Survey  Results

Home>Kincardine>2008>April

by Fred Kirby                              April 2,  2008

There is a solution to the divisiveness that grew out of amalgamation, but it takes discipline. The solution lies with stewardship.

The discipline is needed for stewardship to develop because one must put aside personal interests, allowing for informed deliberation and timely decisions. Transparency is essential; otherwise citizens cannot have accurate opinions of municipal business. And, of course, none of the above is possible without personal integrity which is the bedrock of stewardship. To accept this is to start building an organic community.

In two recent re-zoning applications affecting Tiverton and Princes Street, the applications were denied. In both cases there was merit in refusing the application. That four, including the mayor and deputy mayor, voted in favour of the applications suggests that they were not thinking of the municipality in its totality. The municipality is not comprised of buildings and empty lots on a planning map; the municipality is a community first and foremost.

It is not a step towards an organic community when Council wants farmers to contribute to the cost of public lighting in the town while they already are paying for yard lights they have purchased. It is a matter of fairness. This is just one more instance where a conflict would not have arisen if Council had been mindful of stewardship. I doubt there was any more deliberation here than over the drainage issue in Huron Ridge where Council voted to allow residents, if they wished, to have their drains and downspouts stay connected to the sewer pipes. Since all residents had the same advantages, the fairest action would have been to make everyone disconnect at the same time. It is not a question of flexibility or inconsistency, but a question of what is right for each situation.

Residents of Huron Ridge and also those on Saugeen Street have once more expressed concerns about sewage flooding. One resident, who paid out $12,000 to clean the basement after the previous flood of sewage, recently was told that there were plans in place to repair the drainage but that it will be done in phases. This comment, coming three years after the flooding, after citizens have been inconvenienced, incurred costs, and continue to live with related health concerns, starkly illustrates the lack of any sense of stewardship. Not to be able to separate the non-need for sidewalks in the area from the critical need to fix the sewage problems illustrates the lack of careful thought and consideration.

If our mayor and deputy mayor have no sense of stewardship, then what can we expect from the rest of council and staff? As Chaucer wrote in his Canterbury Tales, “If gold will rust, what must iron do?”

April 9, 2008

When Larry Kraemer was mayor for the first time, I had cause to call him the Mayor who would be King. But it is no Constitutional Monarch he wants to be. Believing in the Divine Right of Kings, our mayor thinks he knows what is best for us; there is no need for him to consult with his colleagues on Council or with the citizens.

This is not the way to overcome the problems that came with amalgamation. We witnessed Mr. Kraemer’s self-centred performance when he previously was mayor. Nothing has changed. His election in 2006 was a prime example of parochialism. Having a municipality as an organic whole – a community working together for the greater good – is not something he relishes. It is contrary to the mayor’s concept of his Kingdom.

You cannot have a modern transparent government when a mayor is elected who has no respect for the rule of law, nor for the policies and procedures of the municipality. Mr. Kraemer, before he was sworn in, tore out a partition in the Administration Building to have a larger office. Council never moved to have Kraemer pay the $6,000 cost for his divine act? That too was wrong. Mr. Kraemer continues to behave as if he were the only one elected to serve the municipality; and too often his behaviour is condoned by Council. His latest venture, calling upon his Divine Right, was to commit $25,000 to build a gate without benefit of deliberation with Council and no tender requested; but then what is a tender between friends? We are grateful to councilor Marsha Leggett for bringing this to Council’s attention, though it was of no avail. Unfortunately, whenever power and money speak to this Council its collective spine turns to mush. The issue is not how useful an employer is to this municipality; only the future will tells us that. The issue is due process and transparency. Again, I ask where the recorded votes are. How can members of Council be held accountable when they will not stand in the bright light of transparency?

Council behaved the same way when it refused to ask for tenders for the Medical Centre repairs. Deputy Mayor Laura Haight is to be credited with recommending that Council go to tender, a step that was correct from the beginning when Conestoga Rovers was first approached and again when MacArthur was engaged. Council, led by the mayor, decided against this call for tenders. This is a shabby way to conduct public business. The Policy and Procedures manual should be scrapped so that Council could then behave honestly and would not have to be concerned about whether or not it is breaking its trust with the citizens. This behaviour will never result in creating a trusting, open community.

Does anyone care?

April 16, 2008

Considering how our federal, provincial, and some municipalities govern today, it is well to be reminded of the Rule of Law, the Rule by Law, and Democracy.

The Rule of Law has had a long, slow climb to acceptance and as a practice it is far from being universally applied. All of us, the beggar on the street and the prime minister in his office, the mayor with his chain and the monarch with her crown are governed by the Rule of Law – the law comes first.

We should never confuse the Rule of Law with the Rule by Law. Any form of government, other than a democracy formed under the Rule of Law, can implement laws; dictatorships and one-party nations are in this category even though the latter may call themselves democracies because they conduct staged elections – Egypt is an example. These strong men or women and oligarchies do not believe that the laws apply to them.

A true democracy is one created under the Rule of Law where all governments rule with the consent of the people. From the time of the Athens City State, the type of citizen who could give their consent, i.e. vote, barely grew for the next 23 centuries. Then slowly and with many struggles and deaths, Western Europe and North America achieved the Rule of Law. The practice of democracy under the law is never perfect. There will be ill-conceived laws created and there will be government agencies given power they should not wield. There will always be politicians and others with power who believe they are above the law. The only reason they get away with their behaviour is that citizens do nothing. They forget the thousands who have died or suffered to give us today the privileges we carelessly enjoy. We ignore the thousands who today, throughout the world, are murdered or imprisoned because of their fight to make their country a democracy under the Rule of Law.

Degradation of democracy is not found just in the White House or in the Prime Minister’s office occupied by unelected minions. It can grow in a small municipality like a deadly virus when its elected officials do not know the principles of the Rule of Law or have never taken the time to understand and practice this very foundation of our democracy.

I am reminded daily by the masthead of the Globe and Mail the responsibility citizens carry to make a true democracy work, i.e. consent of the citizens, “The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures, Junius.”

April 23, 2008

On August 8, 2007 a Subdivision Agreement between the Municipality and Mystic Cove Developments Corporation (By-law No. 2007 – 157) was passed by Council. A.K. Pryde, who I understand is Brad Pryde’s spouse, signed as president for Mystic Cove Subdivision. I am informed by Reid’s Heritage Homes that Brad Pryde was the project manager and carried out the engineering requirements.

Included in the Agreement is the following: “The Developer and the Municipality agree that the Developer will tender, as part of his works and construct, the ‘road extension to the gated entrance feature.’ Upon completion of said construction, the Developer will receive, either from Bruce Power, or the Municipality, a matching grant of up to $50,000 to provide 50% financial support for the works. The Developer and the Municipality further agree that should the total cost of the ‘gated entrance feature’ exceed $50,000 or should the grant (from Council) not be available, the construction of the ‘gated entrance feature’ may be modified or abandoned subject to further negotiations. The Developer agrees to complete the construction of the road extension at his cost, independent of any such outcome.”

Authorities at the Municipality told me the “road extension” is approximately one building-lot in length running up to the ‘gated entrance feature’.

I appreciate citizens may have difficulty locating By-law No. 2007 – 157, and more difficulty finding the reference to the gate whose purpose is to keep the road closed between the end of Victoria Avenue in Inverhuron and Upper Lorne Beach Road, opened only in emergencies. There is no excuse for any councillor not knowing the existence and the nature of the $50,000 gate agreement. The $50,000 is the maximum committed and since no invoice has been, as yet, submitted by Mystic Cove to the Municipality, we cannot know the actual cost.

To find out what the cost to the Municipality would be, I spoke with Mrs. Pryde who was unable to provide me with the information and said she would speak with her husband. I was in touch then with Mr. Pryde who informed me that how he handles invoices is his business and was unwilling to share with me the requested information, saying I would have to get that from the Municipality.

The issue is not that the Municipality is prepared to pay $25,000 for a gate. The issue is why Council would agree to pay when it was not obliged to do so and why did Council buy a pig in a poke in agreeing to share the cost before it saw the design and knew the estimated cost? Considering that the possible maximum total could be $100,000, is Council sharing more than a road-closing gate and, if they are, why is that information not shared with the taxpayers?

According to the Municipality, the local residents did not want a road connecting the Upper Lorne Beach Road in Lorne Beach to Victoria Street in Inverhuron. At one stage in the discussions the streets were to end as cul-de-sacs with no physical connection. Bruce Power, wanting the streets connected so that the resulting roadway could be used as an emergency route for Plant employees, suggested a gate be erected at the junction of the two streets. This recommendation was accepted; and as long as the residents agreed, I see nothing wrong with Bruce Power erecting a gate to be opened only in emergencies.

The question for taxpayers is why they should contribute to the cost of the gate? Does Bruce Power, an international nuclear company, really need this financial assistance? There is no quarrel with Bruce Power, but Council first needs to honour the trust placed in it by the taxpayers and not be so irresponsible with the hard-earned money of the average taxpayer as to rubber stamp the mayor’s lack of judgment that drives his wrong-headed personal agenda.

April 30, 2008

“A BY-LAW TO ADOPT A POLICY WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY” was approved November 21, 2007 by the Kincardine Municipality Council. On one hand, it warms the heart to see such basic principles of democracy recognized though we will have to wait to see if the by-law is actually honoured by acceptance and practice rather than ignored as with the federal and provincial governments using weasel words and denial. On the other hand, it is sad that grown men and women who feel competent to govern in a democracy would require such a policy. This old Muser has been writing of such practices, all to no avail, for as long as he has been writing Municipal Musings.

Members of Council do not have to be concerned about this by-law (No. 2007-354) because it is filled with buzzwords signifying nothing. What does “Promoting the efficient use of municipal resources” mean? That should be a given for managers and members of council. And how does the citizen judge efficiency? Is building an addition to the Davidson Centre, so that folks can play cards and have a coffee when that activity could be accommodated elsewhere, a better use of municipal resources than an extra ice surface? Is it a better use of resources than building a rehabilitation centre that would serve the growing elderly population as well as the young? How these decisions are evaluated is not set out. The municipality spent some millions of dollars to build a medical clinic thus assisting doctors in their private practice, and then Council turned down a proposal for a rehabilitation centre as part of the Davidson Centre extension because it was a private venture. Now the municipality is going to pay $26,173.42 as its contribution for a gate and road extension to help out Bruce Power. How do these examples demonstrate “the efficient use of municipal resources?

As for accountability! How do you hold the municipality and members of council accountable without a policy requiring specific practices? Council commits the municipality to paying huge sums of money without a “recorded vote.” It makes decisions without a “recorded vote on contested zoning by-laws. And after delegates to Council speak on a contentious issue, Council’s response should be in the way of a recorded vote but now they do not regard the vote. Individual members of Council should be held accountable just as much as council for the decisions they make. A mandatory procedure would be simple to put in place and would be far fairer than the current practice of only having a recorded vote if a member requests it and, I believe, council agrees. Recently there were two contentious zoning issues before council; one ended with a recorded vote, the other did not. Where is the individual accountability?

I cannot count the times I have written of the need for transparency. It is almost becoming a sick joke. The municipal staff understands the importance of sharing information but is limited because they are employees. There are no restrictions on Council and committee members from open and frank discussion. They have choice.

Who will make sure Mayor Kraemer lives up to the policy when he shows no inclination to be accountable or transparent, even with his own colleagues?

We all should be judged by our work not by pieces of paper on an office wall or by position. Mission statements and non-binding policy statements by themselves are meaningless. Well done is better than well said.