0
Five hours at council again
24 November 2009
[indent]Almost five hours last night. More than half of it spent in-camera, wrangling over issues that really didn't deserve that amount of time in debate. Issues that were, for the most part, not new, merely continuation of outstanding affairs. But we all have to have our say. Some us have to have it a few times over, of course.
Unfortunately, one of the hot items for discussion last night - downtown patios - was pulled from the agenda to allow staff to put together a better staff report. It comes back next week.
The most important thing on the agenda - the presentation on asset management - was pretty dry. Of interest, perhaps, to those of us at the table and any accountants watching the TV broadcast, but opaque for the general public. Even the media - who are well-informed about municipal matters - were looking glassy-eyed by the end of it.
Wakestock got the thumbs-up from council, too, after a presentation about the event. Looks like it will come back again in 2010.
I have to wonder why staff feel compelled to include sustainability considerations in every report, no matter how mundane. Do they feel bullied into it by council (or just some of us)? But there it is in every staff report: the sustainability decision matrix.
Having to complete this questionnaire for the simple act of changing the locks in town hall seems excessively onerous on staff. Having to complete it so council can chose the right name for a new dog park is just plain silly.
Not only that, but it cheapens the sustainability concept to have to apply this matrix to irrelevant or clearly unrelated items. Let's use some common sense and stop using it where it's clearly not useful. It we continue to use it like this, it will be discredited as a tool. I'm sure staff have better things to do with their time, too.[/indent]
Unfortunately, one of the hot items for discussion last night - downtown patios - was pulled from the agenda to allow staff to put together a better staff report. It comes back next week.
The most important thing on the agenda - the presentation on asset management - was pretty dry. Of interest, perhaps, to those of us at the table and any accountants watching the TV broadcast, but opaque for the general public. Even the media - who are well-informed about municipal matters - were looking glassy-eyed by the end of it.
Wakestock got the thumbs-up from council, too, after a presentation about the event. Looks like it will come back again in 2010.
I have to wonder why staff feel compelled to include sustainability considerations in every report, no matter how mundane. Do they feel bullied into it by council (or just some of us)? But there it is in every staff report: the sustainability decision matrix.
Having to complete this questionnaire for the simple act of changing the locks in town hall seems excessively onerous on staff. Having to complete it so council can chose the right name for a new dog park is just plain silly.
Not only that, but it cheapens the sustainability concept to have to apply this matrix to irrelevant or clearly unrelated items. Let's use some common sense and stop using it where it's clearly not useful. It we continue to use it like this, it will be discredited as a tool. I'm sure staff have better things to do with their time, too.[/indent]
