Posts
An interesting question. One that may generate some consensus?
We raise that interesting concept because it would seem to serve both sides of the debate.
Those who feel that the legal process being driven by Council is warranted so we all have a legal ruling should be pleased because then all sides of the arguments would be heard and ruled on without bias by an independent party. Then we will all know what behaviour is appropriate.
On the opposing side, those who are upset and feel that Councillor Buck is being attacked should be pleased since it would give Councillor Buck some recourse and hold the members of Council accountable for their actions.
Councillor Buck has indicated that she would not sue the Town, so residents would not have more tax dollars spent defending Councillors -- their defense should be funded from their own pockets since they are being sued personally, not the Town -- and wouldn't be on the hook if Councillor Buck is proven innocent of the allegations.
So everybody would be happy. Just a thought ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
More Tax Dollars Wasted
So what possible rationale has Council developed for the outrageous purchase of a half-page ad in The Banner to target Councillor Buck? Our money.
It was bad enough that the information was published on the Town website, when the process is supposed to be confidential -- but now they are spending our tax dollars to promote their agenda through advertising.
And before you start saying Councillor Buck started the issue of non-confidentiality by posting on her blog -- let's remember, she is acting as an individual Councillor. Agree or disagree with her actions, when the Town purchases ad space, they do so as the corporation. Regardless of your point of view about Councillors Buck's actions, surely we must all agree that the corporation must hold itself to a higher standard than an individual.
It will be very enlightening to see where the Integrity Commissioner nets out on this behaviour. Let's hope he will be allowed to look at the bigger picture when evaluating accepted behaviour.
For example, will he include a review of how Council meetings are run and comments by other Council members towards staff, so he has a baseline of what is acceptable for others by Mayor Morris and this Council?
Or how about Mayor Phyllis Morris allowing a citizen from outside Aurora to publicly attack a Councillor without intervening?
We look forward to seeing his written report. It will be interesting to see what Council will allow to be published -- sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.
Possibly some citizen will test the process for some other members of Council. Just a thought.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
It was bad enough that the information was published on the Town website, when the process is supposed to be confidential -- but now they are spending our tax dollars to promote their agenda through advertising.
And before you start saying Councillor Buck started the issue of non-confidentiality by posting on her blog -- let's remember, she is acting as an individual Councillor. Agree or disagree with her actions, when the Town purchases ad space, they do so as the corporation. Regardless of your point of view about Councillors Buck's actions, surely we must all agree that the corporation must hold itself to a higher standard than an individual.
It will be very enlightening to see where the Integrity Commissioner nets out on this behaviour. Let's hope he will be allowed to look at the bigger picture when evaluating accepted behaviour.
For example, will he include a review of how Council meetings are run and comments by other Council members towards staff, so he has a baseline of what is acceptable for others by Mayor Morris and this Council?
Or how about Mayor Phyllis Morris allowing a citizen from outside Aurora to publicly attack a Councillor without intervening?
We look forward to seeing his written report. It will be interesting to see what Council will allow to be published -- sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.
Possibly some citizen will test the process for some other members of Council. Just a thought.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Claiming “Offended” is Offensive
The following was posted by Kevin Burns - Author and Attitude Adjuster, on his blog about leadership and corporate cultures. We thought is was worth sharing.
There is nothing that offends me more than someone who plays the “offended” card and claims righteous indignation. You can’t even have an attempt at humor around these people. Have a little fun and you can see that sour look coming over their faces and looking down their nose at you.
Worse yet are the people who feign offended when it serves to advance their own agenda. Politicians are really good at this one. In fact, in Canada today, there are a whole bunch of politicians pretending to be offended at what another politician supposedly said and turning it into a media circus. It’s cheap politics and it’s as transparent as bottled water.
People who claim to be offended are manipulators, plain and simple. Claiming to be offended is an act that people of poor self-worth pull when they want to get attention. It’s the equivalent to a child’s temper-tantrum, only supposedly more refined.
Their offended-act is a ploy to make the offender seem as though they are not as smart and refined as the one who claims to be offended. It’s childish. It’s counter-productive. And it will alienate and divide a good staff.
It makes the issue all about the person claiming to be offended and not about the issue itself. That’s selfish and offensive.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
There is nothing that offends me more than someone who plays the “offended” card and claims righteous indignation. You can’t even have an attempt at humor around these people. Have a little fun and you can see that sour look coming over their faces and looking down their nose at you.
Worse yet are the people who feign offended when it serves to advance their own agenda. Politicians are really good at this one. In fact, in Canada today, there are a whole bunch of politicians pretending to be offended at what another politician supposedly said and turning it into a media circus. It’s cheap politics and it’s as transparent as bottled water.
People who claim to be offended are manipulators, plain and simple. Claiming to be offended is an act that people of poor self-worth pull when they want to get attention. It’s the equivalent to a child’s temper-tantrum, only supposedly more refined.
Their offended-act is a ploy to make the offender seem as though they are not as smart and refined as the one who claims to be offended. It’s childish. It’s counter-productive. And it will alienate and divide a good staff.
It makes the issue all about the person claiming to be offended and not about the issue itself. That’s selfish and offensive.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Council Declares War on Buck
For the first time in memory, Aurora Council have declared outright war on another Councillor.
The crime -- speaking out against other members of Council. However, Council has wrapped their complaint in the shroud of protecting staff. Hardly!
The Banner reports that "Mayor Phyllis Morris stated the complaint against Councillor Evelyn Buck stems from blog postings, which allegedly make repeated disparaging remarks and allegations about town staff."
We absolutely agree that staff is off-limits. They are merely executing the policies as set out by Council. Time will tell whether Councillor Buck actually made comments against staff.
Mayor Morris goes on to say "Various sources have made many insinuations about herself and the other members of council, Mrs. Morris said, however, that's not what the complaint is about. Politicians are aware that sometimes harsh criticism comes with the territory, she said, noting it crossed the line when it targeted the staff."
Untrue. The CAO specifically called this blog to task -- demanding removal of a comment by an anonymous commenter that made disparaging comments about Mayor Morris -- with no mention of staff or the corporation.
It was only when the Town Solicitor formalized the complaint in a legal letter that the demand changed to specifically refer to Mayor Morris.
It is also interesting to note how "confidential" this matter is. The Town website indicates; The Commissioner and every person acting under the Commissioner’s direction “shall preserve secrecy”. These requirements are expressly stated to prevail over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Where a Commissioner provides a periodic report he or she “may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.”
Yet a full report is published on the Town website, along with links to the legal opinion letter and Council motion.
It will be interesting to see how much support Council gets from the Integrity Commissioner and how far he is prepared to go on what Councillor Buck can and cannot say.
If they really think this public fight will work in their favour, they grossly under-estimate the fortitude of Councillor Buck. Love her or hate her -- history tells us she is always clear on her position and sticks to her principles. Pity the same can't be said for some of the rest of Council.
Mayor Morris claims "Freedom of speech is a valuable thing in our society, but it does not, however, allow people to call out 'fire' in a crowded theatre." "Mrs. Morris was also quick to point out the complaint is by no means an attempt to stifle anyone's free speech."
Her claim seems somewhat disingenuous in this context. Attacking another Councillor and a citizen blog site would seem to be exactly intended to stifle comments about her leadership. Not only can you not yell "Fire" in a theatre, apparently you can't yell "Fire Mayor Morris" in Aurora.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The crime -- speaking out against other members of Council. However, Council has wrapped their complaint in the shroud of protecting staff. Hardly!
The Banner reports that "Mayor Phyllis Morris stated the complaint against Councillor Evelyn Buck stems from blog postings, which allegedly make repeated disparaging remarks and allegations about town staff."
We absolutely agree that staff is off-limits. They are merely executing the policies as set out by Council. Time will tell whether Councillor Buck actually made comments against staff.
Mayor Morris goes on to say "Various sources have made many insinuations about herself and the other members of council, Mrs. Morris said, however, that's not what the complaint is about. Politicians are aware that sometimes harsh criticism comes with the territory, she said, noting it crossed the line when it targeted the staff."
Untrue. The CAO specifically called this blog to task -- demanding removal of a comment by an anonymous commenter that made disparaging comments about Mayor Morris -- with no mention of staff or the corporation.
It was only when the Town Solicitor formalized the complaint in a legal letter that the demand changed to specifically refer to Mayor Morris.
It is also interesting to note how "confidential" this matter is. The Town website indicates; The Commissioner and every person acting under the Commissioner’s direction “shall preserve secrecy”. These requirements are expressly stated to prevail over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Where a Commissioner provides a periodic report he or she “may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.”
Yet a full report is published on the Town website, along with links to the legal opinion letter and Council motion.
It will be interesting to see how much support Council gets from the Integrity Commissioner and how far he is prepared to go on what Councillor Buck can and cannot say.
If they really think this public fight will work in their favour, they grossly under-estimate the fortitude of Councillor Buck. Love her or hate her -- history tells us she is always clear on her position and sticks to her principles. Pity the same can't be said for some of the rest of Council.
Mayor Morris claims "Freedom of speech is a valuable thing in our society, but it does not, however, allow people to call out 'fire' in a crowded theatre." "Mrs. Morris was also quick to point out the complaint is by no means an attempt to stifle anyone's free speech."
Her claim seems somewhat disingenuous in this context. Attacking another Councillor and a citizen blog site would seem to be exactly intended to stifle comments about her leadership. Not only can you not yell "Fire" in a theatre, apparently you can't yell "Fire Mayor Morris" in Aurora.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Legal Costs Are Inching Up
On July 23, The Banner published an article which provided some historical perspective on legal costs this term versus prior terms. While we appreciate the work of Sean Pearce in preparing this summary, it would have been helpful if he had the opportunity to dig a little deeper.
While in may be true that costs for this year/term are lower than past years, it is equally important to know the purpose for those expenditures. There is a significant difference between Town expenditures and the legal costs for political issues that are causing the uproar by citizens.
For example, Mr Pearce states "A large portion of to 2000 total had to do with an Ontario Municipal Board battle over the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan". That would clearly be a Town based expenditure.
However, this term we have seen funds spent trying to find dirt against former Mayor Jones (unsuccessfully it would appear since nothing was published), circumventing the by-election that was desired by an outspoken majority of residents that allowed Mayor Morris to appoint a Councillor who had previously indicated his support, and most recently to silence an outspoken Councillor who regularly disagrees in public with her.
None of those 3 has anything to do with the Town business, but are exclusively political/personal in nature.
Clearly the Council perspective (as it is for any Council) is to spin the numbers in a positive light. The role of the press and citizen watchdogs is to ask questions that seek to understand the facts behind the spin.
Mayor Morris states that she unequivocally refutes that she has spent over $200,000 on lawyers. Well total expenditures this term are indicated at $372.7K (2006-$38.5, 2007-$109.0, 2008-$139, 2009 YTD-86.2).
Not sure how these figures "clearly don't support that". Over $350,000 dollars have been spent by this Mayor and Council. It would appear the numbers do support the assertion!
An argument will be made -- quite accurately -- that all these expenditures are not driven by the politicians. But why are the real facts so hard to determine.
Every legal bill comes with a detailed breakdown. Yet when you review the items on agenda item 37 from the July 21 meeting this breakdown is hard to see.
For example, according to the written report there is no mention of expenditures for the matter involving Councillor Buck although we know that funds have been spent. There is a letter of legal opinion dated July 16 from Aird & Berlis. We guess that's because the report is only until May 31.
Similarly, almost 50% of legal fees to-date from Virginia MacLean were not broken down. What types of issues were these? We know Councillor Buck has been a thorn in the Mayors side long before June 2009.
There was also another $2,400 spent on a Freedom of Information requests. One would suspect that was so Council did not have to provide the information requested. Hard to tell whether this was Town or political in nature from this report.
Overall the issue that keeps rearing its ugly head is openness and transparency. These were the key promises of this Mayor and probably the greatest broken promise thus far.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
While in may be true that costs for this year/term are lower than past years, it is equally important to know the purpose for those expenditures. There is a significant difference between Town expenditures and the legal costs for political issues that are causing the uproar by citizens.
For example, Mr Pearce states "A large portion of to 2000 total had to do with an Ontario Municipal Board battle over the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan". That would clearly be a Town based expenditure.
However, this term we have seen funds spent trying to find dirt against former Mayor Jones (unsuccessfully it would appear since nothing was published), circumventing the by-election that was desired by an outspoken majority of residents that allowed Mayor Morris to appoint a Councillor who had previously indicated his support, and most recently to silence an outspoken Councillor who regularly disagrees in public with her.
None of those 3 has anything to do with the Town business, but are exclusively political/personal in nature.
Clearly the Council perspective (as it is for any Council) is to spin the numbers in a positive light. The role of the press and citizen watchdogs is to ask questions that seek to understand the facts behind the spin.
Mayor Morris states that she unequivocally refutes that she has spent over $200,000 on lawyers. Well total expenditures this term are indicated at $372.7K (2006-$38.5, 2007-$109.0, 2008-$139, 2009 YTD-86.2).
Not sure how these figures "clearly don't support that". Over $350,000 dollars have been spent by this Mayor and Council. It would appear the numbers do support the assertion!
An argument will be made -- quite accurately -- that all these expenditures are not driven by the politicians. But why are the real facts so hard to determine.
Every legal bill comes with a detailed breakdown. Yet when you review the items on agenda item 37 from the July 21 meeting this breakdown is hard to see.
For example, according to the written report there is no mention of expenditures for the matter involving Councillor Buck although we know that funds have been spent. There is a letter of legal opinion dated July 16 from Aird & Berlis. We guess that's because the report is only until May 31.
Similarly, almost 50% of legal fees to-date from Virginia MacLean were not broken down. What types of issues were these? We know Councillor Buck has been a thorn in the Mayors side long before June 2009.
There was also another $2,400 spent on a Freedom of Information requests. One would suspect that was so Council did not have to provide the information requested. Hard to tell whether this was Town or political in nature from this report.
Overall the issue that keeps rearing its ugly head is openness and transparency. These were the key promises of this Mayor and probably the greatest broken promise thus far.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Leadership Lessons from Obama
Michael Zubrow (foreign policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, a non-partisan, independent, national security think tank in Washington, DC.) recently wrote for BBC News about President Obama’s recent trip and his differing leadership approach from the Bush administration’s.
He summarizes it as engaging directly with the people of the world versus the Bush era leadership-centric diplomacy.
Here are a few excerpts from Zubrow’s article:
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
He summarizes it as engaging directly with the people of the world versus the Bush era leadership-centric diplomacy.
Here are a few excerpts from Zubrow’s article:
- Barack Obama’s weapon of choice is public diplomacy, speaking plainly and persuasively, directly to the people. While President George W Bush was well known for relying on close relationships with heads of state, President Obama’s rhetoric is aimed at the ruling elite and the common citizen alike.
- In Prague he referred to the strength of the people of a different generation, exclaiming: “That’s why I’m speaking to you in the centre of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free - because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged, even when their leaders did not.
- In Accra, Mr Obama called for institutions that are transparent and reliable, noting that good governance is “about more than holding elections - it’s also about what happens between them
- Leaders must engage directly with citizens.
- Leaders must lead through example not by intervention.
- Leaders must share values, hopes, and dreams with citizens.
- Leaders must have faith in citizens to create change that makes sense.
- Leaders must make use of new technologies and tools to communicate.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Financial Accountability
Legal expenditures on this Council have been significant. And those are just the ones that are easily identified. It seems the current Council has spent more than their fair share of our tax dollars on legal issues that have less to do with the business of running the Town, but have more to do with the manner in which the Council chooses to run it.
Some time ago, former Councillor Kean was forced to use a Freedom of Information request to get expenditures.
More recently Councillor Buck has asked for a breakdown of legal costs -- she was denied. She is one of our voices on Council. It is her job to ask questions on our behalf.
Makes one wonder why these numbers are not freely available to the folks who are paying them -- you -- the taxpayer.
Lawyers are very specific in detailing their bills -- project by project, minute by minute, photocopy by photocopy. Why is it so hard to get the financials that this Council has spent this term?
They should all be easily accessible in a file somewhere. Making a photocopy shouldn't be hard, or time consuming for staff.
Maybe we need another Freedom of Information request?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Some time ago, former Councillor Kean was forced to use a Freedom of Information request to get expenditures.
More recently Councillor Buck has asked for a breakdown of legal costs -- she was denied. She is one of our voices on Council. It is her job to ask questions on our behalf.
Makes one wonder why these numbers are not freely available to the folks who are paying them -- you -- the taxpayer.
Lawyers are very specific in detailing their bills -- project by project, minute by minute, photocopy by photocopy. Why is it so hard to get the financials that this Council has spent this term?
They should all be easily accessible in a file somewhere. Making a photocopy shouldn't be hard, or time consuming for staff.
Maybe we need another Freedom of Information request?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Canada's Birthday Town
A reader asked, "Why is Aurora 'Canada's Birthday Town'?"
We've all seen it everywhere (for a long time) but we don't know where and why it originated. Anybody know?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
We've all seen it everywhere (for a long time) but we don't know where and why it originated. Anybody know?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
What's Up With Integrity?
Councillor Buck confirmed in her recent post that a contract with the Integrity Commissioner was finally signed on June 18. Council has not issued this news.
A review of the town website on July 4 offers the following contradictions.
On the Code of Conduct page it states, "The complaint must be in writing accompanied by an affidavit witnessed by a commissioner of oath, which sets out the evidence in support of the complaint. Once the complaint is submitted, it will be provided to the Integrity Commission for review and investigation."
However, in the page for the Integrity Commissioner it states, "Members of the public with a question or concern can approach the Councillor directly and/or integrity commissioner by phone with any concerns related to the behaviour of a Councillor, for grounds noted in the Municipal Act and referenced on the web-site. These questions, complaints and inquiries need not be written or in affidavit form, nor is there a fee for such a query. There will be a response, acknowledgement or resolution within three days.”
So why does the Town insist on a sworn affidavit, while the Integrity Commissioner clearly states no affidavit is required and no fees are involved?
Why does the Town page indicate that Council vets first before sending to the Integrity Commissioner?
Finally, why has no official word been released about the contract being signed, or why it has taken since Nov 25, 2008 to get this contract signed.
As usual, one must wonder about what is going on at Town Hall. Now that there is finally an Integrity Commissioner in place, it will be interesting to see how his services are used.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
A review of the town website on July 4 offers the following contradictions.
On the Code of Conduct page it states, "The complaint must be in writing accompanied by an affidavit witnessed by a commissioner of oath, which sets out the evidence in support of the complaint. Once the complaint is submitted, it will be provided to the Integrity Commission for review and investigation."
However, in the page for the Integrity Commissioner it states, "Members of the public with a question or concern can approach the Councillor directly and/or integrity commissioner by phone with any concerns related to the behaviour of a Councillor, for grounds noted in the Municipal Act and referenced on the web-site. These questions, complaints and inquiries need not be written or in affidavit form, nor is there a fee for such a query. There will be a response, acknowledgement or resolution within three days.”
So why does the Town insist on a sworn affidavit, while the Integrity Commissioner clearly states no affidavit is required and no fees are involved?
Why does the Town page indicate that Council vets first before sending to the Integrity Commissioner?
Finally, why has no official word been released about the contract being signed, or why it has taken since Nov 25, 2008 to get this contract signed.
As usual, one must wonder about what is going on at Town Hall. Now that there is finally an Integrity Commissioner in place, it will be interesting to see how his services are used.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Accountability Rests Exclusively with Council
Sher St Kitts has resigned. Some comments in this blog suggest that this resignation somehow skirts accountability. However, we disagree, accountability lies exclusively with Council for any and all activities associated with a Town Committee and any members on that committee.
When Council creates any committee in Town, they must accept responsibility for the activities of that committee and all its members. That is their role on behalf of the citizens of Aurora. The people of Aurora did not elect committee members and resultant those members have not accountability to the citizens. Council appointed them and the accountability is to Council -- which in turn is accountable to the voters.
If we have questions of the committee or members, it is Council’s role to ask those questions and report to the citizens. If Council chooses not to ask -- well that is their decision and they are accountable. So if you have questions for any committee member -- take it up with your Council. That’s their job. Having a member resign does not remove the responsibility from Council. It does not make the issue go away.
The issue here was never the issue of wrong doing -- no accusations have been made. Questions have simply been asked for clarity because of a seeming co-mingling of activities that is unclear on what is a Town committee versus a private citizen committee. Transparency has been requested because Town resources are being used and citizen want to understand how they are being used.
In fact, Council’s unwillingness to seek answers to questions has created the issue -- that together with the televised attack on a Councillor with the audacity to ask.
Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
When Council creates any committee in Town, they must accept responsibility for the activities of that committee and all its members. That is their role on behalf of the citizens of Aurora. The people of Aurora did not elect committee members and resultant those members have not accountability to the citizens. Council appointed them and the accountability is to Council -- which in turn is accountable to the voters.
If we have questions of the committee or members, it is Council’s role to ask those questions and report to the citizens. If Council chooses not to ask -- well that is their decision and they are accountable. So if you have questions for any committee member -- take it up with your Council. That’s their job. Having a member resign does not remove the responsibility from Council. It does not make the issue go away.
The issue here was never the issue of wrong doing -- no accusations have been made. Questions have simply been asked for clarity because of a seeming co-mingling of activities that is unclear on what is a Town committee versus a private citizen committee. Transparency has been requested because Town resources are being used and citizen want to understand how they are being used.
In fact, Council’s unwillingness to seek answers to questions has created the issue -- that together with the televised attack on a Councillor with the audacity to ask.
Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Community Hydro Expert Speaks Out
Local community hydro expert Richard Johnson and key member of STOP sent in the following comment. It is published unchanged. You can also read his Letter of the Week from June 26, 2009 in the Mississauga News on the same subject.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.
Mayor Phyllis Morris and Sue Walmer of MegaWHAT and EAC both apparently drive SUV's and rumour has it that they may well be sympathetic to the Conservatives as a few photos seem to suggest, which may all be well and fine with the exception that it also seems to fly in the face of the "green" image that they are so diligently trying to portray. So which is it, are they green or are they blue?
Sue Walmer refused to even discuss the power supply issue for three and a half years despite many attempts to engage her and EAC in the important issues being discussed in our community, before she then inexplicably co-authored MegaWHAT's ridiculously poorly founded position statement that both Mayor Morris and "shadow Mayor" MacEachern also appeared to align with through an obviously preconceived and apparently contrived Council resolution related to the same issue.
Clearly none of them even read, or at the very least understand the environmental assessment studies or the OPA needs analysis related to the local power supply issue before they adopted their hard line stance on these long standing issues.
Mayor Morris refused to permit council to become well informed before any vote was taken on the power supply issue despite the many offers made to educate council by numerous well informed people. None of them even came close to demonstrating an understanding of the issues or the viable alternatives.
For some of us, including the Town of Markham, who spent $750,000 on communications, technical and environmental law experts in Aurora's defence on these very same power supply issues, it was hard to watch. Mayor Morris, Sue Walmer and Council rejected the need for a critically required gas fired peaking plant to be built anywhere in Northern York Region or the province for that matter; despite the fact that the peaking plant was ironically required in order to incorporate wind or solar power solutions into the power grid as well as to protect our power reliability of Aurora, while at the same time reducing coal fired emissions in the province. Now these same people apparently all support a less environmentally friendly and a more expensive (per kilowatt) diesel powered UPS generator for the Town Hall!
Go figure. It just seems to go from bad to worse all of the time. I have to assume that the thinking may be that if you say you are a well informed defender of the environment or an energy expert enough times some people might actually believe you.
There is certainly no shortage of smoke and mirrors in Aurora at any event. Given the mixed signals being sent it really does make you wonder where they might stand with regards to the need for environmental assessments at all given that to date they seem to have ignored so much professional and well informed input from the likes of the Ontario Power Authority, OEB, IESO, APPrO, power company engineers and environmental assessment experts in any number of areas.
Through their mis-handling of environmental and planning issues locally they have arguably missed a significant opportunity to be constructively engaged in the power planning, environmental assessment and procurement processes. Under their leadership Aurora, the Region and even the province have missed the proverbial boat on smart growth infrastructure planning and sadly King, Mississauga the greater province are now paying a big price as a direct result.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that socio-economic impacts and other environmental concerns are often not addressed when we have so many governments, starting from the local governments upwards, that don't even seem to care about the facts or the viable options before they adopt their politically expedient stance on any given issue.
It is no surprise to me that the province has passed legislation to allow them to impose power supply infrastructure on unwilling host communities given the clear lack of professional and good faith co-operation we have witnessed from our local municipalities and most notably from Aurora. If I have learned anything in the past five years politics and planning are all about spin, self interest and money at the end of the day, don't kid yourself.
From my perspective, based on what we know from our local experience, it would be enlightening to know where Mayor Morris, shadow Mayor MacEachern and EAC stand with regards to the Globe & Mail news story quoted below. It sure does make you wonder where we are headed.
Ottawa could waive thousands more environmental assessments, (abbreviated quotes)
Martin Mittelstaedt and Dawn Walton, Toronto, Calgary — From Friday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 26, 2009
The number of federally funded infrastructure projects exempted from environmental assessments could soar to nearly 14,000, up from the 2,000 figure the Conservatives announced in March.
The new figure was introduced earlier this week in a Federal Court of Canada case by the Sierra Club of Canada challenging the legality of exemptions. It was based on a disclosure Ottawa made in the Canada Gazette last month indicating that up to an additional 12,000 projects will be approved under the infrastructure program.
The new total suggests the federal cabinet's decision to limit environmental assessments on infrastructure spending will have far broader effects than was initially thought. The exemption applies to a wide range of projects receiving federal money and includes highway widening, bridges and sewage treatment plants, but also ventures with little or no environmental impacts, such as bike trails and social-housing construction.
“Certainly we were appalled when it was at 2,000 and now we're at a sevenfold increase. That's just immense,” said Justin Duncan, a lawyer at Ecojustice, a public interest legal organization that is representing Sierra Club in the case. “Ballooning up to 14,000 certainly provides greater fodder for our case that the federal government is getting out of the [environmental assessment] game.”...
Speaking to reporters in Calgary, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, defended the exemption plan, saying the government “looked at the kinds of projects in the past where environmental assessments had resulted in delay, but not necessarily any improvements and where we felt that duplicative environmental assessments would not be in our best interests.”
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.
Mayor Phyllis Morris and Sue Walmer of MegaWHAT and EAC both apparently drive SUV's and rumour has it that they may well be sympathetic to the Conservatives as a few photos seem to suggest, which may all be well and fine with the exception that it also seems to fly in the face of the "green" image that they are so diligently trying to portray. So which is it, are they green or are they blue?
Sue Walmer refused to even discuss the power supply issue for three and a half years despite many attempts to engage her and EAC in the important issues being discussed in our community, before she then inexplicably co-authored MegaWHAT's ridiculously poorly founded position statement that both Mayor Morris and "shadow Mayor" MacEachern also appeared to align with through an obviously preconceived and apparently contrived Council resolution related to the same issue.
Clearly none of them even read, or at the very least understand the environmental assessment studies or the OPA needs analysis related to the local power supply issue before they adopted their hard line stance on these long standing issues.
Mayor Morris refused to permit council to become well informed before any vote was taken on the power supply issue despite the many offers made to educate council by numerous well informed people. None of them even came close to demonstrating an understanding of the issues or the viable alternatives.
For some of us, including the Town of Markham, who spent $750,000 on communications, technical and environmental law experts in Aurora's defence on these very same power supply issues, it was hard to watch. Mayor Morris, Sue Walmer and Council rejected the need for a critically required gas fired peaking plant to be built anywhere in Northern York Region or the province for that matter; despite the fact that the peaking plant was ironically required in order to incorporate wind or solar power solutions into the power grid as well as to protect our power reliability of Aurora, while at the same time reducing coal fired emissions in the province. Now these same people apparently all support a less environmentally friendly and a more expensive (per kilowatt) diesel powered UPS generator for the Town Hall!
Go figure. It just seems to go from bad to worse all of the time. I have to assume that the thinking may be that if you say you are a well informed defender of the environment or an energy expert enough times some people might actually believe you.
There is certainly no shortage of smoke and mirrors in Aurora at any event. Given the mixed signals being sent it really does make you wonder where they might stand with regards to the need for environmental assessments at all given that to date they seem to have ignored so much professional and well informed input from the likes of the Ontario Power Authority, OEB, IESO, APPrO, power company engineers and environmental assessment experts in any number of areas.
Through their mis-handling of environmental and planning issues locally they have arguably missed a significant opportunity to be constructively engaged in the power planning, environmental assessment and procurement processes. Under their leadership Aurora, the Region and even the province have missed the proverbial boat on smart growth infrastructure planning and sadly King, Mississauga the greater province are now paying a big price as a direct result.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that socio-economic impacts and other environmental concerns are often not addressed when we have so many governments, starting from the local governments upwards, that don't even seem to care about the facts or the viable options before they adopt their politically expedient stance on any given issue.
It is no surprise to me that the province has passed legislation to allow them to impose power supply infrastructure on unwilling host communities given the clear lack of professional and good faith co-operation we have witnessed from our local municipalities and most notably from Aurora. If I have learned anything in the past five years politics and planning are all about spin, self interest and money at the end of the day, don't kid yourself.
From my perspective, based on what we know from our local experience, it would be enlightening to know where Mayor Morris, shadow Mayor MacEachern and EAC stand with regards to the Globe & Mail news story quoted below. It sure does make you wonder where we are headed.
Ottawa could waive thousands more environmental assessments, (abbreviated quotes)
Martin Mittelstaedt and Dawn Walton, Toronto, Calgary — From Friday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 26, 2009
The number of federally funded infrastructure projects exempted from environmental assessments could soar to nearly 14,000, up from the 2,000 figure the Conservatives announced in March.
The new figure was introduced earlier this week in a Federal Court of Canada case by the Sierra Club of Canada challenging the legality of exemptions. It was based on a disclosure Ottawa made in the Canada Gazette last month indicating that up to an additional 12,000 projects will be approved under the infrastructure program.
The new total suggests the federal cabinet's decision to limit environmental assessments on infrastructure spending will have far broader effects than was initially thought. The exemption applies to a wide range of projects receiving federal money and includes highway widening, bridges and sewage treatment plants, but also ventures with little or no environmental impacts, such as bike trails and social-housing construction.
“Certainly we were appalled when it was at 2,000 and now we're at a sevenfold increase. That's just immense,” said Justin Duncan, a lawyer at Ecojustice, a public interest legal organization that is representing Sierra Club in the case. “Ballooning up to 14,000 certainly provides greater fodder for our case that the federal government is getting out of the [environmental assessment] game.”...
Speaking to reporters in Calgary, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, defended the exemption plan, saying the government “looked at the kinds of projects in the past where environmental assessments had resulted in delay, but not necessarily any improvements and where we felt that duplicative environmental assessments would not be in our best interests.”
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)