The Biggest Disappointment

If I was to ask you which Councillor has been the biggest disappointment of all on this Council, whom would you pick? No, you cannot pick the entire Council just one of them. The following comments might help you understand whom I would easily choose.

There must be a Code of Honour amongst Editors and reporters that exists that protects ex-members of the media from harsh criticism if they decide to become politicians. How else to explain this deletion and others from the Star online story (“Halberstadt slams Francis over marina plans”) to the Star published version (“Mayor rapped over secrecy”):

• “Sure it's city land that's been talked about for years, but I don't have the same concerns as Alan and his blogger friends do," Hatfield said.
  
  "To me, council's role begins when the feasibility study comes in. Nobody can proceed doing anything on that property without council involvement. There could even be expropriation so council will have a very active role."

What sneering condescension by the Councillor about the role of citizens in this City whose money is being squandered by the Councillor and his colleagues and the role of Council.

I seriously wonder if the Councillor ever took the “Effective Municipal Councillor Program” run by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, especially Module I: "What Every Councillor Must Know." If not, he ought to take it. If he did, he needs a refresher!

The Councillor seems to have forgotten that there is something called Council Meetings where members of the public are supposed to see how the business of the City is run. The Councillor also seems to have forgotten the rules with respect to in camera meetings. There is a procedure in place to ensure that they are limited to only those subjects permitted by law.

Instead our Councillor prefers to meet one-on-one in secret with the Mayor to get the inside info. He must think that this is proper way to run a City. It’s a nudge nudge, wink wink way of doing things so that everything is under the control of the Mayor and the Councillors are given the crumbs that he chooses to give them:

• “But Hatfield said Tuesday that councillors had sufficient opportunity to be apprised of the marina-canal proposal at the mayor's invitation before it became public knowledge.
  
  "He tipped us off he was working on a deal, that if you want more information before the news conference to drop in the office," he said. "I did -- most of council was in the loop."

Our City is run by tips now. That is how information gets disclosed. Now we know how leaks at City Hall take place!

Who else got "tipped off?" Are Councillors supposed to run to City Hall at the whim of the Mayor and just before a press conference to find out about City business that could cost the taxpayers at least $60 million at a time when our economy is in trouble. What else does the Councillor know that he is not telling us?

The Mayor is very concerned that a majority of Council are upset as to how he is running deals like the Tunnel deal. Didn't at least six of them sign a request for a Special Meeting that shocked him? So the new technique is to divide and conquer.

The Councillor should inform us which of his colleagues were not in the loop and did not know about the plans until the Mayor’s press conference. That would be Eddie's Official Opposition I guess. Is the Councillor concerned that the Mayor might be creating a deliberate split on this Council to make it dysfunctional? All of the Governor's Hubby's work down the drain! Is the Councillor concerned that Minister Pupatello knew about it months before he did? Is he concerned that his media friend was fully briefed on the subject before any other ordinary taxpayer in the City?

Not in the least it seems because he is part of the “In-crowd” who gets “tipped off.” I wonder who else knew about it. Clearly, there were a number of non-City Hall people who did. Were they asked to sign confidentiality agreements? If not, why not?

Does the Councillor not understand that this manner of dealing can give rise to ugly rumours and suspicions that certain people may have advantages that others do not. I’m sure that he has heard the stories already, as I have, about what is going on in the area that might be developed.

Is this the type of City Government that the Councillor wanted to create when he was first elected and wants to be part of?

It’s fantastic… Percy is still the reporter who gets the scoop so that he can be smarter than everybody when the story breaks. Gee whatever happened to Administrative Reports, Council Agendas, legal Council Meetings and all those silly things that the law requires.

And I really like the way the Councillor looks after our money. He has no problem with the Mayor spending taxpayer dollars here and there for pretty pictures with no authorization from Council. All that he has to do is go to his subordinate, the CAO, and he gets an approval. Perhaps the Councillor believes that those rules apply to him as well so that he can go out and spend money just by going to the CAO’s office and asking him to approve something under his CAO authority.

I wonder if the Councillor ever thought that he might ask the Mayor what other funds have been spent using this system. I wonder why the Councillor never thought to ask the Mayor why he did not get Council’s approval in advance to spend these funds. No, only that Councillor from Ward 3 who never lets the facts get in the way of a good story, as the Mayor smarmingly described him, would ever ask awkward questions like that.

No, the Ward 5 Councillor is just too lazy. He doesn’t want to think about anything until such time as a Report is placed in front of him by Administration. Then he can make his sound bite at the Council meeting in the hopes that it will be picked up by his media friends.

• “To me, council's role begins when the feasibility study comes in."

What a disgrace! He ought to have his lawyer explain to him his legal obligations under the Municipal Act. Remember the arena deal and how he looked out for citizens:

• "City council approved the agreement with the Spits in the fall of 2006, but councillors themselves were not shown copies of the deal. Council endorsed it based on an administration report that was then taken away following in-camera discussions.
  
  "I couldn't tell you what's in there," said Ward 5 Coun. Percy Hatfield, one of several councillors who will be seeing details of the multimillion-dollar deal for the first time this week."

It is too bad that he did not speak to Councillor Dilkens first. Then he might understand what his function as a Councillor is. As Councillor Dilkens stated, and again Percy was protected because this did not get printed in the published version of the story but only online:

• “his main concern revolves around whether city administrators will be asked to play a major role during the marina-canal feasibility study, taking them away from their main responsibilities overseeing city operations.
  
  "It makes me want to know how much time will be spent on this since it has has not come to council," Dilkens said. "

I am sure that Councillor Hatfield’s busy “tipping-off” schedule did not allow him the time to read the Mayor’s Press Release either or he would have seen the following:

• “It is anticipated that the feasibility study will be over a period of approximately 10 weeks.
  
  The final schedule would depend on when the assignment begins and the availability of other study participants (City Administration, Approval Agency Representatives, etc.)”

The Councillor is so smug and tries to distinguish his role on the symphony feasibility study with his inaction on the canal proposal. He seems to base the distinction on the fact that the City paid $15,000 for one study while private money is paying for the other. It is a distinction without a difference where the plan is the Mayor’s and not that of private enterprise. And did he forget about the $10,000 of City money spent?

It has now been made obvious to everyone, thanks to the Councillor, why the Mayor chose to have private money pay for the study so that the kind of argument that Councillor Hatfield is making can be used to try to squash any opposition.

I wonder what would have happened if the Councillor had NOT been tipped off. Would he have felt the same way?

I wonder however if Councillor Hatfield has really been “tipped off” about what is going on. I don't think so . Unfortunately for him, I have been.

He has been played as a total fool. The decision has already been made. The feasibility study is a farce designed to suck in the unthinking to do what the Mayor already has planned. Poor Dave Cooke, several months of his life wasted on a study that is not required. All that cash poured in has been squandered for nothing. The time spent between the Mayor and Councillorss could have been spent on something more productive like fixing problems in this City. And the poor Administrators having to work so hard to do this extra task that was not needed.

The Mayor stated in the black and white in PERSPECTIVE WINDSOR 2008 what was going to happen. There is actually no need for a canal feasibility study. The Mayor did not say there that we are studying whether we should do this or not but

• “that’s why we are planning a new canal and urban Village development that will expand our spectacular waterfront into the downtown core.”

It's a done deal, Councillor. Aren't you furious I found out before you did! The Mayor himself has decided what has to happen even without a report. You just need to rubber-stamp what he wants to do and you can keep on getting your tips and scoops so you can be used to take the heat as his apologist.

Councillor Hatfield should hang his head in shame after this stunning revelation. He owes his constituents an apology, his Council colleague, Councillor Halberstadt, an apology and Alan’s Blogger friends an apology.

Whatever happens to people when they become elected? Why does that fire go out? Whatever happened to that journalist who could make politicians squirm on Percy’s Panel when he asked a question?

Perhaps Council Lewenza should not be so quick to advocate removing bottled water from City facilities. It may be something in the water in Ward 5 that does this. After all, his Wardmate, Councillor Gignac, has made a number of classic quotes too!

For your inforamtion, here are the main excerpts removed from the published edition of the story:

• "Sure it's city land that's been talked about for years, but I don't have the same concerns as Alan and his blogger friends do," Hatfield said.
  
  "To me, council's role begins when the feasibility study comes in. Nobody can proceed doing anything on that property without council involvement. There could even be expropriation so council will have a very active role."
  
  He said the situation with the symphony is different because council was asked to cough up $15,000 to support that feasibility study -- and he is connected to the process because of his previous role on the armouries re-use subcommittee.
  
  "I keep reminding them they will have to look elsewhere for funding (if the symphony project is deemed feasible)," Hatfield said.
  
  Coun. Drew Dilkens said his main concern revolves around whether city administrators will be asked to play a major role during the marina-canal feasibility study, taking them away from their main responsibilities overseeing city operations.
  
  "It makes me want to know how much time will be spent on this since it has has not come to council," Dilkens said."