0
The BIA's Titanic meets the town's iceberg
27 August 2010
By now, most readers will be aware of the resignation of the BIA's chair over the ongoing dispute between the organization and the town. That head butting stems from a disagreement over the terms and conditions in an agreement jointly signed by the town and BIA and the province.
I've written about some of this previously, but, of course not the contentious hissing and spitting that went on in three in camera meetings when the matter was raised with council. Council has not met with the BIA board, although the chair met with the mayor twice, once after the BIA's letter to the province had been sent, then again after the BIA's letter to its members was sent.
You can read about the resignation on the Enterprise Bulletin's Web site.
It gets a bit murky as to what I can and can't say here. Outside the in-camera-confidentiality tripwire, there is the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which, our clerk informs me, requires the town to get consent from the sender to disclose the contents of a letter of resignation. So I can mention the stuff in the EB (and in the Connection when it gets up) but I can't yet tell you what's in the letter itself, not yet anyway. Got that?
The biggest problem was not that the town and BIA had a disagreement over the interpretation of some contractual clause. That should not cause this sort of rift. The real problems stem from a double-whammy of council not being informed that this tempest was brewing and the language that the former BIA chair used in his letter to the province and to the BIA members when he said the town had "reneged" on its obligations.
Had he used more politic language and merely described it as a disagreement over the interpretation, it might not have caused such umbrage. But using emotionally (and potentially legally) charged words like "reneged" both cast aspersions on staff and discredited the town - which, by the way, had the province on its side in the debate over the interpretation. This language caused a lot of upset among staff and council because it made us out to be acting in bad faith, when, by our and the province's perspective, we were not.
But this cauldron was boiling and bubbling long before council as a whole got involved. By the time the BIA chair sent his letter to the province accusing the town of breaking the deal, it had become an acute situation, beyond easy remediation. Council was unaware that anything this major was brewing because our BIA rep - Councillor Jeffrey - didn't say a single word to council as a whole about the trouble coming our way. We were blindsided by both the letter to the province and the subsequent letters to the members.
When the BIA's letter to the province arrived, it was like New Orleans being hit by Hurricane Katrina. Most of us at the table were asking, "why weren't we informed before it hit?" because by the time council got involved, it was to clean up after the mess. By the time we learned of the impasse, it was already too late.
It didn't help that, aware of the crisis, Councillor Jeffrey voted with the BIA executive to pull the organization out of the agreement - in other words to default on the contract. I'm not sure how a councillor elected to represent the whole town could, in good faith, vote the break a a legally binding agreement that would leave the taxpayers with the burden of the costs and put the town into a potentially bad light with the province. But she did.
It's a bigger story that all of this, of course: like the iceberg, there's more below the surface than can be seen above (as I'm sure the captain of the BIA's Titanic learned to his displeasure). But I'm constrained by what I can say for the moment.
The Eb story says,
We did not breach the agreement. Our interpretation of the terms was supported by the province.
Astute readers will note that, for all of its claims the of not being allowed to provide input, six of the seven members of the steering committee are on the BIA, two on the board itself. That's still true after the BIA pulled out of the contract. Six out of seven suggests to me the BIA has more input into the project than the town. And the seventh isn't a staff person or a member of council: it's a private citizen. So I can't fathom why the town is being accused of dominating the project.
Yes, there may be disputes over interpretation of the details, but certainly the BIA was and is involved in a significant way and provides the majority of the input and direction to the project.
I've said in the past that, for all its apparent independence, the BIA is a child of the town. It is a committee created by the town by the authority of a section of the Municipal Act. The main difference between it and other boards or committees is that it can levy a self-imposed tax on its members and use that money towards its own self interest, but even there council has the authority to approve that budget and to lower the levies. It is not an independent organization like the Chamber of Commerce. So the BIA should work within the procedures and protocols of the town and not arbitrarily send out contentious letters to our funding partner nor break a contract with its parent organization. The board can recommend and it can appeal to the town and to council, but acting alone and against the town's interests, especially without bring these concerns to council as a whole first, is, I would suggest, outside their purview.
Unfortunately, the actions taken in this issue will have other repercussions. In future this and other councils will be more cognizant of the BIA's daily activities and more attentive to its budget and its actions, which may be more scrutiny than the BIA would like.
It also underscored an issue with our BIA representation and the need to have a second member of council added as a representative - as we have on many other committees and boards. That would make it less likely a similar situation will arise without council being informed. But as the paper notes, there will be a change:
What's really unfortunate is that this council has generally been supportive of the BIA and of the revitalization of the downtown, and now that relationship has soured.
True, a majority of this council (including the mayor, but not me) approved a massive commercial sprawl mall in the west end and that cannot help but hurt the downtown. And before that a majority (led by the mayor, opposed by me) voted to kill the Admiral Collingwood Place and The Strand developments that would have been a massive boost to the downtown and the key developments in the core. And true, the stupidity of the patio debate and the subsequent, restrictive licensing bylaw has set a majority of council at odds with the public and a lot of non-executive BIA members who find it expensive and intrusive (a rare instance where the mayor and I were on the same, losing, side). And true, several members of council (including the mayor) want to bring back paid parking against the BIA's fervent clamour for free parking downtown.
But those major and potentially irreconcilable differences aside, this council has seen itself as a partner with the BIA in achieving common goals for the downtown.
I've written about some of this previously, but, of course not the contentious hissing and spitting that went on in three in camera meetings when the matter was raised with council. Council has not met with the BIA board, although the chair met with the mayor twice, once after the BIA's letter to the province had been sent, then again after the BIA's letter to its members was sent.
You can read about the resignation on the Enterprise Bulletin's Web site.
It gets a bit murky as to what I can and can't say here. Outside the in-camera-confidentiality tripwire, there is the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which, our clerk informs me, requires the town to get consent from the sender to disclose the contents of a letter of resignation. So I can mention the stuff in the EB (and in the Connection when it gets up) but I can't yet tell you what's in the letter itself, not yet anyway. Got that?
The biggest problem was not that the town and BIA had a disagreement over the interpretation of some contractual clause. That should not cause this sort of rift. The real problems stem from a double-whammy of council not being informed that this tempest was brewing and the language that the former BIA chair used in his letter to the province and to the BIA members when he said the town had "reneged" on its obligations.
Had he used more politic language and merely described it as a disagreement over the interpretation, it might not have caused such umbrage. But using emotionally (and potentially legally) charged words like "reneged" both cast aspersions on staff and discredited the town - which, by the way, had the province on its side in the debate over the interpretation. This language caused a lot of upset among staff and council because it made us out to be acting in bad faith, when, by our and the province's perspective, we were not.
But this cauldron was boiling and bubbling long before council as a whole got involved. By the time the BIA chair sent his letter to the province accusing the town of breaking the deal, it had become an acute situation, beyond easy remediation. Council was unaware that anything this major was brewing because our BIA rep - Councillor Jeffrey - didn't say a single word to council as a whole about the trouble coming our way. We were blindsided by both the letter to the province and the subsequent letters to the members.
When the BIA's letter to the province arrived, it was like New Orleans being hit by Hurricane Katrina. Most of us at the table were asking, "why weren't we informed before it hit?" because by the time council got involved, it was to clean up after the mess. By the time we learned of the impasse, it was already too late.
It didn't help that, aware of the crisis, Councillor Jeffrey voted with the BIA executive to pull the organization out of the agreement - in other words to default on the contract. I'm not sure how a councillor elected to represent the whole town could, in good faith, vote the break a a legally binding agreement that would leave the taxpayers with the burden of the costs and put the town into a potentially bad light with the province. But she did.
It's a bigger story that all of this, of course: like the iceberg, there's more below the surface than can be seen above (as I'm sure the captain of the BIA's Titanic learned to his displeasure). But I'm constrained by what I can say for the moment.
The Eb story says,
Quote
The BIA executive — through Shearer — has expressed the concern the organization did not have opportunity to provide input into the project; Shearer had also expressed the concern, to the local media and in letters to the BIA membership and town council, that the town had breached the agreement between the municipality, the BIA, and the province because in the BIA's opinion, they were the ones to provide day-to-day management of the coordinator.
The project is being handled by a seven-member board of management; there are six downtown business owners on the board, two members of whom are members of the BIA executive.
The project is being handled by a seven-member board of management; there are six downtown business owners on the board, two members of whom are members of the BIA executive.
We did not breach the agreement. Our interpretation of the terms was supported by the province.
Astute readers will note that, for all of its claims the of not being allowed to provide input, six of the seven members of the steering committee are on the BIA, two on the board itself. That's still true after the BIA pulled out of the contract. Six out of seven suggests to me the BIA has more input into the project than the town. And the seventh isn't a staff person or a member of council: it's a private citizen. So I can't fathom why the town is being accused of dominating the project.
Yes, there may be disputes over interpretation of the details, but certainly the BIA was and is involved in a significant way and provides the majority of the input and direction to the project.
I've said in the past that, for all its apparent independence, the BIA is a child of the town. It is a committee created by the town by the authority of a section of the Municipal Act. The main difference between it and other boards or committees is that it can levy a self-imposed tax on its members and use that money towards its own self interest, but even there council has the authority to approve that budget and to lower the levies. It is not an independent organization like the Chamber of Commerce. So the BIA should work within the procedures and protocols of the town and not arbitrarily send out contentious letters to our funding partner nor break a contract with its parent organization. The board can recommend and it can appeal to the town and to council, but acting alone and against the town's interests, especially without bring these concerns to council as a whole first, is, I would suggest, outside their purview.
Unfortunately, the actions taken in this issue will have other repercussions. In future this and other councils will be more cognizant of the BIA's daily activities and more attentive to its budget and its actions, which may be more scrutiny than the BIA would like.
It also underscored an issue with our BIA representation and the need to have a second member of council added as a representative - as we have on many other committees and boards. That would make it less likely a similar situation will arise without council being informed. But as the paper notes, there will be a change:
Quote
In his letter, he also praised Councillor Kathy Jeffery as the town's BIA representative; Shearer said he had been informed that Jeffery was no longer the council representative, and would be replaced by Carrier.
What's really unfortunate is that this council has generally been supportive of the BIA and of the revitalization of the downtown, and now that relationship has soured.
True, a majority of this council (including the mayor, but not me) approved a massive commercial sprawl mall in the west end and that cannot help but hurt the downtown. And before that a majority (led by the mayor, opposed by me) voted to kill the Admiral Collingwood Place and The Strand developments that would have been a massive boost to the downtown and the key developments in the core. And true, the stupidity of the patio debate and the subsequent, restrictive licensing bylaw has set a majority of council at odds with the public and a lot of non-executive BIA members who find it expensive and intrusive (a rare instance where the mayor and I were on the same, losing, side). And true, several members of council (including the mayor) want to bring back paid parking against the BIA's fervent clamour for free parking downtown.
But those major and potentially irreconcilable differences aside, this council has seen itself as a partner with the BIA in achieving common goals for the downtown.
Kathy's judgement is flawed.
Kathy's communication skills are poor.
Kathy respects no one else's opinion.
Kathy ought not to be our mayor. We deserve better.