In reading the op ed in this morning’s Telegraph Journal by former Mayor Bill Artiss, I was reminded of another story from December 12, 2014, “Debate Swirls over Rothesay ‘gag bylaw’ “.
The story is worth reading again as are the comments beneath it. You can read it here if you subscribe to the TJ online.
For those who don’t, it was clear from the article that many, including Councilor Pat Gallagher Jette, felt that the new bylaw gave the Mayor too much control over who could speak publicly on Council decisions as well as requiring councilors to tow the line by not raising objections to council decisions in public. It was and is a bad law.
But among those in favour of the ‘gag’ was the Deputy Mayor Dr. Nancy Grant, “We just feel that Council should all be behind the decision…”.
I agreed with those, like Gallagher Jette, who opposed the gag bylaw then, and I still find it an unreasonable attack on public transparency now.
So back to the present, today’s op ed, and it’s implied defence of Deputy Mayor Grant’s flop flop on the need for more independent oversight of Rothesay Council spending.
Former Mayor Artiss clearly has his own record to defend. So it comes as no surprise that he would see more oversight as a “waste of money”. Hence his ride to the defense of the Deputy Mayor.
What is less clear, is why Deputy Mayor Dr. Grant, who now wants the Major’s job, would come down against more openness on the eve of an election.
Clearly openness and transparency
will be ballot box questions
Clearly openness and transparency will be ballot box questions and Grant’s position won’t help her gain public trust as she asks the public to hand her a mandate to run things for the next four years.
“Move along, move along…nothin’
to see ‘ere m’dear…”
I’m reminded of the not so calming words of the London Bobby standing at a crime scene, “Move along, move along…nothin’ to see ‘ere m’dear…”
Well there is a lot to see in Rothesay and the way things are run it is extremely difficult for the general public to know what’s going on.
Decisions like the bulldozing of the Scott Ave. apartment buildings, on which Rothesay Council had spent more than $1million, deserve much more scrutiny than they receive when they are pushed through Council with little debate and fewer factual information as to cost.
The Scott Avenue demo decision reduced the town’s million dollar investment in two apartment buildings down to the value of two holes in the ground.
The Scott Avenue demo decision
reduced the town’s million dollar investment
in two apartment buildings to
the value of two holes in the ground.
Worse, it appears the decision was timed to put pressure on the Province to cough up money for another boondoggle, a new Rothesay arena that Has no support outside of a few councillors and Dr. Grant.
With decisions like this, it’s not surprising that those responsible do not want any outsiders looking over their shoulders.
Bulldozing those apartments meant the loss of homes for lower income families and the loss of more town revenue money than the town took in from last year’s property tax rate hike.
Think about that when you open your property tax bill this year.
And think about that when you are asked to vote on May 9th for those on Council who supported the foolishness.
They are the same ones who are now making a new Arena a key plank in their reelection platforms. But as far as public oversight? …Don’t expect any details on how high taxes will have to go to pay for it.
So do Rothesay Council’s spending decisions
deserve more public oversight?
Absolutely!
We’ll have more about wasteful Rothesay spending to come… Stay tuned!