Thursday, October 26, 2006

Who Are Our Enemies?


Be warned; we are at risk. THEY are among us but we do not know who THEY are. Eleven people and some hangers-on are in the "in" crowd and are apparently safe but not the rest of us! We may be in mortal danger

Councillor Halberstadt's latest BLOG scares me. But is Councillor Halberstadt serious or is he pulling our collective leg? While he deserves full marks for having a "sunshine bylaw" resolution passed by Council, he did not ensure that Administration did what they were told to do ie report quaterly. But then, after listening to the Superior Park fiasco, when does Administration listen to Councillors anyway. What a disgrace for the people who are supposedly in charge of this City and the residents who suffered from what the Councillor said were flaws in the process.

Of course when Adminstration wants to pretend that the public is advised, matters are put in the Communications package which most people do not read or perhaps do not even know about.

Here is how Alan describes what was presented:
  • "The report was not based on quarterly data, as directed, [who cares what Council wants, Administraion rules!] but summarized the period January to September 28, 2006. Twenty-nine (29) in camera meeting have taken place in that time with 137 items being considered during a total of 47 hours and 48 minutes. By comparison, thirty-four (34) open meetings were held with 430 items being considered during a total of 91 minutes and 25 minutes.

    In other words, almost twice as much Council business is being conducted in open session as behind closed doors. Depending on your perspective, that reflects an open and transparent Council, or one that spends too much time behind closed doors."

Now Alan, get real. How many hours of public time were taken up by debates on feral cats and skunks and other such important matters in public while the boring things like the border, the Cleary and arena were being massaged in camera. Gee, I wish I knew how the City was giving away money on the Canderel and Arena deals but they are in camera. The issue is not the number of hours but the quality of what is being discussed that is important.

Then Alan made this remark: "I am still waiting for a public report, which I orginally requested, on an in camera meeting Council had with border lawyer David Estrin last month...Council has authorized a sizeable amount of money to be spent on legal fees in this latest response to the enemies."

Gee.... don't tell us what it is about. We are only paying the bills after all, a sizable amount too it seems. I wonder who our "enemies" are. Don't you think someone should tell us in case we meet them on the street. We will need to know to be prepared but right now we are at their mercy. They know us but we do not know them. Clearly this must be a huge matter or else it would not be in camera and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Hey I was thinking, this kind of makes of mockery of everything Alan just said about "Council business is being conducted in open session." Alan is waiting for "a public report...which I orginally requested...last month." Then "Mayor Francis has asked the legal department to put together a report for the public agenda" Alan asks if "this report finds its way onto the public agenda before the Nov. 13th election." If it is damaging it won't, if it is helpful, it may be.

I got it! Alan has demonstrated conclusively to me that our real enemy may be our own leaders.

2 comments:

  1. A reader writes:

    The fact that City Council has had more in camera meetings than closed is insignificant. It is the subjects being discussed not the quantity.

    Quality is better than quantity.
    Skunks are getting better treatment than developers in this area.

    Which meeting was that, in camera or out?

    The Bill 142 that councilman Halberstadt describes is good. Why do you have to be a resident to know what is going on? People own business in areas that they do not reside in. They have no say about tax spending until the new bill, maybe.

    Meanwhile Alan cannot get a report from the City that he sits on. Great transparency.

    Disfunctional Biz Climate?

    I for one would not be complaining about City politics and how business peolple are treated if I were an elected representative.

    Alan was a part of council that gave him his headaches.

    The article on George Sofo reiterates the need for a responsible and forward council.
    Clean sweep from the top on down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A reader writes:

    I live in London and find it laughable that you proclaim London to be a 'successful city'. Taxes have been increasing through the roof here and we've been looking to Windsor to see how a city should effectively manage itself financially given the fact that it has been done quite well down there in recent years.

    I'm guessing this comment won't be posted since it actually puts Windsor in a positive light and that seems to be against the goals of your blog but instead of always focusing on the negative, you should realize that it's not that great everywhere else.

    NOTE FROM JOE BLOG: I'll post comments good or bad. I do reserve the right to edit though and not to post articles including those I consider offensive or slanderous.

    ReplyDelete