0
Who authorized these letters?
18 April 2009
[indent]
Every time I read a letter from the mayor, I feel compelled to ask, "Who authorized this?" and "Did council know of or approve this letter?" My concern is that the answer to both will be "no."
Now of course the mayor has the authority to write letters on behalf of the municipality. He has to, as part of his role of mayor. Correspondence is a crucial activity in his office. But there is a clear difference between everyday correspondence on routine matters, and correspondence that suggests either a municipal point of view or policy. When the municipality is involved, the mayor should both involve others in the process - you know, that old saw about open, transparent and accountable government - and observe the niceties of process and our procedural bylaws (as well as our code of conduct, discredited though it may be).
Council as a whole, not the mayor alone, is the creator and arbiter of municipal policy. So any letter that even suggests a municipal perspective should be discussed at the council table beforehand*. And where a board, municipal services board or committee is involved, the mayor should have at least the courtesy to ensure his letter is in keeping with the policies and directions of that group. Maybe he should ask them first.
So naturally when I recently read two letters written by the mayor, I asked "who authorized these?" No one, it turns out, except the mayor himself. No surprises there.
The first letter was written January 26 to the manager of the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport (LSRA - PDF copy here). It's a very snarky letter that starts,
First of all, I wondered why our mayor was writing to the manager of another municipality's department. Wouldn't protocol demand that if he feels he must write anything, that he write to the mayor and council of that municipality instead of to a department head? After all, would our mayor appreciate it if the mayor of Oro-Medonte wrote to the head of our works department criticizing how we spend our snow removal budget or purchase our vehicles? How would residents of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Clearview feel if the mayor of Oro-Medonte wrote a letter to our airport manager critical of his budget and management?
And who cares if the LSR airport has a unique fire protection system? What business is it to Collingwood taxpayers?
Who is the "we" referred to in the first sentence? Not the airport municipal services board. We knew nothing about the letter until I received a copy from Oro-Medonte, several weeks later, and shared it with my fellow board members. We certainly never heard about it from our board chair, who co-signed the letter. And the mayor has not uttered a peep to the board since he wrote it. Perhaps the chair is the other component of the 'we,' since the airport board certainly wasn't consulted.
This letter came as an unpleasant surprise to the municipal representatives of the Collingwood Regional Airport. One of the goals of the board is to foster good relations with other airports, and this letter works against that. We were not even aware it was in the works, let alone had been sent.
The letter continues,
Why should the mayor of Collingwood be interested in the traffic volume or runway length at another municipality's airport? Or what sort of traffic it receives? Isn't it just a bit bizarre for a mayor to be commenting on these details, and then to make an "informal" guess at what traffic they receive?
Huh? What is this - my budget's better than yours? Show me yours, I'll show you mine? the CRA is not in competition with the LSRA. Why antagonize another municipality?
Asking another municipality's department or service to justify its budget to an outsider? Whew. There's a breach of protocol. But the last comment about funding for the CRA is baffling. Why would the airport manager you have just slagged want to offer advice on funding opportunities for our airport?
Needless to say, this letter was a hot topic of discussion that the last airport services board meeting. Not just the breach of protocol - its tone was discussed. As one resident asked me after reading the letter, "Where does he get off sending a letter like that?"
The second letter was written to George Smitherman, Ontario's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, and published in the EB April 17, but again not circulated to council - let alone written and sent with council's approval.
The topic is "financial impact of electricity retailers on Ontario consumers." It goes on to urge the minister to "address" the issue of independent electricity retailers. The mayor wrote it, he notes, after he watched a CBC Marketplace episode called "The Power of Persuasion."**.
The lengthy and somewhat meandering (and grammatically clumsy) letter*** was reproduced in the EB, page 12, April 17, on the town's page - a full top-to-bottom of the page column, 3.5" by 15", or about as long as one of my blog posts. Why we're using space normally dedicated to announcements, requests for proposals, bylaws, town information, etc. for what is clearly a personal letter is beyond me. It was so long that other town content was pushed inside the paper to the bottom of page 11. I suggest that this extra space required was at a cost taxpayers.
Although it's full of "I" and "me" and there's no "we" or "us" anywhere, the letter is on town letterhead, and has the look and feel of an official municipal request. After all, the mayor also sits on the board of our utility services - so his letter can be construed as also coming from Collus Power Corp. Did the Collus board know of or approve it? I doubt it.
If it's just a personal comment or request, then why are taxpayers paying to have it reprinted in the paper? Why wasn't it just sent as a letter to the editor, where it might have been reproduced free?
If it's a formal letter, why wasn't this circulated to council? Better yet, why wasn't council asked to approve a letter to the minister of this sort before it was sent? The mayor closes, "On behalf of of Collingwood Council..." even though he never got our approval or consensus on his request. It's certainly not on behalf of council if we are not involved in the process.
Yes, yes, I know: L'etat c'est moi. But council made no official pronouncement on the issue, didn't vote on it, and didn't take a particular stand. So I contend it's using town resources to pursue a personal concern.
It's always annoying and frustrating - speaking as a member of this town's board of directors - to read these letters in the media or other sources, long after they've been sent. And in the case of the letter to LSRA to have to try and repair whatever damage it may have caused in relationships between the airport on whose board I sit, and the LSRA. I think our board needs to send the LSRA board an apology.
I still remember the mayor's "one of nine" speech at our inauguration. What I didn't realize then was that it meant "one above nine."
~~~~~
* We had a similar fight over the mayor's refusal to vote the way council directed at the NVCA board. The mayor stated his personal opinion took precedence over council's direction, and refused to vote the way council collectively wished, threatening we could remove him from his role as representative if we didn't like that (we should have). Our mayor often acts more like a tsar than a member of a democracy. This is the least open, transparent and accountable municipal government I have seen, including a during a decade covering local government for the media.
** What the mayor didn't tell the minister is that council was also circulated with a link to the video of the show, and discussed the issue both at the table and in email traffic that Monday - including whether the town should promote the video through links on the Collus and town Web sites. Council's discussion was not mentioned in the letter. But we're just eight of nine: what matters is that the mayor saw it. All for one, after all.
*** The mayor writes we have "a community of 17,290 permanent residents and inclusive of seasonal residents has a population of 24,600." This is inaccurate. The 17,290 comes from Stats Canada. That latter figure is a guesstimate by CN Watson made in a recent commercial review to justify the building of another 500,000 sq. ft. of sprawl mall. The mayor parrots it as gospel when in fact all it is is a guess. CN Watson predicted retaillers would flock to Collingwood, but last week's announcement that Future Shop would open a store in Wasaga Beach, not Collingwood, suggests they were mistaken. Perhaps they were mistaken about their population guess, too. At the very least the mayor should indicate it is a guess, since no census, poll or survey has been done to verify it.[/indent]
Now of course the mayor has the authority to write letters on behalf of the municipality. He has to, as part of his role of mayor. Correspondence is a crucial activity in his office. But there is a clear difference between everyday correspondence on routine matters, and correspondence that suggests either a municipal point of view or policy. When the municipality is involved, the mayor should both involve others in the process - you know, that old saw about open, transparent and accountable government - and observe the niceties of process and our procedural bylaws (as well as our code of conduct, discredited though it may be).
Council as a whole, not the mayor alone, is the creator and arbiter of municipal policy. So any letter that even suggests a municipal perspective should be discussed at the council table beforehand*. And where a board, municipal services board or committee is involved, the mayor should have at least the courtesy to ensure his letter is in keeping with the policies and directions of that group. Maybe he should ask them first.
So naturally when I recently read two letters written by the mayor, I asked "who authorized these?" No one, it turns out, except the mayor himself. No surprises there.
The first letter was written January 26 to the manager of the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport (LSRA - PDF copy here). It's a very snarky letter that starts,
Quote
"We have been intrigued about they monies being seemingly poured int the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport over the past several years. This includes the $1M plus for a fire protection system which would make the airport unique amongst the municipal airports in Canada, in having a central fire protection system on-site."
First of all, I wondered why our mayor was writing to the manager of another municipality's department. Wouldn't protocol demand that if he feels he must write anything, that he write to the mayor and council of that municipality instead of to a department head? After all, would our mayor appreciate it if the mayor of Oro-Medonte wrote to the head of our works department criticizing how we spend our snow removal budget or purchase our vehicles? How would residents of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Clearview feel if the mayor of Oro-Medonte wrote a letter to our airport manager critical of his budget and management?
And who cares if the LSR airport has a unique fire protection system? What business is it to Collingwood taxpayers?
Who is the "we" referred to in the first sentence? Not the airport municipal services board. We knew nothing about the letter until I received a copy from Oro-Medonte, several weeks later, and shared it with my fellow board members. We certainly never heard about it from our board chair, who co-signed the letter. And the mayor has not uttered a peep to the board since he wrote it. Perhaps the chair is the other component of the 'we,' since the airport board certainly wasn't consulted.
This letter came as an unpleasant surprise to the municipal representatives of the Collingwood Regional Airport. One of the goals of the board is to foster good relations with other airports, and this letter works against that. We were not even aware it was in the works, let alone had been sent.
The letter continues,
Quote
"We note from recent articles in the local press that the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport is now proposing an $11M extension to the runway, which is already 5,000 feet long. We would be fascinated to read the business case for that investment. Although operating statistics for the airport seem to be kept pretty close to the vest, we understand informally that the current corporate traffic is mainly associated with bringing entertainers to and from Casino Rama. We do acknowledge there is the occasional cargo flight for destinations such as Honda."
Why should the mayor of Collingwood be interested in the traffic volume or runway length at another municipality's airport? Or what sort of traffic it receives? Isn't it just a bit bizarre for a mayor to be commenting on these details, and then to make an "informal" guess at what traffic they receive?
Quote
"To the point, what really caught our eye was an article in the Barrie Examiner which refers to an annual net operating cost in the order of $532,000. You might want to contrast this to the Collingwood Regional Airport which sees about 200 corporate flights per year. General aviation use of the CRA would eclipse the activity at the Lake Simcoe Regional. And all of this for a net operating cost in the order of $130,000 per year."
Huh? What is this - my budget's better than yours? Show me yours, I'll show you mine? the CRA is not in competition with the LSRA. Why antagonize another municipality?
Quote
We would enjoy the opportunity to learn the rationale for such massive expenditures, and of the potential opportunities for funding of the Collingwood Regional Airport which appears to be a much busier and more efficiently run operation.
Asking another municipality's department or service to justify its budget to an outsider? Whew. There's a breach of protocol. But the last comment about funding for the CRA is baffling. Why would the airport manager you have just slagged want to offer advice on funding opportunities for our airport?
Needless to say, this letter was a hot topic of discussion that the last airport services board meeting. Not just the breach of protocol - its tone was discussed. As one resident asked me after reading the letter, "Where does he get off sending a letter like that?"
The second letter was written to George Smitherman, Ontario's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, and published in the EB April 17, but again not circulated to council - let alone written and sent with council's approval.
The topic is "financial impact of electricity retailers on Ontario consumers." It goes on to urge the minister to "address" the issue of independent electricity retailers. The mayor wrote it, he notes, after he watched a CBC Marketplace episode called "The Power of Persuasion."**.
The lengthy and somewhat meandering (and grammatically clumsy) letter*** was reproduced in the EB, page 12, April 17, on the town's page - a full top-to-bottom of the page column, 3.5" by 15", or about as long as one of my blog posts. Why we're using space normally dedicated to announcements, requests for proposals, bylaws, town information, etc. for what is clearly a personal letter is beyond me. It was so long that other town content was pushed inside the paper to the bottom of page 11. I suggest that this extra space required was at a cost taxpayers.
Although it's full of "I" and "me" and there's no "we" or "us" anywhere, the letter is on town letterhead, and has the look and feel of an official municipal request. After all, the mayor also sits on the board of our utility services - so his letter can be construed as also coming from Collus Power Corp. Did the Collus board know of or approve it? I doubt it.
If it's just a personal comment or request, then why are taxpayers paying to have it reprinted in the paper? Why wasn't it just sent as a letter to the editor, where it might have been reproduced free?
If it's a formal letter, why wasn't this circulated to council? Better yet, why wasn't council asked to approve a letter to the minister of this sort before it was sent? The mayor closes, "On behalf of of Collingwood Council..." even though he never got our approval or consensus on his request. It's certainly not on behalf of council if we are not involved in the process.
Yes, yes, I know: L'etat c'est moi. But council made no official pronouncement on the issue, didn't vote on it, and didn't take a particular stand. So I contend it's using town resources to pursue a personal concern.
It's always annoying and frustrating - speaking as a member of this town's board of directors - to read these letters in the media or other sources, long after they've been sent. And in the case of the letter to LSRA to have to try and repair whatever damage it may have caused in relationships between the airport on whose board I sit, and the LSRA. I think our board needs to send the LSRA board an apology.
I still remember the mayor's "one of nine" speech at our inauguration. What I didn't realize then was that it meant "one above nine."
~~~~~
* We had a similar fight over the mayor's refusal to vote the way council directed at the NVCA board. The mayor stated his personal opinion took precedence over council's direction, and refused to vote the way council collectively wished, threatening we could remove him from his role as representative if we didn't like that (we should have). Our mayor often acts more like a tsar than a member of a democracy. This is the least open, transparent and accountable municipal government I have seen, including a during a decade covering local government for the media.
** What the mayor didn't tell the minister is that council was also circulated with a link to the video of the show, and discussed the issue both at the table and in email traffic that Monday - including whether the town should promote the video through links on the Collus and town Web sites. Council's discussion was not mentioned in the letter. But we're just eight of nine: what matters is that the mayor saw it. All for one, after all.
*** The mayor writes we have "a community of 17,290 permanent residents and inclusive of seasonal residents has a population of 24,600." This is inaccurate. The 17,290 comes from Stats Canada. That latter figure is a guesstimate by CN Watson made in a recent commercial review to justify the building of another 500,000 sq. ft. of sprawl mall. The mayor parrots it as gospel when in fact all it is is a guess. CN Watson predicted retaillers would flock to Collingwood, but last week's announcement that Future Shop would open a store in Wasaga Beach, not Collingwood, suggests they were mistaken. Perhaps they were mistaken about their population guess, too. At the very least the mayor should indicate it is a guess, since no census, poll or survey has been done to verify it.[/indent]
*too much money being spent on non-essentials
*too much money being spent on legal fees
*why not partner with the Y if we do indeed need a therapeutic pool.. economies of scale really don't apply partnering with a stand alone outdoor pool.
*poor communication with the rest of council
*we're hurting out here and paying a tax increase sucks
*Carrier's pond is a symbol of the problems at town hall
By the way what happened with the budget for the NVCA?