The recent activities of Council have clearly demonstrated their values and ethics.

If you agree with their behaviour — tell a friend and write to the newspaper.

If you disagree with their behaviour — tell a friend and write to the newspaper.

Regardless of your point of view, take action. Writing on this site alone is not enough.

We have the opportunity to vote at specific opportunities — but we have the right and duty to hold them accountable for their actions everyday. The best way to hold them accountable is to speak out, because getting re-elected is often the only accountability they understand.

We will let you know when the meeting is available online for those who didn’t see it live or miss it on local TV.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

One of our readers raised an interesting issue. They were enquiring about the letter written by Councillor MacEachern to the opposing side of a lawsuit against the Town. They felt that Councillor MacEacheren had provided information in that letter that helped the opposing case.

What do you have to say about the email MacEachern sent to the opposing side in a lawsuit. It’s been made public. I think it’s a common business practice that when someone is suing you, you should NOT send them information to help them. Let’s not elect someone who clearly DOES NOT act in the Town’s best interests. Does anyone know the decision in that case anyway?

This raises the question of whether your own beliefs take precedence over the citizens you have been elected to represent?

If you have clearly spelled out your position on a specific issue, then elected officials should follow their commitments.

However, if the issue has not been clearly spelled out as one of your campaign principles, then how should you act? Should you act to the detriment of the community, or hold your tongue. Interesting?

How does this type of conduct align with the Code of Ethics? How does this align with acting as a united Council once a decision has been reached.

It would appear that Councillor MacEachern has acted on her own — contrary to the best interest of the community, against the position of Council on behalf of the community and possible contrary to the Code of Ethics.

Readers should be interested in understanding what this issue was about and how it has resolved itself. Both the lawsuit against the Town and Councillor MacEachern’s conduct.

Readers should also be interested to know what steps Council took in response to Councillor MacEachern’s conduct. After all, Council/Councillors should work for the community as our representative, not their own special interests.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

We should all be concerned about the recent articles in the local newspapers about the expenditure of almost $500,000 without Council approval, after all, it is our money. But before we start pointing fingers we need to have the facts — or as many as we are able to get.

The questions that need to be asked, must be asked and publicly shared. This will be the true test of openness and transparency.

The other thing we must insist on is that Council stop pointing fingers at staff until the facts are know. This is the true test of leadership. The captain of the ship goes down with the ship — they don’t start pointing fingers as soon as trouble appears.

One must also wonder why Council, particularly Mayor Morris and Evelina MacEachern, both who have a reputation for reviewing the cheque lists, never spotted a cheque of this size. Does that suggest it was purposely not listed?

Based on news reports, another troubling question is regarding the May 2007 letter from NORR (the original architects of the building) where they state that compensation for the repairs would be paid through their insurance company, Pro-Deminity Insurance based on independent tests conducted by NORR that concluded the issues that were brought forward by staff were correct (Feb 2007 letter).

However, after partial payment was received for the repairs, NORR informed staff that the insurance company was not paying any additional funds, leaving the town on the hook for the balance of approx. $60,000.

So a few issues that need review include;

1. Should staff be authorizing payment for expenses that are part of traditional operations? This seems to be a typical operation issue — work was completed with full Council approval but was not completed correctly and staff followed up to get it done.
2. Is there are dollars amount for all staff purchase above which needs explicit Council approval?
3. Should staff not issue a purchase order for a “flow through” expense that will be paid by a third party — in this case an insurance company.
4. Why is Mayor Morris quoted as stating that the focus is getting back the $442,000? Didn’t the insurance company already pay the largest portion of that with the amount not yet recovered closer to $60,000? Or is that mis-information?

Clearly this is not an exhaustive list, just some of the issues that Council needs to investigate and questions that deserve accurate answers.

The concern is that already residents are being spun that;

1. this is a staff issue and Council has no responsibility,
2. the firing of John Rogers is connected, and
3. information is being communicated by Council that is possibly not accurate (or possibly the papers have added their own spin).

However, until all the facts are know, Council should remember, good people who never signed up for public office are having their reputations tarnished by the conduct of Council. Surely that is outside the code of ethics.

For a different view from the 2 local papers, check out Councillor Buck’s blog, as always she has her own view on the subject.

First get the facts — then communicate them accurately, fairly and openly. The community deserves the truth without the spin!

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.