Hubris

We are pleased to post this submission from David Daniels. We had heard about this affront to democracy but here is a first hand description of the incident and his comment.

THE MAYOR BUILDS HUBRIS**

David A. Daniels

** “Hubris”: Overbearing pride or   presumption; arrogance”

Virtually every Council meeting has a “Question Period”.  Prior to accepting questions from the gallery, the Mayor typically states something like: “This is the time when the public may ask questions concerning items not on the agenda.”  I have often asked questions at the question period.

At the January 4th Committee of Council meeting, when the Question Period arrived, and as I was about to rise from my seat to ask a question, the Mayor stated:

“I invite you to ask a question if you are at this point prepared to be helpful and representative of a builder, a builder, somebody who is interested in advancing the interests of the Town in a constructive kind of way at these meetings. Otherwise, I would ask you to direct it either to myself or the CAO separately.

We are a little bit tired of the other approach.

So, if you have a question that is constructive and reflective of being a builder in a part of  this government that you want to amplify the good of this Town, I invite you to come to this microphone.

Otherwise, send us an email and we will take it as an opinion.”

I did not ask the question I had in mind.

Does this new “policy” mean that anyone who raises questions or concerns about projects the Mayor favours is necessarily NOT a “builder”?

When I raised questions about building Railtown, was I being “destructive”? The Mayor pushed for the Town to contribute $60,000.00 toward building the new Acadia University track and field.  In return for its $60,000.00, the Town received the good will of AU and not much more.  I raised questions about this expenditure; so did members of the Parks and Recreation Committee.  Were I and those committee members NON-builders?  Did we display less of an interest in the Town’s well-being because we disagreed with the Mayor?

Who appointed the Mayor as the decider of what can or cannot be asked at public Council meetings?   Last time I looked at the Municipal Government Act, the Council was the governing authority who decided policies in the Town, not the Mayor.

The newly adopted Strategic Plan calls for Public Participation but apparently only on the Mayor’s terms.

I’d like to think that the fact that there is a now public participation plan in the making, at least in part, is due to my persistent questions about allowing the public to participate at Council meetings.

Is the Mayor suffering from a bad case of hubris?  This condition often afflicts those who have been in power too long.  Those who suffer from this ailment try to prevent the voicing of contrary opinions or simply ignore them.  After all, if you’re always right, why bother listening to others, especially those who may disagree with you.

One cure for hubris may be to read the Charter of Rights and think about the importance of freedom of expression and dissent in a democracy.

Will those who champion democracy and good government, including at least one councillor, please take note and have a word with the mayor? And not just the mayor. Mr. Daniels is too kind in not mentioning the deafening silence around the table. Perhaps the councillors can’t ask questions either.

This article and a submission by Lutz Becker on “Clock Park” which follows will be found published in the Jan issue of the Mud Creek News usually available in the Post Office.*

*If you don’t find them on the counter search for them in the trash!

Another outburst

We didn’t witness the incidents mentioned in this second submission by Lutz Becker  but don’t find them hard to believe as we have seen and heard similar incidents in the the past. We are copying Mr. Becker’s piece in full as we received it.

Behavioural Problems at the Council table?

On January 04, 2010 during the official QUESTION PERIOD at the Committee of Council meeting Mayor Stead tried and succeeded in “shutting up” a Wolfville resident in the audience, who wanted to ask a question.

As always, Mayor Stead allowed the audience to ask questions to issues only which were not on the Agenda for the particular meeting. Public participation is limited, for the audience has to be quiet and listen to the discussions at the Council table. The public cannot interact with questions to contribute to the subject.

When the resident indicated that he would like to ask a question, Mayor Stead made it clear that he would allow the question only if he judged it helpful, constructive and reflecting the representation of a builder advancing the interests of the Town. “We are a little bit tired of the other approach” Stead said, and it is very interesting that he sees himself as a pluralistic person.

Due to this aggressive attitude of Mayor Stead, the resident “swallowed” his question at this point in time and as far as I know, he is in the process of writing a complaint to the Ombudsman of Nova Scotia. Stead’s outburst could be interpreted as a violation of the Charter Rights as well.

I regard this outburst of Mayor Stead as an insult to this resident and all Wolfville residents and expect a public apology.  Mayor Stead’s behaviour has to be taken in context with the Town’s repeated intention to increase communication and public participation. All Councillors and the two hired $15,000.00-expensive consultants showed no reaction to Stead’s outburst. At least one of the Councillors apologized to the resident later on.

I have no problem to state firmly that at all public meetings I attended I have never ever heard a resident’s question not being helpful, constructive and/or advancing the interests of Wolfville tax payers. Town officials and the general public should be grateful for all of these residents who show up at the public meetings and ask questions.

Is Mayor Stead stressed out and unable to cope with his emotions?

If this behavioural incident at the Council table had been the only one lately, I would have let it pass without writing about it.

But during the last Council meeting in 2009 the same resident had asked why the reason for Councilman Zimmerman’s excuse from the table during a motion regarding a decision in favour of Habitat for Humanity was not documented in the Minutes. This documentation is required in the Municipal Government Act. Mr. Zimmerman quoted the question of the resident “a colossal waste of time” before he then explained that he is somehow in a committee function with Habitat for Humanity. In addition I was told that at the end of a public meeting at the Wolfville School last year Mr. Zimmerman had used a much worse language while addressing another concerned Wolfville resident with the words: “You are full of sh**”.

I hope and wish that these incidents will not create nor project a new style on how to behave as elected public officials. Maybe, a kindergarten course could achieve behavioural improvement or Wolfville residents should call our Council “Comedy-Council” if its strategic goal of increasing communication and public participation is treated and acted on as nothing but a joke.

Lutz E. Becker / January 09, 2010

The mayor doesn’t like being “verbally stoned” by questions or criticism and yet he seems to practice this himself; residents who are on the other end of his barbs certainly must feel bruised.

There is a saying which is pertinent: “If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.” [And Puhleeze don’t suggest this is a sexist comment. Men are chefs too!]

Tyranna___us Rex

Our sometimes friend Mr. Becker has posted a lengthy article on the mayor’s tendency to  exercise authority he does not have . Mr. Becker calls this tyranny. For those lazier than we are we offer here a summary adding a … Continue reading →

More on the CAO’s contract

This time it is David Daniels weighing in on the CAO contract affair. He has written an open letter to the mayor which we have received, with an explanatory preamble, not only from our often helpful reader who must be on his e-mail list, but also from Mr. Daniels himself.  We have left off the preamble which explained that in this letter he  doesn’t go into the contract details itself as Mr Becker has but concentrates on the process of approving the 2007 contract revision, “in the hopes that in the future the Town will be more open about such approval processes“.  We copy below Mr. Daniels letter to the mayor in its entirety [but formatting may differ. The emphases are his].

November 4, 2008

Dear Mayor Stead:

I have read the draft minutes of the October 15, 2008 Committee of Council meeting in which James Dewar, Q.C., the Town Solicitor,  explains the circumstances leading to your letter to Roy Brideau, dated February 15, 2007, by which Mr. Brideau’s employment contract with the Town was revised.  Unfortunately, questions remain about how your letter came to be written.

The starting point of my analysis are the following observations.

**Mr. Brideau’s employment contract with the Town was revised by your February 15th letter.

**The powers of the municipality lie with the council and not with the mayor.  Municipal Government Act (“MGA”) sections 14(1) and 15.

**One of the powers of the council is to make contracts.  MGA section 47(5).

**I have reviewed the Town Council meeting minutes of February 5, 2007, February 20, 2007, March 5, 2007 and March 20, 2007 and I could find no reference to the Council’s approval of revisions to the Brideau contract.

Based upon the October 15th minutes and the above observations, the obvious questions are: Did the Council ever approve the revisions to Mr. Brideau’s employment contract?  And if it did, when did the approval take place?

Mr. Dewar explains that at the Council’s In Camera session at the February 5th Committee of Council meeting “Council did ‘give direction to staff of or Solicitors for the municipality’, also permitted under that same sub section [22(3)] of the [Municipal Government] Act.”  After this In Camera session you met with Mr. Brideau, who did not attend the In Camera session.  You then met with Mr. Brideau a second time when Mr. Brideau accepted the contract offer which, at Mr. Brideau’s request, was set out in writing, that is, your February 15th letter.

Mr. Dewar asserts that no decision by Council was made at its February 5th  In Camera session, but rather, by implication, you were directed to negotiate with Mr. Brideau.  It appears from Mr. Dewar’s statements that such a “direction” was permissible based upon section 22(3) of the MGA which provides that “[n]o decision shall be made at a private council meeting except a decision concerning procedural matters or to give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality.”

It is unclear whether under this scenario you are being considered a member of Town staff.

I could find no definition of “staff” in the MGA or any other Nova Scotia statute.  Common usage of the word would seem to preclude the head of the government being viewed as a staff member.

Perhaps most enlightening on this issue, and on the question of approving contracts, is the commentary found in INFORMATION BULLETIN #7 – OPEN MEETINGS of the Nova Scotia Department of Housing & Municipal Affairs  – Revised March 2000 Municipal Government Act Resource Guide.  It’s worth quoting from this Bulletin at length.

Decisions

The only decisions that may be made at a closed council meeting are in regards to a procedural matter (such as an adjournment) or to give direction to staff or solicitor: S. 22(3).  Council cannot make a decision at a closed meeting which would bind council. Binding decisions must be made in an open meeting. Closed meetings are intended to provide a forum for council to discuss these specified items in private, prior to making a decision.  An example of giving direction to staff could be in the form of requesting staff to investigate alternative courses of action, or suggesting maximum or minimum values concerning land sales or acquisitions or wage settlements.  Staff can only be directed to carry out actions that they have the authority to do.  For example, staff could not enter into or accept a contract on behalf of Council, except as authorized by legislation, for example S. 31 of the MGA.  They could, however,  negotiate within the parameters given at a closed meeting with council giving the final approval at an open meeting.

Since substantive decisions may not be made at closed meetings, council cannot simply ratify the action agreed in the closed meeting, that is, for example, council cannot “ratify the action recommended at the April 2 closed meeting.”  Council at an open meeting must put the specific
motion on the “floor” to discuss and vote on, for example: “resolve to dismiss [name]” or “agree to purchase the Smith property for the price of $97,000”.    (My underlining.)

What appears to have happened was that in the In Camera portion of the February 5th Committee of Council meeting you were directed by Council to negotiate with Mr. Brideau within set parameters; that the negotiations took place between you and Mr. Brideau; that an agreement was reached within those parameters; and that for reasons which remain unclear, a binding decision by Council to approve the revised contract never took place at an open meeting.

At the October 20th Council meeting you observed that I seemed very interested in this issue.  Let me make my interests clear: I hope in the future Town Council will not enter into contracts (and the Brideau contract revision obligates the Town to expend annually well over 1% of its annual budget four years running) where there is virtually no public record of those decisions and that the Town Council will in the future follow the practices set out in Bulletin #7.  Democratic governments require transparency if they are to operate properly and to retain the trust of the people whom they serve.

Respectfully,

David A. Daniels

The truism -and legal principle- that applies here is that an action should not only be fair but appear to be so. And everything surrounding this contract appears suspect even if it is not.

And

even if everything was above board, and approved openly, it is still TOO MUCH MONEY for a town this size. Mayor and Council are supposed to represent and protect the interest of the ratepayers.

To the residents of Wolfville

The mayor has written an open letter -dated Oct. 6th- to the residents of Wolfville. We expect every household has received one by now via our accommodating PO  . Since it is on town letterhead and is not approved by the committee to elect Bob Stead we do not think he intends this to be part of his campaign material. It must have cost the taxpayer [oh- that’s us!] something to send out [wonder which part of the budget covered that]  and some might think this letter furthers his campaign. We are not one of those.

The gist of the letter is that recent “items of correspondence have been circulated” in which “unfair” and “incorrect” accusations have been made against town staff and Council.

Because of the challenging, negative and threatening tone and nature of much of the materials which impugn the qualifications and work records of these persons and indirectly bring into disrepute the records of support staff, I feel it necessary as Mayor to respond.”

Mayor Stead goes on to say that a negative and divisive atmosphere is being created within the town because the information provided has been “at best inaccurate” or “misleading” “only half true or frankly is completely false“. The Mayor suggests that “self interest” is behind these attacks.

...there are individuals who will take freedoms and opportunities that we all enjoy and use them for self-serving purposes. They simply and cleverly disguise self interest under the umbrella of community interest.

The timing of this letter is odd. As we recall the material which we presume the Mayor is referring to- and which Mr. Stead may or may not have chucked into the recycle bin when he came across it-  was circulated some time ago.

He can’t be referring to ww. We have been blogging here for 3 years and have been critical of  town governance [Council mostly, not so much staff] but we can say in all honesty we have gained not one shred of benefit from doing so- except perhaps as an outlet for our frustration.

The mayor’s newsletter

Another e-mail from another resident. [It’s nice to be getting more residents’ attention and opinions expressed here these days!]
Larry Lynch questions, as we did, the timing and content of the recent glossy Town “publication” -i.e. the mayor’s newsletter. We copy below his mail to us in full with his permission [format may differ from the original].

Have you read the Mayor’s (fall 2008) snooze letter? My first observation is that it’s so, well, timely. With the municipal election just around the corner what can it be other than a campaign leaflet for the mayor’s benefit.

Let me ask, how much is Mr. Stead contributing to the publication and mailing costs? This information really must be made public and I challenge him to do it now, right now. What were the total costs and how much did he contribute? The leaflet is, it appears, an expensive three colour production and the reporting is so one-sided as to render it useless and a waste of money as a balanced information source for the residents. But they were the ones to receive it in the mail.

I would like to know how much the leaflet cost including its distribution and how much the mayor contributed, because again, it is titled The Mayor’s Newsletter. I happen to know the councilors were not even consulted. It’s an expensive promo issued for election purposes with significant facts omitted and I want to make it clear that I object that any of my taxes should go to paying the cost, this waste of money which so clearly intends to aid the candidacy of Mr. Stead.

If no appropriate contribution has been made to the costs, and publicly declared, then the leaflet is just more proof that the leadership of the town doesn’t value the term “prudent spending” nor does it understand the term “moral example” nor how to find and then draw the line between one’s own election promotion costs and the public purse.

I said above that reporting in the “newsletter” has been one sided. Just look through the long glorifying section on the MPS. Do you see any mention of the stealthy run on by-laws relating to R-1’s homes, particularly Mr. Zimmerman’s last minute attempt to slip something through when all the R-1’s had already left a key meeting with the feeling a commitment had been given? Thank goodness that outrage was stopped.

Do you see anywhere any comment in the Mayor’s Letter about the strong objection of R-1 residents to the proposed by-law changes which adversely affect the value of the single biggest investment of a life time of hard work and savings? The mayor certainly thought the R-1 protest was significant. He said the fabric of the town had been torn. But nothing was mentioned in the newsletter.  All I saw in the leaflet was sweetness and light.

Too much like an election brochure, right?

Larry Lynch, Wolfville resident and taxpayer

We wanted to include a link to this town publication here so those who might not have received one would understand why Mr. Lynch might be upset and we were going to suggest to residents that they express their feelings about it (pro or con)  on the new Town website which allows comments for some material they have posted there, but alas the latest newsletter is not available via the website. There is a link to the spring newsletter [we challenge you to find it – we finally did after considerable casting around] but the link doesn’t work -it leads to this page which says:

You must login and be authorized to access this document.

You are not authorised to view this resource.
You need to login.

And there is no option to comment there. We will be charitable. Perhaps the webmaster is working on it as we speak.

There are lots of questions to be asked about the newsletter beside this one of insensitive timing, some of which we here at ww have asked before. Such as: Does a town this size need one? If so could it be included in our tax bills instead of being distributed separately? Need it be in colour? Who writes it? Is the content vetted by Council or just the mayor? etc. etc.