Recently CFOS Talk Show Host Dave Carr said, when discussing how a request for a ‘Town Hall’ was morphed into an ‘Open House’, that he didn't think that there was a ‘Cabal’ running our city. However, I'm not too sure.

A cabal is a group of people who are united in some close design, usually to promote their private views or interests in an ideology, a state, or another community, often by intrigue and usually without the knowledge of those who are outside their group.

On March 11th Council will be presented with yet another Art Gallery Feasibly Study. If my memory is correct this is the fourth study in the last five years. The combined cost of these feasibility studies is starting to become significant. I recall the study presented November 16, 2022 by G.M. Diemert Architects determined that building that would be required to house the Gallery’s growing collection and expanding staff would be in the range of 35,000 to 38,000 square-feet at a cost of $22 to 30 million. This current study is now reducing that cost down to only $16 million.

If you watched the 26 February Council meeting you would have witnessed what had all the earmarks of a ‘Cabal’. At the end of the budget discussions the mayor kept looking to his right, rattling papers as if he wanted to get someone’s attention. Then, seemingly out of frustration, the mayor said: “Councillor Hamley, do you have something you want to add to that.” Councillor Hamley responded; “I’ve been thinking about that and it requires a notice of motion”. Then the mayor says: “… you can bring a motion to wave motion”. Then without anyone telling us what “that” was Councillor Keopke says: “I move to wave notice”.
It was clear that a group, possibly as many as seven (7) based on the vote, came to this council meeting with a plan that several people were in on. Councillor Hamley’s motion was to disband the Remuneration Review Task Force before it had its first meeting. It would appear that in this case the Mayor Boddy was the driving force behind this surprise but what was his motivation.

The cost of council only represents 0.5% of the city’s total expenses of $63 million so he wasn’t motivated by a new desire to save tax dollars. In fact, at over $600,000, the cost of the city manager’s office is twice the cost of council.

My theory is that the sole reason for the mayor wanting to cancel a task force that had just been established was to maintain the status quo on council to make his job easier. The mayor knows that the current compensation presents a barrier for many in the community. As Councillor Farmer reminded him; there was a Councillor in another municipality that chose not to run for a second term due to financial difficulties and the constraints of running a business. By disbanding the Task Force they eliminated any possibility of anyone without a six-figure household income from running for council. The problem for the mayor if the composition of the council changed is that the priorities of council would change from building a new Art Gallery to improving bussing and helping the unhoused.

IGNORING FACTS
I spent seven months compiling research based on municipal Audited Financial Statements which showed that Owen Sound was considerably overstaffed when compared to eight very similar municipalities in the study. When I completed my report I sent a copy to each of the counsellors. It showed that with 79 employees on the sunshine list compared to only 51 in a very similar municipal Owen Sound workforce was grossly top-heavy. I also pointed out the fact that Owen Sound has three clerks and two HR managers where all other similarly-sized municipalities manage with on two Clerks and one HR Manager.
The data I presented was based on irrefutable sources and should have raised concern among members of council. However, not one Councillor even acknowledged receiving my report. Why was that? Nine independent voices don’t respond in-step unless they are coached. Clearly someone had convinced them to toss my work in the trash. Who was that? Was it the Mayor or the City Manager? Either way someone was controlling this non-response. You can read my report using this Link.

THE BUDGET
During the All-Candidates-Meetings we heard commitments to address the chronic budget increases. We even heard a commitment to establish a Budget Committee that has yet to materialize. Yet in spite of these commitments the Budget passed unanimously. Why was this? It moved $325,000 from taxes to our water bill, it created one new permanent staff position and two new part-time positions and resulted in a tax increase in the order of 3%. This was in spite of the fact that no one asked any questions about how last year’s budget was spent.

We know from the staff recommendation to pay the Art Gallery $50,000 payment from the 2023 surplus that indeed they didn’t spend what we gave them last year. We also know from the Audited Financial Statements that in 2022 they underspent the budget by $4.6 million and in 2021 they left $7.4 million on the table at the end of the year. We will find out when the 2023 Audited Financial Statements are released the actual size of the surplus.

So who did this benefit? Certainly it didn’t benefit the taxpayers. Not, did it benefit members of council. There was only one winner in this process and that was staff who got to preserve past gains and in the process managed to continue the growth in the already bloated workforce.

IGNORING BYLAWS
Those who attended the recent council meeting opposing the TC Energy proposal found out that our mayor routinely ignores the Procedural Bylaw that gives people with questions for Council five (5) minutes to introduce and pose their question. As Owen Sound resident Ken Jones found out last fall the mayor acts with impunity when ignoring Bylaws. Mr. Jones was interrupted by the mayor three times within three minutes when trying introduce his question. Yet, a few minutes later when the mayor was giving a deputation, he spoke for 23 minutes in spite of the Procedural Bylaw imposing a ten minute time limited on all Deputations. Yet, not one of his colleagues interrupted him. In fact he even joked with the Deputy Mayor that he had exceeded the time limit. As well, in spite of the code of conduct requiring all members of council to adhere to all Bylaws, none of his colleagues ever call the mayor out on this atrocious behavior. Why is this? Could it be that the mayor has such a tight control on his colleagues that they fear retaliation? Are all of our elected officials being coerced in to following the mayor’s direction?

This behaviour obviously benefits the mayor since it allows him to minimize interruptions. However it certainly discourages people coming forward to ask questions at a council meeting and the fact they few ever get answers to their questions dampens public engagement. Yet we learned at a recent council meeting taxpayers will be funding a consultant to inform staff of how to improve public engagement.

TOWN HALLS
Three years ago I sent each member of council an appeal to hold a Town Hall style meeting that would give them a feeling for the issues concerning the community. I even sent them an outline of what I thought a Town Hall should look like. You can read this at this link: Town Hall Format. Regardless of my explanation of how valuable these could be to both council and the community, I didn’t get once response committing to making a motion at the council table to implement a Town Hall.
Then fast forward to the Fall of 2023 when Councillor Jon Farmer introduced a motion to establish a Town Hall. In spite of having lined-up a seconder for his motion not one Councillor offered to second the motion so it died on the floor. Then on 29 January Councillor Farmer reintroduced his motion to establish a Town Hall in October stating: “Whereas October 2024 is the mid-point in the current term of council, and …. There has not been a town hall style meeting so far this council term” He clearly stated that he wanted a “Town Hall Style” meeting.

The term “town hall” comes from meetings held by politicians in local town halls or other designated venues. Town hall meetings are a way for local politicians to meet with their constituents either to hear from them on topics of interest or to discuss specific upcoming legislation or regulation.

As soon as the motion was on the floor the mayor jumped on it saying that we should have Town Hall Meetings on a regular basis and added that staff will develop a design and bring it back to council. Given that the mayor had never before expressed an interest in have a Town Hall, this immediately made me suspicious.

Sure enough, on 25 March staff presented their recommendations for the Town Hall format which did not include a Q&A session with council but was really an Open House for city departments. This was not what Councillor Farmer’s motion asked staff to develop. Staff had morphed a Town Hall into an Open House. What was even more surprising was that every member of Council voted to approve staff’s modified vision. It was like someone convinced them off camera that a Q&A with residents was not a good idea and scared them off of the idea.

STAFF INFLUENCE
The above is what I believe to be staff influencing an outcome, however, I have observed many others. Another example which I documented on my website occurred at a Corporate Services Committee meeting on 09 November 2023 where the city manager and the director inappropriately participated in the debate of a motion that was under consideration and changed the outcome. You can watch how this occurred in a YouTube video I posted here. Corporate Services Committee.
It is interesting that almost all “Staff Recommendations” are accepted by members of council with very few challenges. Among other things these Recommendations saw the city manager’s office budget increase from $250,860 in 2018 to $641,136 just four years and resulted in a sizable growth in city staff mostly in administration.