individual citizens.

Because of how the municipality has treated the homeowners on Reynold’s Drive, I must, in fairness, support the homeowners’ request to purchase one half, i.e. a 200’ x 50’ piece of the land-locked property that backs onto their properties. I also recommend that the other half be deeded to Russell Meadows at no cost.

There is nothing preventing Council from making a decision at the September 19, 2007 Council meeting on the above recommendation. If Council cannot bring justice and fairness to this issue on the 19th then it will face a public outcry and possible investigation that will make the Ward issue look like a children’s tea party.

I do not suggest maliciousness on the part of those who bring us this litany of mistakes. Incompetence, arrogance, or just plain ignorance is more likely the cause. Some of those responsible for the errors are decent people but that is not good enough to operate a complex municipality. It is my opinion that the CAO, the Manager of Economic Development and Tourism, the manager of Public Buildings, and the manager of Building and Planning would appear to be the author of so many cock-ups Yet, these people are not totally responsibility for their performance; those who hired them then failed to give appropriate oversight must share in any blame.

If Council does not have the right stuff to do what is necessary it should resign. The citizens deserve and should demand competent leadership. I remind the mayor, he is not running a village store, but a multi-million dollar corporation.

September 26, 2007

The issue of the land-locked property that raised strong feelings between the Board of Russell Meadows Housing and homeowners on Reynold’s Drive has yet to come to a resolution. This does not satisfy either party, nor should it. The parties were caught up in a dispute that could have been nipped in the bud had the Municipality had the sense to take the lead in negotiations. When the matter first came to the Municipality last year, it should have recognized that the property, originally designated as a park, would create a problem when an earlier council made the designation a mockery by removing any possibility of an easement. This was an opportunity for the Municipality to appoint a mediator, saving the Municipality time and the parties aggravation. While that occurred during the term of last Council, neither did this Council pick up on it.

Just because Council lacks thoughtful leadership from the mayor this does not excuse others from doing what is right. Going to discuss a controversial issue without an open mind is no way to reach a solution. It does not say we cannot have our own opinions (I am strongly in favour of social housing and consider Russell Meadows an excellent example) but, in deliberation, they cannot let their opinions block out contrary ones. Gord Campbell’s good sense of fairness failed him when he said the home owners were greedy. The homeowners made the first move when they asked to buy the property, they then also offered to purchase only half the property, and thirdly they have been prepared to use 25’ of their half to erect a tree barrier which might well be required if Russell Meadows were to build further units. If the homeowners had not been misled at the time of purchase, I would support Russell Meadows to the fullest, as I have done in the past. But they were misled and that is the core of the issue.

The homeowners have made the only moves in the discussions. As I said previously, divide the property into halves, letting the homeowners buy their half and deed the other half, without cost, to Russell Meadows with the homeowners responsible for erecting the tree barrier on their part of the property.



 

“You smug-face crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.”