It was
interesting to see the council pass “lame duck” authority to the CAO in
December of 2013. To simplify, “lame duck” council means that if it is known there
are a number of councilors not running in the next election, the council is not
permitted to make major decisions that may not be supported by a new council for
two periods. The one period is from the close of nominations which is September
12 until election day and the second period is from election day until the end
of the current council’s term. You only have “lame duck” if 25% of the existing
council is not running in the next election. Since two councilors have not declared
they are not running, we do not know if there will be a “lame duck” council or
not. Being a conspiracy guy I can only see a couple of reasons to pass this
motion at this time. We all know there are big development plans for Midhurst,
the approval of the new Firehall in Midhurst and the approval of the Multi Use
Recreation Facility in Midhurst that are contentious issues for a few on
council. Under this designation of authority, the CAO could possibly approve
them without further council debate in the “lame duck” period. The key point is
that the “lame duck” motion could have been passed at the council meeting in
August or had a special council meeting the week before nominations close after
we know who is running or not. Yes, there are a few on council that think we
are all idiots and don’t notice this kind of charade!
On a more
positive note I must give credit to the council, even though they dragged their
feet for a while at the beginning of the term, for question period at Council
and Planning meetings as it has been productive. The clerk published a document
reporting the questions asked and answered. Contrary to the concerns of being a
public nuisance, which was the position of Collins, Webster, McLean and Clement
at the beginning of the term, it turned out to be informative and yes a few
times challenging for the councilors, but it kept them on their toes. It has
also attracted more residents to these meetings as they feel they can
contribute. I understand a former member of council who is considering running
again has stated to a few people that he will eliminate question period if he
gets elected. Guess who that is?
I was
pleased to see the CAO confirm at the last council meeting something I have
said for over a year about agreements between the township and the Midhurst
Landowners and Developers. The only agreement that has been signed is for the
costs of the Environmental Assessment Studies for the Midhurst Mega
Developments which are in the neighborhood of about $500,000. However there are
no agreements in place for the actual $100 million plus infrastructure costs
associated with the development of 5,000 homes. There is a proposal letter from
the landowner’s agent/trustee outlining the phasing of the development but this
is not a letter of intent as it has not been signed by the actual parties. I
hope someone thinks it is a good idea to get some agreement to cover the $100
million infrastructure costs or guess who will be on the hook?
As you will
recall, Councillor McConkey got ejected from council last year because Deputy
Mayor McLean was offended by a comment she made about being “unethical” and
asked for her ejection. I will not comment on that as local lawyer Gary French
did an excellent article on that some time ago. I was not at the meeting in
December but Councillor Ritchie, out of frustration about the “lame duck” motion,
made some comment about “collusion”. Guess what? At Monday’s meeting, he
withdrew the use of the word collusion. I wonder if the same person that caused
the ejection of McConkey went down the road and prompted Ritchie to withdraw
the use of the word. At least that someone who may have talked to Ritchie
didn’t have him ejected from council. McConkey did have a good question after
Ritchie withdrew the use of the word collusion. She asked if there was going to
be a motion to accept Ritchie’s withdrawal as was the case when she withdrew
the use of the word “unethical” that offended the Deputy Mayor. Mayor Collins
said “no” as it was a different matter. Interesting answer. At least the Mayor
and Deputy Mayor have realized that depriving the elected member from
participating in council meetings is not well taken by the electorate. Even Rob
Ford who’s behavior is unforgiveable was not ejected from Council proceedings,
as it is his right in the municipal act to represent the people that elected
him.
It is great
to see the number of people from all areas of Springwater at the Council,
Planning and Budget meetings in recent weeks. People are waking up and
realizing that we need to be informed and let our elected councillors know how
we feel. I believe most on council are well intentioned and want to do what is
right. If we don’t let them know where we stand, how can they do a good job? We
elected them to represent our vision for the future of Springwater. It is important
that we continually remind them of where we sit on matters.
If you do
not engage, pay attention and speak up, you will get what you deserve. The next
council for this municipality will be saddled with the most expensive projects and
highest debt levels Springwater has ever encountered and you must decide in the
Fall election who will take care of your best interests.
