Initially published in the Alliston Herald on June 18, 2009
There is nothing particularly glamorous about a ward boundary review. Indeed, the disinterest exhibited by the residents of New Tecumseth in response to the town’s recent (yet long overdue) review process was reflected in the form of blank stares, yawns, and several poorly attended public meetings. Apart from a handful of the usual suspects, the public stayed away from the meetings in droves.
Notwithstanding the yawn factor, the issue has actually generated some rare drama these past two weeks at New Tecumseth council chambers. Gosh, those who listened to Tottenham Coun. Jim Stone’s impassioned pleas in opposition to the proposed changes might well have been tempted to stock up on canned food, powdered milk and bottled water in anticipation of the pending destruction of our town.
The ward boundaries were in desperate need of review and, as it turns out, a major overhaul. The wards that were established at the time of amalgamation almost 20 years ago were no longer relevant and failed to account for significant shifts in the population.
As an example, whereas Ward 2 (the area that includes Green Briar and Briar Hill) Coun. Dennis Egan was elected in 2006 with a total of 995 votes (out of 1,493 votes cast), Ward 3 (which encompasses the southeast part of the town) Coun. Barbara Huson was elected with a meager 293 votes (out of 563 cast).
A similarly silly (and illogical) feature of the old system was that whereas the majority of the wards elected one councillor in a traditional “first past the post” system, the residents in Alliston and Tottenham were permitted to elect two councillors “at large”. The independent consultant retained by the town to review the ward boundaries specifically acknowledged the inherent unfairness of a system where a person who happens to live in one part of the town is entitled to choose more members of council than a neighbour.
The consultant who reviewed the system also appeared to recognize the potential that councillors might be motivated by self-preservation or self-interest in arriving at their decisions. He therefore encouraged council to remain objective by asking the question: “How would we decide if none of us were going to run again.”
This comment evidently mortified the mayor who immediately expressed his displeasure. At the same time the mayor injected some humour (I believe) and observed that any suggestion council was not objective might result in someone writing a cynical article or column that questioned the motives of council. Surely not! Everyone knows that politicians are never motivated by their own self interest. But I digress.
What follows is a brief assessment of some of the “winners” and “losers” arising from the new ward boundaries.
Winner No. 1: The farming and rural communities. At present, one out of the seven wards (14 per cent) is predominantly rural. In 2010 this will change to two out of eight wards (25 per cent). The significance of this fact cannot be understated. Expect the councillors from these wards to have a much more powerful voice as advocates for rural interests.
Winner No. 2: Donna Jebb. As a former councillor and farmer in the newly created rural ward, she automatically becomes the favourite to become its first representative. Given the interest she has shown in the review process, it’s hard to believe that a council seat isn’t on her radar screen.
Loser No. 1: Tottenham Coun. Jim Stone. It’s unlikely that Stone would be able to defeat his counterpart, Jess Prothero, in a head-to-head battle in Tottenham. It therefore came as no surprise that Stone was the most vocal opponent of the changes. His doom and gloom scenario included comments that we’re “going backwards”, “destroying the community” and “dividing one street against the other.”
The “What Were You Thinking” award: Barbara Huson. Notwithstanding the population disparities, Huson objected to the addition of a councillor for Alliston as “ridiculous” and echoed some of Stone’s doomsday predictions.
Contrary to the sentiments expressed by councillors Stone and Huson, our community, even the south, will survive this “ordeal”. There is no need to stock up on Kraft Dinner quite yet. In fact, a week or two from now we’ll have forgotten all about it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Light at the End of the Pipeline
Initially published in the Alliston Herald on June 4, 2009
Several months ago I wrote that the New Tecumseth Improvement Society ("NTIS") - the corporation that formally owns the Georgian Bay Water Pipeline - owes the Town of New Tecumseth the sum of $10 million related to the town's investment.
In response, the mayor and senior town staff claimed, rather emphatically, that I was wrong. My suspicions were aroused, however, when the town adamantly refused to produce copies of the financial statements of NTIS (after initially saying they were available) on the basis it is a separate corporation.
This past week the town, in response to a Freedom of Information request by an unknown third party, released a report prepared in March 2008 by the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche. The report contains a detailed review of NTIS.
Happily, the Deloitte report includes the financial statements of NTIS for 2007. These statements clearly identify the outstanding debt payable to the Town of New Tecumseth as $10 million. In fact, this is consistent with the mayor's own representation of earlier this year that there is a total of $31.3 million of outstanding debt related to the pipeline. The $10 million owed to the town is included in this total.
The Deloitte accountants specifically acknowledge the existence of the $10-million debt owed to the town as well as the accuracy of the financial statements. Not only that, the Deloitte professionals add the following gem: "...we have reviewed the records of the Town and there is no indication that the Loan Receivable from NTIS has been reduced...". Furthermore, it turns out that town staff advised Deloitte that "...the Town has not forgiven" the $10-million loan owed to it by NTIS!
The good news is that Deloitte concludes, contrary to an earlier legal opinion, the town is not on the hook for the $21 million owed to the Ontario Clean Water Agency ("OCWA").
However, what is highly bothersome is the staff report that accompanies the Deloitte document. This report appears to confirm my fears that there is a plan to walk from the $10 million owed to the town by NTIS and, at the same time, unload the incredibly valuable pipeline asset.
By way of background, it is critical to remember that NTIS was set up for the benefit of the residents of our Town. In fact, the corporation's letters patent specifically identify the existence of the corporation as being for the "...benefit of the residents of the Corporation of the Town of New Tecumseth."
Ironically, although the town previously refused to provide the NTIS financial statements on the basis it was a separate corporation, the town now, as reflected in the staff report, appears to assert that NTIS needs to be replaced! Town CAO Terri Caron writes, "NTIS as a corporation... must be replaced with a new financially viable and sustainability governance structure that will ensure the appropriate asset management and future operational requirements are achieved..."
Similarly bothersome (if not entirely absurd) is the newly asserted claim by the town that the pipeline (which was paid for by the equity/debt of the Town and NTIS) was created not for the benefit of our town but was rather constructed for the benefit of our "region."
Specifically, the most recent assertion advanced by the town is that: "The pipeline was constructed as regional infrastructure and not solely for the benefit of New Tecumseth" (emphasis added).
As I wrote back in February, openness and transparency need to prevail. If there is a plan to "walk" from our $10-million investment and hand over the pipeline to a "regional" entity (as advocated by the province), the taxpayers are entitled to know. Smoke and mirrors are not acceptable.
Sadly, if this comes to fruition it will only reinforce the town's well-earned reputation as that of a patsy for the provincial government.
I suspect that the "Pipeline Giveaway" is not far off. Even if it isn't, I believe the town's ill conceived and short sighted memorandum has severely compromised our negotiation position.
Alas, that is fodder for another column.
Several months ago I wrote that the New Tecumseth Improvement Society ("NTIS") - the corporation that formally owns the Georgian Bay Water Pipeline - owes the Town of New Tecumseth the sum of $10 million related to the town's investment.
In response, the mayor and senior town staff claimed, rather emphatically, that I was wrong. My suspicions were aroused, however, when the town adamantly refused to produce copies of the financial statements of NTIS (after initially saying they were available) on the basis it is a separate corporation.
This past week the town, in response to a Freedom of Information request by an unknown third party, released a report prepared in March 2008 by the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche. The report contains a detailed review of NTIS.
Happily, the Deloitte report includes the financial statements of NTIS for 2007. These statements clearly identify the outstanding debt payable to the Town of New Tecumseth as $10 million. In fact, this is consistent with the mayor's own representation of earlier this year that there is a total of $31.3 million of outstanding debt related to the pipeline. The $10 million owed to the town is included in this total.
The Deloitte accountants specifically acknowledge the existence of the $10-million debt owed to the town as well as the accuracy of the financial statements. Not only that, the Deloitte professionals add the following gem: "...we have reviewed the records of the Town and there is no indication that the Loan Receivable from NTIS has been reduced...". Furthermore, it turns out that town staff advised Deloitte that "...the Town has not forgiven" the $10-million loan owed to it by NTIS!
The good news is that Deloitte concludes, contrary to an earlier legal opinion, the town is not on the hook for the $21 million owed to the Ontario Clean Water Agency ("OCWA").
However, what is highly bothersome is the staff report that accompanies the Deloitte document. This report appears to confirm my fears that there is a plan to walk from the $10 million owed to the town by NTIS and, at the same time, unload the incredibly valuable pipeline asset.
By way of background, it is critical to remember that NTIS was set up for the benefit of the residents of our Town. In fact, the corporation's letters patent specifically identify the existence of the corporation as being for the "...benefit of the residents of the Corporation of the Town of New Tecumseth."
Ironically, although the town previously refused to provide the NTIS financial statements on the basis it was a separate corporation, the town now, as reflected in the staff report, appears to assert that NTIS needs to be replaced! Town CAO Terri Caron writes, "NTIS as a corporation... must be replaced with a new financially viable and sustainability governance structure that will ensure the appropriate asset management and future operational requirements are achieved..."
Similarly bothersome (if not entirely absurd) is the newly asserted claim by the town that the pipeline (which was paid for by the equity/debt of the Town and NTIS) was created not for the benefit of our town but was rather constructed for the benefit of our "region."
Specifically, the most recent assertion advanced by the town is that: "The pipeline was constructed as regional infrastructure and not solely for the benefit of New Tecumseth" (emphasis added).
As I wrote back in February, openness and transparency need to prevail. If there is a plan to "walk" from our $10-million investment and hand over the pipeline to a "regional" entity (as advocated by the province), the taxpayers are entitled to know. Smoke and mirrors are not acceptable.
Sadly, if this comes to fruition it will only reinforce the town's well-earned reputation as that of a patsy for the provincial government.
I suspect that the "Pipeline Giveaway" is not far off. Even if it isn't, I believe the town's ill conceived and short sighted memorandum has severely compromised our negotiation position.
Alas, that is fodder for another column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)