0
Wasting time on picayune and petty motions
20 April 2010
This Monday, we debated Councillor Mike Edwards' motion about reporting more details for payments involved with conflicts of interest declarations.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires everyone at the table to declare a conflict or pecuniary interest whenever a payment is made to a business that employs or is financially involved with a council member, or that member's immediate family (i.e. spouse or child), both directly and indirectly. That council member must not engage in any discussion about or voting over the payment.
That's why once a month when town cheques are cut, some of us have to declare a conflict and step away from the table briefly while the payment is discussed and voted on. It doesn't mean we're the only business in town being paid - all the rest are made under the general accounts payment, just not listed individually.
It doesn't mean we get special treatment or that we're the only company in that line or work that gets the business. The town shares its business as much as possible with all local providers. It doesn't mean we get it because we're members of council, either.
It simply means that, according to the laws, if we get paid, we can't be involved in the discussions or the vote. The other businesses in town don't, of course, have to state what they received money for. They just get the cheque.
Councillor Edwards says he's been asked what those payments were for and wanted every member who had a conflict to state what that payment was for. As if the provincial legislation wasn't enough.
Of course anyone could ask the council member directly - why they would ask Mike instead of, say, Councillor Foley or Labelle, was unclear. I had The UPS Store (formerly Mail Boxes Etc) for 11 years. In all the time I've been on council (more than six years now), no one ever asked me what a payment was for. That's probably because they could walk into the store, see the signs for UPS, see the photocopiers, and figure it out for themselves pretty quickly.
This is, after all, a small town and most people know who their councillors are and what they do. And they know what local businesses provide. Anyone here not know that Loblaws sells food? That Mark's Work Wearhouse sells clothes? That Home Depot sells hardware and lumber? That Ainley is an engineering firm? That Coldwell Banker is a real estate firm?
It's small enough that it takes no more than five minutes to drive to any of these businesses and ask the councillors about it. Or for those who can't drive - make a phone call. That's all it takes.
But, although no one seems to have been curious enough to actually do these simple acts in the past several years, and I can't recall a single letter or email to council asking for that information, or public presentation asking for it, Councillor Edwards said the public demands to know.
The public doesn't seem to care to hear the details of what we spent $3 million on last month, but is desperately seeking information about why The UPS Store was paid $8.63.
So to accommodate this apparently questing but bizarrely unmotivated coffee shop crowd, here was the motion he presented:
Since payments are received often a month or more after the job or purchase, and the transaction might have taken place while I was out of the store, I'm not always aware of the details. Payments may include more than one invoice and more than one town department, so there might be two or three things involved. Councillor Foley made a similar comment. So what are we going to hear, then? Something generic like this, I suspect:
[indent]Councillor Foley: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Foley Furniture because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, furniture.
Councillor Labelle: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Georgian Flooring because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, flooring.
Councillor Jeffrey: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Viacom Advertising because I work for the company. The money was for, uh, advertising.
Councillor Chadwick: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to The UPS Store because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, UPS parcels.[/indent]
Duh.
And if we can't remember the details, why then staff will have to go back through the records and dig out the information to present later. Or we can just make something up. After all, since as far as I know, no one except Councillor Edwards has ever brought this up, who's going to check? So how about this, instead:
[indent]Councillor Foley: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Foley Furniture because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, a new cement mixer for the CAO.
Councillor Labelle: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Georgian Flooring because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, personal trampolines for each department head.
Councillor Jeffrey: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Viacom Advertising because I work for the company. The money was for, uh, hiring the Rolling Stones to play at the Eddie Bush arena next summer.
Councillor Chadwick: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to The UPS Store because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, the Hubble telescope.[/indent]
That might be good advertising strategy. No one will go into a store looking to see if they made photocopies for the planning department, but if I say I sold the Hubble telescope, they might just be curious enough to do what they have never done in the past - go into the store for a look. Maybe even ask someone (aside from Councillor Edwards, that is) what the money was for.
Why add another layer of petty, pointless bureaucracy to a process that's already working just fine, under some pretty stringent provincial legislation? Haven't we got more important things to do, and to deal with, than this sort of picayune stuff?
Apparently not. It passed 6-3, with, as I recall, only Councillors Foley, Labelle and me voting against it. In terms of useful legislation, this one's right up there with the cat bylaw.
Fortunately, for me, I won't have to partake in this silliness much longer (although I could have some fun with it in the interim). I sold the store last month and am working on redeveloping my career as a freelance writer, editor and Website designer.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires everyone at the table to declare a conflict or pecuniary interest whenever a payment is made to a business that employs or is financially involved with a council member, or that member's immediate family (i.e. spouse or child), both directly and indirectly. That council member must not engage in any discussion about or voting over the payment.
That's why once a month when town cheques are cut, some of us have to declare a conflict and step away from the table briefly while the payment is discussed and voted on. It doesn't mean we're the only business in town being paid - all the rest are made under the general accounts payment, just not listed individually.
It doesn't mean we get special treatment or that we're the only company in that line or work that gets the business. The town shares its business as much as possible with all local providers. It doesn't mean we get it because we're members of council, either.
It simply means that, according to the laws, if we get paid, we can't be involved in the discussions or the vote. The other businesses in town don't, of course, have to state what they received money for. They just get the cheque.
Councillor Edwards says he's been asked what those payments were for and wanted every member who had a conflict to state what that payment was for. As if the provincial legislation wasn't enough.
Of course anyone could ask the council member directly - why they would ask Mike instead of, say, Councillor Foley or Labelle, was unclear. I had The UPS Store (formerly Mail Boxes Etc) for 11 years. In all the time I've been on council (more than six years now), no one ever asked me what a payment was for. That's probably because they could walk into the store, see the signs for UPS, see the photocopiers, and figure it out for themselves pretty quickly.
This is, after all, a small town and most people know who their councillors are and what they do. And they know what local businesses provide. Anyone here not know that Loblaws sells food? That Mark's Work Wearhouse sells clothes? That Home Depot sells hardware and lumber? That Ainley is an engineering firm? That Coldwell Banker is a real estate firm?
It's small enough that it takes no more than five minutes to drive to any of these businesses and ask the councillors about it. Or for those who can't drive - make a phone call. That's all it takes.
But, although no one seems to have been curious enough to actually do these simple acts in the past several years, and I can't recall a single letter or email to council asking for that information, or public presentation asking for it, Councillor Edwards said the public demands to know.
The public doesn't seem to care to hear the details of what we spent $3 million on last month, but is desperately seeking information about why The UPS Store was paid $8.63.
So to accommodate this apparently questing but bizarrely unmotivated coffee shop crowd, here was the motion he presented:
Quote
THAT Council direct staff to prepare the supplementary accounts payable motions for members of Council with pecuniary interests, to include a brief description of the product(s) and/or service(s) that were purchased.
Since payments are received often a month or more after the job or purchase, and the transaction might have taken place while I was out of the store, I'm not always aware of the details. Payments may include more than one invoice and more than one town department, so there might be two or three things involved. Councillor Foley made a similar comment. So what are we going to hear, then? Something generic like this, I suspect:
[indent]Councillor Foley: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Foley Furniture because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, furniture.
Councillor Labelle: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Georgian Flooring because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, flooring.
Councillor Jeffrey: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Viacom Advertising because I work for the company. The money was for, uh, advertising.
Councillor Chadwick: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to The UPS Store because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, UPS parcels.[/indent]
Duh.
And if we can't remember the details, why then staff will have to go back through the records and dig out the information to present later. Or we can just make something up. After all, since as far as I know, no one except Councillor Edwards has ever brought this up, who's going to check? So how about this, instead:
[indent]Councillor Foley: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Foley Furniture because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, a new cement mixer for the CAO.
Councillor Labelle: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Georgian Flooring because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, personal trampolines for each department head.
Councillor Jeffrey: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to Viacom Advertising because I work for the company. The money was for, uh, hiring the Rolling Stones to play at the Eddie Bush arena next summer.
Councillor Chadwick: I declare a pecuniary interest with regard to the payment made to The UPS Store because I'm the owner. The money was for, uh, the Hubble telescope.[/indent]
That might be good advertising strategy. No one will go into a store looking to see if they made photocopies for the planning department, but if I say I sold the Hubble telescope, they might just be curious enough to do what they have never done in the past - go into the store for a look. Maybe even ask someone (aside from Councillor Edwards, that is) what the money was for.
Why add another layer of petty, pointless bureaucracy to a process that's already working just fine, under some pretty stringent provincial legislation? Haven't we got more important things to do, and to deal with, than this sort of picayune stuff?
Apparently not. It passed 6-3, with, as I recall, only Councillors Foley, Labelle and me voting against it. In terms of useful legislation, this one's right up there with the cat bylaw.
Fortunately, for me, I won't have to partake in this silliness much longer (although I could have some fun with it in the interim). I sold the store last month and am working on redeveloping my career as a freelance writer, editor and Website designer.
