Voices of Wolfville

The Draft Strategic Plan of June 2009

2009-09-03T05:55:00.000-07:00

C.22. The Wolfville Strategic Planning Exercise

The Draft Strategic Plan of June 2009

As I said and wrote before our Wolfville has survived for decades and maybe even a century without a Strategic Plan. All of a sudden and with no reasonable explanation our Councillors and the Town Administration seem to need guidance and direction from a Strategic Plan. What is all the rush? I really wonder how they all could do their “jobs” in the past.

To make a point, I am very much in favour of the birth of a Strategic Plan for Wolfville’s citizens. However, such a plan needs to be phrased clearly and realistically, focussing and taking into account the citizens’ position and perception and not just - as done in the draft - the one of the Town Administration. In summary I am very disappointed with the content of this current draft. It does not seem to be worth the time and effort being put into this exercise.

The Draft Strategic Plan is the outcome of three sessions at the Irving Centre at Acadia University. These sessions were held during day-time hours when regular citizens were out for work and unable to attend. Obviously, there was no intention to involve the public into the drafting process. I even attended a public Council meeting where the Draft Strategic Plan became discussed amongst the Councillors, the CAO and an outside consultant who used Laptops while the audience was unable to follow and or understand what was going on. This was before the draft was made available on the Town’s website and as a hardcopy. To this Administration it still seems to be inconceivable to involve the public and “provide a better communication link”.

In the Introduction is stated “The plan provides an overview of the existing situational analysis of the Town of Wolfville..”. I could not find it. In the business literature you will find the SWOT approach determining the presence and standing in for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Where is an analysis of the current situation in Wolfville and when was this done?
The near future may hold immense tax increases to pay for upgrades (without federal and/or provincial grants) of our streets and the water and sewer pipes below the surface plus the upgrade of our sewage plant to the level requested by the government. All this would have to be paid by the citizens of Wolfville, which I regard too small a property-tax base. Have there ever been given some thoughts to the idea to surrender the municipality status of Wolfville to become like New Minas a part of Kings County? This might benefit all citizens of Wolfville at least from the point of view that future financial threats will be based on the much broader platform of Kings County.

Under Council Objectives I disagree with the content of some points and how they are phrased. In general, Goals and Objectives should follow the SMART approach in the business literature standing in for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. I do not want to go into details here and now. Firmly, I believe that this whole part does not belong in a Strategic Plan.

The Vision statement “A vibrant and sustainable small university town which enriches our lives” is a very poor one. I have a major problem to clearly understand and grasp the only definitions of the parts “vibrant”, “sustainable” and “enriches our lives”. I have asked several people about those and each time I got a different answer and meaning. What enriches my life may and/or will not enrich the life of my neighbour.

A Vision Statement in general should be a high-level and more abstract statement, but still provide a clear and realistic picture with no ambiguity. Funnily and all of a sudden the perception of the citizens and not the one of the Town Administration was taken in this statement into consideration. I hope the “enrichment of our lives” was meant to address all Wolfville citizens and not just the lives of the members of the Town Administration and that this was not done by oversight or mistake. This part of the statement is phrased that nebulous that it would cover and/or excuse any poor and/or even stupid decision as well while trying to enrich the life of one or the other citizen but not the lives of all of them.

The Mission statement “To excel in the provision of effective and efficient government and work creatively with the community to achieve the vision” deserves the same critique. Where is a clear understanding and definition of “effective” and “efficient” government and what could actually be done or changed to become these adjectives excelled?

The Core Principles of Governance and Service Provision are not phrased as measurable goals and objectives and I could go through each of them with a very critical pencil. To take the first one as an example we could have endless discussions on the definitions and clear understandings of “ Wolfville aims to ensure ecological, social, cultural and economic integrity ..”. All these principles read well on paper. But I would like to have at least a clue on how the Town Administration is going to administer these principles with concrete actions.

The part Goal1: Enrich our Community with the Sub-Goals 1 to 4 I can live with despite the fact that the Objectives under each Sub-goal are phrased poorly, are incomplete and do not belong in a Strategic Plan, but may fit as measurable ones an Operational Plan and/or an Implementation Plan.

The Goal 2: Engage and communicate is the one everybody in the Town Administration talks about but nobody seems to understand its meaning and/or consequence. The Sub-Goal 1 sounds good to me but the Objectives under it do only partly tickle - if at all - this important goal. And they do not belong in a Strategic Plan. In the definition of the Sub-Goal 2 “Build on our existing working relationship with Acadia University” I would like for reality reasons to have the words “on our existing” being replaced by the word “a”. The Objectives here have to be rephrased as well and as measurable ones put into different plans.

The third goal Enhance the Organization seems to be phrased as the poorest of the three goals. I can accept the Sub-Goals 1 without the text in brackets (“living within our means”) and Sub-Goal 2 (with the add-on of accountability) as strategic goals but disagree with most of the Objectives here. As before, these Objectives should be put somewhere else. Just as one example, I doubt very much that the Objective “Develop a multi-year financial plan ..” will have any direct impact on Sub-Goal 1: “Achieve fiscal health of our Town”.

To summarize my comments:

As in the past the much more important, valuable and short-term Operational and Implementation Plans are missing. A Strategic Plan without these add-on plans is worth nothing. Personally, I would have liked to see the development of an efficient Operational Plan first with an outlook for the next two to three years as a solid platform for the derivation of a Strategic Plan, if really necessary. Not the other way round. This Town only goes through a sped-up budget process each year where too many directors present their wish lists in rounded thousands of dollars. This process cannot be regarded as a representation of an Operational and/or Implementation Plan with top-rank, second-rank and third-rank objectives etc. Nothing is measurable here. The directors are not measured of having done or doing a poor, average or good job and there is no accurate measure or even understanding of related and/or changing service levels under an assumption that certain budget positions are partly or entirely reduced.
Almost all of the attempted statements and definitions in the current draft fail to achieve clarity.
A Strategic Plan does not predict the future but it should give an answer to the questions:
Where do we want to be in 5 or even 10 years?
What actually has to be changed in our Town in order to get there?
Does this current draft give answers to these questions? No, it does not!
My prediction is: A Strategic Plan in whatever version and detail will become implemented and nothing will change for the citizens of Wolfville. A real pity!
At this time and with the current content I regard the presentation of the Draft Strategic Plan of June 2009 a futile exercise. An implementation of a realistic and clearly defined Strategic Plan is a very good idea. The execution of this idea by the Town Administration has so far been a very poor one including the attempt to involve Wolfville citizens after the drafting process was done without them and expecting the public to sanction the whole exercise later on.

Lutz E. Becker / August 23, 2009

To be published on any kind of media!

CONTENT / INDEX

2009-08-02T16:05:00.000-07:00

CONTENT / INDEX

Please scoll down to subject of interest and then click on letter/number under "Blog Archive" on the right side of your screen

A. The Brideau Issue

A1. Wolfville and the Roy Brideau Issue (08/15/2008)
A2. Update 1 on the Brideau Issue (10/27/2008)
A3. Bob Wrye’s 2 comments on Wolfvillewatch responding to my article (11/01/2008 and 11/02/2008)
A4. Mr. Daniels’ letter to Mayor Stead (11/04/2008)
A5. My response to Wrye’s comments (11/13/2008)
A6. Update 2 on the Brideau Issue (06/05/2009)
A7. MyLetter to the FOIPOP Review Board in Halifax (06/29/2009)
A8. My fax to the president of the Right-to-know Coalition Nova Scotia {RTKNS} (07/13/2009)
A9. The answer of the president of the RTKNS (07/13/2009)

B. The Wolfville Police Issue

B1. My Fax to Paul Kennedy, Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP (06/02/2008)
B2. My Letter to Amnesty International Canada (08/26/2008)
B3. Police Practices affecting the Wolfville Community (01/02/2009)
B4. Shortened one-page version for distribution (01/03/2009)
B5. No Contract between the Town and the local RCMP? (Letter to the Town Clerk Turner 06/06/2009)
B6. The Town Clerk’s answer: no response at all (08/02/2009)

C. This Mayor and his Administration

C01. PCB Clean up in Wolfville? (04/10/2008)
C02. Wolfville’s Political Climate in the Spring of 2008 (05/18/2008)
C03. The “Clock-Tower Park” Issue (06/03/2008)
C04. Some comments on Council Meeting on June 09, 2008 (06/10/2008)
C05. Impressions regarding the PSPAC meeting June 19, 2008 (06/23/2008)
C06. E-mails to the Mayor and Councillors: Wolfville and a present PCB issue? (07/22/2008 and P.S. 06/30/2009)
C07. Dear Wolfville Resident: VOTE FOR CHANGE (10/09/2008)
C08. The Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008
a) The Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008
b) A necessary response to the Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008 (10/09/2008)
C09. The Wolfville Municipal Election “Soap Opera” (11/02/2008)
C10. My Post-Election Reflections (11/30/2008)
C11. Wolfville and the new “Fiscal Sustainability Task Force” (12/17/2008)
C12. “Bargain Booze” and one local bar responsible for Wolfville’s social problems? (01/05/2009)
C13. Is Wolfville governed by a Tyrant? (02/01/2009)
C14. Editor Calder’s request for an interview (02/11/2009)
C15. The Pending Budget-Draft Process Meetings in 2009 (01/19/2009)
C16. The Mayor’s reply to The Athenaeum’s request for an interview (02/21/2009)
C17. The Town’s violation of the Municipal Government Act (06/06/2009)
C18. The Town’s deceptive Budget-finding Process 2009 (06/09/2009)
C19. Are Wendy and Bobby playing the same tune? (06/30/2009)
C20. Mr. Sanderson’s reply to my article “Wendy and Bobby” (07/03/2009)
C21. E-mail to the Town (Ms. J. Boyd) on Strategic Plan (07/20/2009)

D. The Morrison Mystery

D1. My acquaintance with Mr. Gregg Morrison started on the wrong foot in 200.….. (in progress)

E. The Wolfville “Buy Local” Gimmick

E1. My article published 02/12/2009

F. The “idiotic” Court case: Town of Wolfville versus Lutz E. Becker

F1. The Town lost its case entirely and the Honourable Judge seemed to have a problem to understand why such a case made it to his Court chambers and “steal” his valuable time. …..” (in progress)

A1.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T15:22:00.000-07:00

A1.:

Wolfville and the Roy Brideau Issue

Background and Introduction

Running concerns with Roy Brideau in his position as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Town of Wolfville and the information provided by a credible source that a date and a time - June 16, 2008, 7 to 9 p.m. - were set for an “in camera session” with the personnel matter subject “Roy Brideau and his work performance” inspired me to look a little closer into his Employment Contract and his salary and benefit records.

My running concerns reflect his handling and decision making in a court case - Town of Wolfville versus Lutz Becker - about an alleged violation of the Dog By-law which the Town lost entirely, the damage to my parked car by a snow plow of the Town and some long and stupid haggle and power play on Brideau’s side about $8.73 interest charged to my property tax account which I had refused to pay for very good reasons.

Details on these concerns with Roy Brideau are available on request.

On May 21, 2008 I filed an application with the Town under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get Roy Brideau’s records. Some documentation was mailed to me delayed on June 25, 2008. Due to the fact that I regard this documentation incomplete, with a blacked-out section as well, I appealed to the Review Officer on July 09, 2008. I was told that it may take 4 to 6 months to get the answers from the Halifax office.

I guess there is not enough reason to wait that long with my report.

The original Employment Contract of Roy Brideau

The original employment contract between the Town and Roy Brideau is dated May 27, 1996. The term of this contract is three (3) years beginning June 01, 1996 and ending May 31, 1999.

Checking the files at the Town office I was able to find in the minutes of the Council meeting on May 21, 1996 that with the “Motion 10-05-96 Richardson/Martens” Roy Brideau was appointed as CAO for the Town of Wolfville as per Bylaw Chapter No. 59.

I shall not go into every little detail of the Employment Contract and restrict myself to the sections I regard important and/or questionable.

The section REMUNERATION states that Roy Brideau’s salary will be $58,500.00 for the first year of the contract and that his salary shall be reviewed annually by the Council before the anniversary date. “That review shall include ….. the appraisal of Roy Brideau’s performance during the previous year ….. and the level of salary increments granted to other similar positions in the Municipal Government field in Nova Scotia.” “At its sole discretion the Council of the Town of Wolfville, on the basis of this review, may increase the salary for Roy Brideau for the then following year of this Employment Contract.”

The section EVALUATION adds further that “… Council agrees to carry out a full performance evaluation of Roy Brideau as Chief Administrative Officer under the employee performance evaluation system in place from time to time. This evaluation shall take place no less frequently than once a year.”

Regarding BENEFITS the contract entitles Roy Brideau to participate in the Town’s insurance benefits package and in the Town’s employee pension program, where the Town pays 5% of Roy Brideau’s annual salary as a registered retirement savings plan payment to the plan directed by Roy Brideau.

Furthermore, the Town provides Roy Brideau with a credit card for his use only for authorized business expenses and/or shall reimburse him for those authorized ones. And under “Professional Responsibilities” is added “Roy Brideau is expected to attend such meetings, conventions, workshops and seminars held in the province as are appropriate to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Town and are approved by the Mayor or Council.” And further down in this section it states “… Town Council at its sole discretion will consider granting Roy Brideau a leave of absence to pursue studies relating to local government and his function as Chief Administrative Officer. Town Council at its sole discretion may agree to pay all fees and expenses in connection with such studies.”

Under the headline TERMINATION it reads: “Roy Brideau may terminate employment under this Employment Contract by giving at least three (3) months advance notice in writing to the Town. If Roy Brideau so requests, the Town may waive such notice, in all or in part and if the Town does so, Roy Brideau’s entitlement to remuneration and benefits under this Contract ceases on the date the Town waives such notice.”
“The Town may terminate Roy Brideau’s employment under this Contract without notice or payment in lieu of notice, for cause.”
“In addition the Town may terminate Roy Brideau’s employment under this Contract at its sole discretion for any reason, without cause, by providing six months notice of termination, or at the Town’s option, pay in lieu of that notice.”

And in the DISCUSSION FOR RENEWAL section it is written: “Roy Brideau and the Town agree that at least six months before the end of the term of appointment under this contract, discussions shall begin on the possible renewal of this Employment Contract. If those discussions have not been concluded before the end of the term of appointment under this contract, Roy Brideau and the Town agree that this Employment Contract shall continue in force on a month to month basis until discussions are concluded by the parties agreeing to renew this Employment contract with agree revisions or to allow this Employment Contract to terminate without being renewed.”

Despite the fact that I could not find in the minutes of Council meetings or in the minutes of the Committee of Council meetings any reference to this contract or to an “in camera session” dealing with personnel matters at the time the contract was originated and indicating that the specifics and content of this contract had ever made it to the Council table for approval, I do regard the contract and its specifics within the range of a “normal” employment contract neither favouring Roy Brideau nor the Town.

The Amendment to Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract

The Employment Contract Amending Agreement was signed by both parties on August 18, 1997 and less than one year and a quarter into the duration of the three years contract with Roy Brideau.

As an outsider I have a problem to understand any logical reasons and the rush for this amendment while there were more than 21 months left with a month-to-month add-on before the original contract might become void and a different CAO might become appointed.

All this was done two months prior to pending new elections and the Mayor was quoted in the minutes of the Council meeting on July 21, 1997 that she would not run for an additional term.

In the minutes of the Council meeting on August 18, 1997 (not signed by the Mayor) it reads that the amendment to Roy Brideau’s contract was carried in “Motion 19-08-97 Stead/Martens” “in the same form as considered at its Committee of Council meeting in August”.

When I then checked the minutes of that August 1997 Committee of Council meeting there was no reference and/or indication that the amendment to Roy Brideau’s contract and its form was presented and discussed at all. Furthermore, these minutes do not show any break into an “in camera session” discussing personnel matters.

A mystery that could not even become clarified by asking a staff member that had signed the minutes of the Council meeting on August 18, 1997 as a note taker.

Miraculously, these minutes state as well that the Town’s solicitor, who signed the Amendment as a witness had left the meeting at 9:53 p.m. and had returned to the meeting at 9:50 p.m. He must have gone through a “time machine”. The Council meeting became adjourned at 10:48 p.m. This means that the amendment was prepared and signed by the parties and the witness at almost midnight. In my opinion this is possible but out of line after such a long Council meeting.

This Amendment states that after less than 15 months into the contract “Roy has described his employment relationship with the Town after its first year as successful and has requested amendments to the Agreement to remove the short three year term and revise the notice of termination provisions.”

In recognition of possible benefits the Amendment states as well: “It provides longer term benefit to the Town from Roy’s services as Chief Administrative Officer as he gains experience in that position.” Obviously, he was not experienced at that point in time.

Under TERMS the amended sections of the Contract are stated.
The three-year term of Roy Brideau’s contract is deleted and the following is inserted in its place: “The Town agrees to continue to employ Roy and Roy agrees to continue to work for the Town as Chief Administrative Officer under the terms of the Employment Contract for an indefinite time.”

The paragraph you will find above under the headline TERMINATION and which starts “In addition the Town may terminate ….” is deleted and the following is inserted in its place: “In addition the Town may terminate Roy’s employment under this clause at its sole discretion for any reason without cause, by paying in lieu of notice one year of salary during the first ten years of Roy’s employment under the employment contract (commencing May 1996) and in addition one month of salary for each additional year of employment beyond ten years.”

Why does the severance payment offer commences in May 1996 while the original employment contract starts on June 01, 1996?

The entire section DISCUSSION FOR RENEWAL as above including its heading is deleted as well.
Under TERMS the Amendment reads towards the end: “In all other respects the Agreement continues to apply.”

I trust that the word Agreement here is just a substitute for Brideau’s Employment Contract.

My personal view is that this amendment does mostly favour Roy Brideau and not the Town and the tax payers of Wolfville.

The additional Amendment with monetary increases to Roy Brideau until the year 2011

In addition to the Employment Contract and the Amendment as above I received under FOIPOP a copy of an “additional 1-page Amendment” showing salary and pension increases up to the year 2011 and signed by Mayor Stead.

This amendment is dated February 15, 2007 and it states in form of a letter to Roy Brideau and to his personnel file: “Dear Mr. Brideau: At an “in camera” session as part of a Special Council Meeting held on February 5, 2007 there was discussion on your compensation package. Four decisions were reached based on a view of the next four years, i.e. 2007-08 to 2010-11, ….”

The Municipal Government Act reads in Section 22 (3) “No decision shall be made at a private council meeting except a decision concerning procedural matters or to give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality.”

Do this Mayor and this Council believe that they are over and above the law?

This additional Amendment states the decisions taken on salary (S) and pension increases (P):

(S) June 07 to May 08 $91,000 -------(P) Town 12%, Roy 6%
(S) June 08 to May 09 $94,640 -------(P) Town 15%, Roy 3%
(S) June 09 to May 10 $97,479 --------(P) Town 18%, Roy 0%
(S) June 10 to May 11 $100,403

This amendment states further: “It was further agreed that if the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) is greater than 4%, 3% and 3% in years two, three and four respectively, the salary adjustment will be increased to the COLA level. Council established the maximum Town contribution to the Pension Contribution at 18%.”

The next paragraph on this Amendment copy is blacked out and became therefore part of my Appeal to the Review Officer in Halifax. In addition I requested the missing salary and benefit records prior to the year 07/08 to be able to understand the salary increases from $58,500 to $91,000 and now $94,640 and the increases in the pension contributions from 5% as in the original Employment Contract to now 15% and 18% next year.

Talking to an officer in Municipal Relations and asking him about average salaries of CAOs in comparable municipalities I learned that the average salary would be between $80,000 and $90,000.

When I then increased in private calculations the basic salary of $58,500 in 1996 by 3% for every year he has held the position as the CAO of the Town, the result showed $83,407 as of the year 08/09. There is a difference of about $11,000 between my calculated figure and the real annual salary of $94,640.

This additional Amendment(?) raises a lot of questions and may have some legal implications as well by checking it against Roy Brideau’s original contract incl. the Amendment of August 1997 and against relevant sections of the Municipal Government Act.

Some more general questions are:

Can a Council make binding annual salary increase decisions for Roy Brideau four years into the future while the Councillors may not even be in power during this time frame due to new elections?
If the Council can not do this, what legal implications will this have on the Amendment of February 07 and Roy Brideau’s contract?
Could the Mayor and the Councillors be made personally responsible?

Looking at Roy Brideau’s original Employment Contract and all its still valid parts, his “salary shall be reviewed annually by Wolfville Town Council before the anniversary date of this Employment Contract. The review shall include … the appraisal of Roy Brideau’s performance during the previous year … and the level of salary increments granted to other similar positions in the Municipal Government field in Nova Scotia. At its sole discretion the Council of the Town of Wolfville, on the basis of this review, may increase the salary for Row Brideau for the then following year of this Employment Contract.”

And under the section EVALUATION of the Contract is added: “Council agrees to carry out a full performance evaluation of Roy Brideau as Chief Administrative Officer under the employee performance evaluation system in place from time to time. This evaluation shall take place no less frequently than once each year.”

How come that this Mayor and this Council can ignore their responsibilities and obligations towards the Wolfville residents and tax payers and misuse their given powers by skipping and negating all the valid provisions of Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract and provide Roy Brideau with salary increases four years into the future without the necessary annual evaluations of his work performance?

Very questionable as well from a legal point of view are the documented and decided pension contributions. Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract states under BENEFITS “…the Town agrees to pay … equivalent to 5% of Roy Brideau’s annual salary as a registered retirement savings plan payment to the Plan directed by Roy Brideau …”.

The Employment Contract and the Amendment of 1997 do not allow for increases of the 5% of Roy Brideau’s annual salary to be paid by the Town into his registered retirement savings plan.

According to the additional Amendment of February 07 the Town does not pay 5% but 12%, 15% and 18% in the years 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10 with yearly increases of 3% while the Municipal Government Act reads in Section 45 (7) “A pension plan may provide for annual increases in the pensions paid pursuant to the plan, but the increases shall not exceed the lesser of (a) six per cent; or (b) the percentage increase in the cost of living in the preceding year, as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index for Canada prepared by Statistics Canada.”

Is it the fact of a miracle that Mayor Stead and this Council have magical skills and foresights being able to predict in advance cost-of-living indexes of 3% for the year 07/08 and the future years of 08/09 and 09/10?

It seems to be very worthwhile to check with Statistics Canada into past cost-of-living indexes and their impact on Roy Brideau’s pension contribution increases since 1996.

Taking all aspects as above into close consideration it seems to be very questionable if this additional Amendment will stand its time.

And again, could this Mayor and this Council be made personally responsible for damages to the Wolfville tax payer by ignoring the provisions of Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract and the Amendment of August 1997?

Mayor Stead at least must have been very familiar with the Employment Contract and the Amendment 1997 due to the fact that he was a Councillor back in 1996 before he became Mayor at the end of 1997. Stead and Brideau have worked close together for more than 12 years now.

Lutz E. Becker / August 15, 2008

Cc/ Mayor (hand delivered on August 15, 08)
Councillors (hand delivered on August 15, 08)
Municipal Relations
Ombudsman
Public / Media (emailed to Wendy Elliott)

A2.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

A2.:

Update 1 on the Brideau Issue

On October 20, 2008 and during the official Council meeting I was provided a portion of the draft minutes regarding an answer to a question in relation to the Brideau Employment Contract raised during the Council meeting on September 02. 2008.

Finally, Mayor Stead had asked the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, to respond to this question. These part-draft minutes shed some new light on the still pending issue and make the whole Brideau Employment Contract including its Amendments and its history even more questionable and mysterious.

As it is public knowledge, Roy Brideau was appointed by Council as CAO for the Town on May 21, 1996 with the “Motion 10-05-96 Richardson/Martens”.

The original Employment Contract is dated and signed by both parties on May 27, 1996. The solicitor, Jim Dewar, co-signed and witnessed their signatures.

All the mystery starts with the fact that I was unable to find any reference to this Contract, either in the minutes of Council meetings or in the minutes of the Committee of Council meetings at the time the Contract was originated. In addition, no “in camera sessions” dealing with “personnel matters” could be found in and around May 1996.

The real question here is:

Did this Brideau Employment Contract and its terms and conditions ever make it to the Council table for approval?

Personally, I regard this original Employment Contract and its specifics as a “fair and normal” employment contract, neither favoring Brideau nor the Town and/or the Wolfville tax payer.

The then following Employment Contract Amending Agreement was signed by Brideau and the Mayor on August 18, 1997 and less than one year and a quarter into the duration of the original three-year contract. Again the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, was involved and had co-signed and witnessed both party signatures.

As a concerned resident I have a major problem to find any logical reasons for the rush for this Amendment, while there were more than 21 months left with a month-to-month add-on before the original contract might have become void and a different CAO might have become appointed. What was all the rush?

In the minutes of the Council meeting on August 18, 1997 (not signed by the Mayor) it reads that the Amendment to Brideau’s contract was carried in “Motion 19-08-97 Stead/Martens” “in the same form as considered at its Committee of Council meeting in August”.

And again, in checking the minutes of that particular August 1997 Committee of Council meeting no reference and/or indication was to be found that the Amendment to Brideau’s contract and the specifics of it were presented to the Council table and/or discussed at all. And as above, those minutes do not show any break into an “in camera session” discussing “personnel matters” or “contract negotiations”. This additional mystery could not even become clarified by asking a staff member who had signed the minutes as a note taker while the minutes do not show any signature of the Mayor.

And the real question is again:

Did this Amendment and its specifics ever make it to the Council table for approval?

Miraculously, those minutes state as well that the Town’s solicitor, Jim Dewar, who signed this Amendment as a witness had left the meeting at 9:53 p.m. and had returned to the meeting at 9:50 p.m. He obviously can beat time in a kind of “time machine”. The Council meeting became adjourned at 10:48 p.m. To me this means that the Amendment was prepared, written, copied and signed by the parties and then witnessed thereafter and before midnight. In my opinion this is possible but very questionable and out of line after such a long Council meeting. Again, what was all the rush?

After less than 15 months duration into the 36-month Employment Contract its terms became changed into a Contract for an indefinite time and Brideau was guarantied a severance payment of one year of salary during the first ten years of service and one month of salary for every year thereafter starting in May 1996 (?) while his Contract starts in June 1996.

In judging this Amendment - done for no obvious reasons - at this point in time, it favours Brideau only and does not favour the residents of our Wolfville community.

The additional Amendment dated February 15, 2007 (2nd Amendment) tops all the previous mysteries and shadows regarding Brideau’s Employment Contract by far.

The Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, is quoted in the part-draft minutes (as above) as follows: “He [the solicitor] can also say that in that discussion [during the “in-camera session on February 05, 2007] Council did give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality”. He is quoted as well that the Municipal Government Act prohibits him from both repeating what was discussed at and disclosing his notes of that meeting”. Obviously, the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, sees his role in working for the Town (Mayor, Council, Staff) only and not for the best interest of the people and taxpayers of Wolfville, who actually pay for his services. Any future role of a Town’s solicitor should be revised at least under the headline transparency.

Under the assumption that Mayor Stead can be regarded as “staff”, the questions here are:

Did the Council entitle and authorize Mayor Stead to somehow negotiate and finalize Brideau’s compensation package as part of his Employment Contract?
Did the Council provide Mayor Stead with a “carte blanche” and when was this done?

In the part-draft minutes (as above) it is stated that “the letter was in error” regarding the four decisions reached “during the in-camera session” on February 05, 2007. There seem to be many more parts of Brideau’s Employment Contract “in error” as well. Even independent of the still open question if the four decisions were taken during the “in-camera session” or outside of it, any four decisions under the law should have been part of published minutes, based on documented motions passed.

And again a third time the question:

Did this 2nd Amendment and its specifics ever make it to the Council table for approval?

The Amendment letter was written and signed by Mayor Stead on February 15, 2007. There were no Council meetings scheduled between February 05, 2007 and February 15, 2007, when the Council would have been able to approve the “negotiated changes” to Brideau’s contract.

Stead’s letter (2nd Amendment) has tremendous implications on Brideau’s Employment Contract. Interestingly, it shows an entirely different format, compared to the Amendment of 1997. There is no “real” agreement signed by both parties. The Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, does not seem to be involved at all. Of course, Brideau would have been a complete fool not to accept the letter of Mayor Stead.

The serious implications of this Amendment letter rise questions like:

Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to increase the Town’s yearly contributions to Brideau’s retirement plan from 5% (original contract) to 12 % and 15% and 18% of his yearly salary?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to delete the provision in Brideau’s original contract that his work performance had to be fully evaluated at least once in a year as a base for potential yearly salary increases by providing salary increases four years in advance?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to change Brideau’s Employment Contract with this 2nd Amendment that way that Brideau does not really have to work at all and the Town will have to pay more than $100,000 a year for his presence at Town hall?
Is there no Councillor with courage to stand up and disclose to the Wolfville tax payer and the public what actual directions were given to Mayor Stead and by doing so re-establish the trust into our Council instead of hiding behind “closed doors” within the law like the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar?

To me this whole Brideau issue does not only stink, it reeks of favouritism. According to the minutes since 1996 the Brideau Contract plus Amendments never existed.

During the recent Municipal Elections the overwhelming majority of voters rejected the re-election of Mayor Stead. Perhaps, he should consider resignation?

Lutz E. Becker / October 27, 2008

Cc/ Public
Wolfvillewatch

A3.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T15:01:00.000-07:00

A3.:

Robert Wrye, on November 1st, 2008 at 8:49 am (Answer to Mr. Becker on
Wolfvillewatch)

While I am reluctant to reply to Mr. Becker as he has no intentions of listening, I feel that people are entitled to the truth. All of the actions of this Council and I am sure previous Councils were in accordance with the Municipal Government Act and were in fact legal. The last set of changes made to Mr. Brideau’s contract were made legally as the Town’s Solicitor reported to Council and the public at the meeting of Oct. 6, 2008. The Solicitor was present at the in camera session which Mr. Becker refers to.

Mr. Becker has challenged Councillors to state what was said at an in camera session which would in itself be a violation of the Act so clearly I cannot comment. I can say that I am in agreement with the contents of the letter that Mayor Stead wrote to Roy Brideau. If I were not it would have been my responsibility and the responsibility of any member of Council to bring forward objections at the time the letter was sent and not two years later.

There is no mystery regarding the contract other than those who want to create one. It was legally signed and has been legally amended when in the view of both parties an amendment was warranted. If you do not believe me ask the Solicitor. Mr Becker’s interpretation of the effect of the amendments to Mr. Brideau’s performance appraisals or his need to continue the excellent work he has done are incorrect.

I have not looked through the records of the Town trying to find errors. Is there another set of unsigned minutes, it would not surprise me. Was the letter the Mayor sent worded incorrectly in the first line, yes. Did it change the intent of the letter, no. Did someone miss adding one line to a set of minutes which would only have noted that an in camera session had been concluded, yes. Did the omission of that line change what happened or the public knowledge of what happened, no. I am sure that reasonable people understand that any employer does not negotiate a contract or discuss personnel matters in public.

In the six Councils I have served on one thing has been consistent and that was the people working on them have worked in what they believed to be the best interests of this town and the citizens that we represent. Roy Brideau is a valued leader of the staff of this Town. He has a well deserved reputation throughout this province at both the Provincial and Municipal level for his skills as a CAO. He is paid a salary and benefits which are in keeping with the salaries paid for his position in this Province. He does not deserve to be treated in the fashion that Mr. Becker has and continues to treat him in the various letters that he has sent.

Mr. Becker should realize that Bob Stead was re-elected Mayor of this Town in accordance with Canadian election law by receiving the most votes. If he needs to resign because he does a have clear majority then so does virtually every MP and MLA we have in the Province. You can believe that people vote against someone or vote for someone, in either case the Mayor had the most support or the fewest in opposition of any of the candidates and that makes him our Mayor for the next four years.

Robert Wrye, on November 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am (Another answer to Mr. Becker on
Wolfvillewatch)

In response to your comments, in any business employees are paid not only in relation to their qualifications and job performance but in accordance with what the competition pays for the same position. If you do not, you can neither attract nor keep the people that you want.
Government is no different. The salaries paid to qualified CAO’s have risen sharply over the past ten years due mostly to high demand and short supply. If you look at the last three hired they are all paid more than ours and two had no previous experience as a CAO.

Employment contracts are written on the basis of the information available and the circumstances at the time they are signed. If those change amendments are needed. It is surely more responsible to react to a need for change than it is to stubbornly insist that “that’s the way it is” and potential not have something work as well as it could or lose something that is valuable.
In both amendments Council acted in what it believed to be the best interests of the Town including the financial interests. It can always be argued that we were wrong, but the changes were made after a great deal of discussion and in good faith.

A4.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:54:00.001-07:00

A4. :

November 4, 2008

Dear Mayor Stead:

I have read the draft minutes of the October 15, 2008 Committee of Council meeting in which James Dewar, Q.C., the Town Solicitor, explains the circumstances leading to your letter to Roy Brideau, dated February 15, 2007, by which Mr. Brideau’s employment contract with the Town was revised. Unfortunately, questions remain about how your letter came to be written.

The starting point of my analysis are the following observations.

**Mr. Brideau’s employment contract with the Town was revised by your February 15th letter.

**The powers of the municipality lie with the council and not with the mayor. Municipal
Government Act (“MGA”) sections 14(1) and 15.

**One of the powers of the council is to make contracts. MGA section 47(5).

**I have reviewed the Town Council meeting minutes of February 5, 2007, February 20, 2007,
March 5, 2007 and March 20, 2007 and I could find no reference to the Council’s approval of
revisions to the Brideau contract.

Based upon the October 15th minutes and the above observations, the obvious questions are: Did the Council ever approve the revisions to Mr. Brideau’s employment contract? And if it did, when did the approval take place?

Mr. Dewar explains that at the Council’s In Camera session at the February 5th Committee of Council meeting “Council did ‘give direction to staff of or Solicitors for the municipality’, also permitted under that same sub section [22(3)] of the [Municipal Government] Act.” After this In Camera session you met with Mr. Brideau, who did not attend the In Camera session. You then met with Mr. Brideau a second time when Mr. Brideau accepted the contract offer which, at Mr. Brideau’s request, was set out in writing, that is, your February 15th letter.

Mr. Dewar asserts that no decision by Council was made at its February 5th In Camera session, but rather, by implication, you were directed to negotiate with Mr. Brideau. It appears from Mr. Dewar’s statements that such a “direction” was permissible based upon section 22(3) of the MGA which provides that “[n]o decision shall be made at a private council meeting except a decision concerning procedural matters or to give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality.”

It is unclear whether under this scenario you are being considered a member of Town staff.

I could find no definition of “staff” in the MGA or any other Nova Scotia statute. Common usage of the word would seem to preclude the head of the government being viewed as a staff member.

Perhaps most enlightening on this issue, and on the question of approving contracts, is the commentary found in INFORMATION BULLETIN #7 - OPEN MEETINGS of the Nova Scotia Department of Housing & Municipal Affairs - Revised March 2000 Municipal Government Act Resource Guide. It’s worth quoting from this Bulletin at length.

Decisions

The only decisions that may be made at a closed council meeting are in regards to a procedural matter (such as an adjournment) or to give direction to staff or solicitor: S. 22(3). Council cannot make a decision at a closed meeting which would bind council. Binding decisions must be made in an open meeting. Closed meetings are intended to provide a forum for council to discuss these specified items in private, prior to making a decision. An example of giving direction to staff could be in the form of requesting staff to investigate alternative courses of action, or suggesting maximum or minimum values concerning land sales or acquisitions or wage settlements. Staff can only be directed to carry out actions that they have the authority to do. For example, staff could not enter into or accept a contract on behalf of Council, except as authorized by legislation, for example S. 31 of the MGA. They could, however, negotiate within the parameters given at a closed meeting with council giving the final approval at an open meeting.

Since substantive decisions may not be made at closed meetings, council cannot simply ratify the action agreed in the closed meeting, that is, for example, council cannot "ratify the action recommended at the April 2 closed meeting." Council at an open meeting must put the specific motion on the “floor” to discuss and vote on, for example: "resolve to dismiss [name]" or "agree to purchase the Smith property for the price of $97,000". (My underlining.)

What appears to have happened was that in the In Camera portion of the February 5th Committee of Council meeting you were directed by Council to negotiate with Mr. Brideau within set parameters; that the negotiations took place between you and Mr. Brideau; that an agreement was reached within those parameters; and that for reasons which remain unclear, a binding decision by Council to approve the revised contract never took place at an open meeting.

At the October 20th Council meeting you observed that I seemed very interested in this issue. Let me make my interests clear: I hope in the future Town Council will not enter into contracts (and the Brideau contract revision obligates the Town to expend annually well over 1% of its annual budget four years running) where there is virtually no public record of those decisions and that the Town Council will in the future follow the practices set out in Bulletin #7. Democratic governments require transparency if they are to operate properly and to retain the trust of the people whom they serve.

Respectfully,

David A. Daniels

A5.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

A5.:

My response to Bob Wrye’s comments

Thank you for your comments Mr. Wrye; they represent your distorted perceptions on how our Town should be governed.

Frankly Mr. Wrye, as opposed to your beliefs and feelings surrounding the mysteries and/or unanswered questions regarding Brideau’s Employment Contract I care about facts, and in particular about the missing public records in the minutes, which I should be able to find, if the provisions of the law and especially the ones of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) were followed correctly. All different “interpretations” I shall call violations.

When you then state that you are “in agreement with the contents of the letter that Mayor Stead wrote to Roy Brideau”, it means little to me and misses the point.

The questions are:

Were the majority of all Councillors “in agreement”?
When should this agreement have taken place?

According to the law it should have been done in an open and public session of Council and could not have been done in an in-camera one. And there were no public meetings between February 05, 2007 and February 15, 2007.

There are more “in-corrections” than the first line of the Amendment letter Mayor Stead sent to Brideau on February 15, 2007. Are you unable to see them or simply choose to ignore them?

It is amazing as well that you - after serving on six Council terms - do not understand that governing the Town of Wolfville cannot be compared with how corporate and/or private business entities run and handle employment and salary issues in a more or less secret fashion.

You - as a government official - can not apply such handling and you, the Mayor and the other Councillors are indeed accountable to the public - the residents of Wolfville - and transparency should be the key word that separates the governing of the Town from the running of a corporate and/or private business.

I do not know if Brideau “is a valued leader of the staff of this town”; I have no access to his complete yearly work evaluations from 1997 until at least February 2007. And if you try to claim that I have mistreated Brideau by asking legitimate questions about his mysterious Employment Contract, you again miss the point.

Regarding the more than $100,000 Brideau gets paid a year in salary and including the Town’s tremendous increases to his retirement funds, I had a word with government officials in Halifax some months ago. I was told that a comparable yearly salary would range from $80,000 to $90,000 in total.

In addition to the more than $100,000 I would like to have the yearly salaries of “Assistant Executives to Roy Brideau” added, to get a clear understanding of what the job function of the CAO does actually cost the Wolfville tax payer.

And I am still waiting for an answer from the Review Officer under the FOIPOP on how Brideau’s yearly salary and retirement contribution increases read between 1996 and 2007 and how the total amount paid by the Town has almost doubled.

It is almost funny that you all of a sudden become very sensitive in relation to violations of the MGA regarding the content of the in-camera session on February 05, 2007. When you write that you “cannot comment” because it would be “a violation of the Act”, are you confirming that the four decisions/directions - as stated in Stead’s letter dated February 15, 2007 - were made during the in-camera session? This for sure would be a violation of the Act, for the four decisions/directions had to be made publicly and outside the in-camera session and published in the minutes.

I can assure you that I have absolutely no interest in the discussions which might have happened within the in-camera session and which you do not have to disclose under the Act.

With this in mind I have a major problem to understand how you might violate the Act while commenting on and/or answering my questions in the common interest of Wolfville residents and tax payers, unless you see it a fact that the decisions/directions were made in-camera.

You cannot have it both ways Mr. Deputy Mayor!

Your comments seem to be “distractions” from the truth and do not provide any answers. I shall listen carefully if you have something more substantial to say. And I fully agree when you write that “people are entitled to the truth”. Reads well on paper Mr. Wrye, does it not?

The Town solicitor made it clear that during the in-camera session in February 2007 Council did give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality to negotiate Brideau’s compensation package as part of his Employment Contract.

In my article “Update 1 on Wolfville and the Roy Brideau Issue”, I had raised questions like:

Did Council entitle and authorize staff Stead (the Town’s solicitor stated that “Council did give directions to staff …”) to negotiate and finalize Brideau’s compensation package?
Did Council provide staff Stead with a carte blanche?
When was this done by Council?
With what motion brought to the table by whom?
Carried with what majority?
Did Council authorize staff Stead to ignore/delete important provisions of the original Employment Contract in favour of Brideau only?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide staff Stead with “directions” to increase the Town’s yearly contributions to Brideau’s retirement plan from 5% (original contract) to 12 % and 15% and 18% of his yearly salary?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide staff Stead with “directions” to delete the provision in Brideau’s original contract that his work performance had to be fully evaluated at least once in a year as a base for potential yearly salary increases by providing salary increases four years in advance?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to change Brideau’s Employment Contract with this 2nd Amendment that way that Brideau does not really have to work at all and the Town will have to pay more than $100,000 a year for his presence at theTown hall?
Is there no Councillor with courage to stand up and disclose to the Wolfville tax payer and the public what actual directions were given to Mayor Stead and by doing so re-establish the trust into our Council?

These questions are still unanswered!

Maybe, the whole Brideau issue reeks at least of favouritism due to the fact that Stead and Brideau have worked closely together for more than 12 years.

As far as the election goes, I was not disappointed that the voters of Wolfville saw fit to elect others in your place Mr. Wrye. It is unfortunate however that the “un-democratic” election system made it happen that Mr. Stead became re-elected even though the overwhelming majority of voters rejected him. He was lucky that there were four candidates campaigning for the Mayor’s office, thereby splitting the votes.

My predictions are that, without your influence and support in Council, Mayor Stead will have a challenging four-year term ahead.

Lutz E. Becker / November 13, 2008

C/ Wolfvillewatch

Comments:

st said...

thanks for your concern.

st
January 26, 2009 5:21 PM

A6.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:26:00.000-07:00

A6.:

Update 2 on the Brideau Issue

As you know, the Municipal Government Act requires that decisions for the Town must be made by Council and in public sessions. Neither of these requirements appears to have been complied with in the Mayor Stead’s increases of Brideau’s salaries and pension plan contributions from 2007 up to 2011. If so, then these increases, outlined in a letter of Mayor Stead, dated February 15, 2007, are to be considered illegal.

In this context I have a lot of questions forwarded to the Town or published on my blog “Voices of Wolfville” since last year. None of the questions have been answered to my satisfaction by the Town or the Council yet.

Since about 11 months I am waiting for an answer from the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office where I had filed a complaint on July 09, 2008. My complaint was confirmed by the Review Office in a letter dated July 14, 2008 stating that Requests for Review are processed in the order in which they are received. In a phone call to Mary Kennedy – Intake/Administration – of the Review Office on July 30, 2008 I was told that an answer could take 4 to 6 months but could go faster as well. I intend to pursue the Brideau Isuue further as soon as I will get the requested information from the Review Office.

Due to the incomplete answer from the Town’s Administration to my application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act on May 21, 2008 I had asked the Review Office in my complaint for

Brideau’s missing records prior to 2007/2008
Reasons for the blacked-out part on Stead’s statement dated February 15, 2007

On June 05, 2009 I sent a fax to the Review Office asking for an explanation on the delay.

The Brideau Issue is not over yet or forgotten. After the election last year I had a word with Mr. Simpson in his function as the new Deputy Mayor about the still open questions. His answer was at least promising: “Give the three new Councillors (the minority of Council not involved in illegal actions regarding the Brideau Issue) some time to settle in and we will tackle your questions.”

I think more than enough time has passed in the meantime.

Lutz E. Becker / June 05, 2009

A7.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:21:00.000-07:00

A7.:

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.

June 29, 2009

Mr. Robert Bay
Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Review Office
PO Box 181
Halifax, NS
B3J 2M4

Dear Mr. Bay:

Re: Your File FI-08-49(M) – My fax dated June 04, 2009 – Our phone conversations as of today and on June 16, 2009

Thank you for trying to speed up the processing of my file by forwarding it to “investigation” shortly.

As you know, I still have a major problem to understand why it took almost twelve months and my above reminder fax last month to have my file become noticed again.

When you then outlined to me today that your “rough estimate” would be an additional four to six months to receive the Review Officer’s recommendation, it did not brighten my day as well.

For sure, you have to follow the standard-procedure steps at your office but there cannot be much of an investigation about one blacked-out sentence on the document in question.

The mediation step thereafter does not make sense to me either. I want to know the wording of the blacked sentence and the Town of Wolfville does not want to provide it. To me there is no middle ground for any kind of mediation.

We both agreed that the reason the Town provided for the redaction that the sentence was “not relevant” finds no basis in any subsection of the MGA (Part XX) covering reasons for a refusal to disclose information.

You confirmed to me today that the Town provided you with the complete, unredacted version of the document approximately eleven months ago. And for sure you will have the missing yearly salaries for at least 2005 and 2006 on file as well.

Please try to help to get the Review Officer’s recommendation as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely Yours,

Lutz E. Becker

A8.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:15:00.000-07:00

A8.:

Dear Darce:

Personally, I liked the content of your article “Freedom of Information reform” in TCH on July 09, 09 very much.

I have problems with several requests under the FOIPOP provided the Town of Wolfville with.

In one case I filed a request on May 21, 08. In a document received in return, one sentence was blacked-out. The Town’s accompanying letter stated that the severed sentence was “not relevant” to my request.

We both know that “relevance” finds no basis in any subsection of the MGA (Part XX) covering reasons for a refusal to disclose information. And in any case relevance should be judged by a neutral third party.

My request for review thereafter was received by the Review Office on July 14, 08 and in a phone call with Mary Kennedy I was told that an answer might take 4 to 6 months, but could go faster.

An insider at Town Hall confirmed a few days later that the Town had provided the Review Office with the requested information – incl. the wording of the blacked-out sentence.

All the information stayed in file FI-08-49 (M) at the Review Office for about a year (11 months) with no reaction or response at all.

On June 04, 09 I sent a fax to the Review Office asking about the situation from a timing point of view.

Thereafter, I had two phone conversations with a Review Analyst, and I sent another fax on June 29, 09 confirming what I had learned during the previous two phone conversations.

In return I received a letter, dated June 30, 09, stating that the file “has now been forwarded to the Investigation stage”.

I was told as well that the file will have to pass the Mediation stage thereafter to be forwarded to the Formal Review stage and that receiving the recommendation of the Review Officer could take another 4 to 6 months.

In my second fax last month I had made it clear that I do not see a middle ground for any kind of mediation at all. I want the wording of the blacked-out sentence (on file with the Review Office) and the Town does not want me to get it for no legal reason at all.

The whole issue could have been resolved in a day or less. Instead it may finally take about 1.5 years or more.

Do you have any ideas and/or recommendations which could help to speed up this case?
Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Lutz E. Becker / June 13, 2009

A9.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:11:00.000-07:00

A9.:

Darce Fardy to me
Jul 13 Reply

Hi:

I guess you now understand what I was talking about in my TCH piece. I'm encouraged by Premier Dexter's willingness to address the long wait times... I hope the government will also heed my appeal to make the process more informal.

One piece of advice... get to your MLA and show him the contents of your email. Keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately that's about all we can do.. make noise and make nuisances of ourselves. One thing we can't do is give up.

Please keep me in the loop.

Check out our website www.nsrighttoknow.ca and find out what we are about. You might want to join our efforts by becoming a member. Although fees are voluntary we appreciate it when a new member can send a $10.00 joining fee.

My hope some day is to acquire some funding to allow us to get around the province to spread the word.

Look me up if you are ever in Halifax...

Darce Fardy

President
Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia
902 422 1481
www.nsrighttoknow.ca
darce@eastlink.ca

B1. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

2009-08-02T14:01:00.000-07:00

B1.:

Chair Paul Kennedy
Commission for Public Complaints
Against the RCMP
Western Region Office
7337 137 Street - Suite 102
Surrey, BC
V3W 1A4

June 02, 2008

Hollow-point bullets

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

Saw your name a couple of times in the news lately regarding your arguments on the use of the Taser weapons by the force. Let me assure you that you have my full support on this matter.

Personally, I believe that the force seems to have become “trigger-happy” in using the Taser.

My complaint is not the outcome of a direct confrontation with the RCMP. It is a more generalized one, and I am certain the public would be interested in this one as well.

As a citizen of the town of Wolfville in Nova Scotia I recently attended an open-door event of the local RCMP detachment.

I was received by a very nice young constable that day and we had a talk about weaponry and the use and/or misuse of the Taser. I was told that the use of the Taser had saved life, but we both know, it had cost some life as well.

In addition I was shown the common pistol of the force and - shockingly - a clip filled with hollow-point bullets. The top of the bullet was carved in several times to make it “mushroom” on impact even more. Such a bullet can and will create terrible and/or deadly wounds even if it was not aimed at a vital organ.

Having served in the Army in my younger years, I know that hollow-point bullets are prohibited for very good reasons by The Hague Convention to be used by soldiers in any conflicts of war.

The constable was unable to tell me the backing source for the use of these bullets in the federal and/or provincial legislation.

After I had mentioned the tremendous fire power of the 15 rounds of 9 mm bullets in a clip - even if it was not filled with hollow-point ones - and that a “violent” offender or criminal (e.g. being drunk and/or drugged otherwise and maybe unable to judge and control his or her actions towards a police officer at the time of being shot at) would be stopped on the spot after being hit by a regular 9 mm bullet and that he or she would have a much better chance to survive and stand trial, we became interrupted by the sergeant overhearing our conversation stating: “When I draw my pistol I do it with the intention to kill.”

This statement shocked me even more. So far I was under the obviously wrong impression that the motto of the police force reads “Serve and Protect” or vice versa, which does not include the killing part.
Furthermore, I can not accept that a police officer - a young constable after just having graduated from the Academy or an experienced senior on the force – would be allowed, entitled and empowered to play judge in a life-or-death matter in Canada’s democracy.

Thereafter, I had a word with an Executive Assistant of a Nova Scotia MLA, who set up a meeting with a public relations officer a the Wolfville RCMP detachment. This 30-year veteran then told me stories about dangerous situations he had been in and that a colleague had been killed in a shoot-out with a criminal. But all this could not convince me that the fire power of 15 regular rounds in a clip (and one in the chamber) would have to be drastically increased by the use of hollow-point bullets to better prevent and maybe stop a “very personally judged” threat to the life of a police officer. And if the officer can not cope with a threat to his or her life without the use of hollow-point bullets, he or she should look for a different job career in an entirely different field.

My concern is not meant just to favour really violent criminals, but a “death penalty” can not be at the sole discretion of a police officer in a heated confrontation.

Looking forward for your opinion on this matter I do thank you in advance.

Respectfully,

Lutz E. Becker

B2. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

2009-08-02T13:56:00.000-07:00

B2.:

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.

August 26, 2008
Amnesty International Canada
Attn.: Hilary Homes
312 Laurier Ave. East
Ottawa, ON
K1N 1H9

Article in The Chronicle Herald on Aug. 14, 08 – My fax to Paul Kennedy on June 05, 08

Dear Hilary:

You were quoted in the article as above calling for a moratorium on stun guns for very good reasons.

In a paragraph about RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist – there was a comparison of Tasers with other methods the RCMP is using to subdue “difficult and/or mentally challenged” people.

My fax to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP fits in right there.

As of today I have not got any response neither from Paul Kennedy nor from the Commission.

I firmly believe that the public in Canada does not know that the police force is using hollow-point bullets in their handguns and maybe rifles. All the people I spoke to found that very shocking as well.

Attached you will find a copy of my fax to Mr. Kennedy.

Looking forward to your opinion on this matter I remain with

best regards,

Lutz E. Becker

1 Attachment

B3. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

2009-08-02T13:41:00.000-07:00

B3.:

Police Practices Affecting the Wolfville Community

On June 02, 2008 I sent a fax to the Commission for Public Complaints Against The RCMP attention: Chair, Mr. Paul Kennedy.

After no response, I wrote a letter on the same subject to Amnesty International Canada in Ottawa with a copy of my fax as above to Mr. Kennedy on August 26, 2008.

On September 16, 2008 I sent the two above letters under the subject Human Rights Issue as copies to the Town’s solicitor after I had informed him the previous night during the Council meeting. His answer, a day later, reads as follows: “In your two letters attached below, you raise a specific issue of police practice with firearms. My background in Human Rights has not involved any experience with the use of firearms or related policies. I therefore make no comment on how you might deal with this topic.”

Obviously, the Town’s solicitor did not understand that my issue had nothing to do with “any experience with the use of firearms” but with safety and security and even health (life/death) issues in our community.

Due to careful consideration, I have decided to inform the public and especially the Residents of Wolfville about some legitimate concerns.

What is this all about?

Prior to my fax to Mr. Paul Kennedy I had accepted a public invitation and attended an open-door event at the Wolfville RCMP detachment. I was received by a very polite and nicely talking young constable that day and after some introductory remarks we had a talk about weaponry and thereafter a discussion about the use and/or the misuse of the Taser. I got the obviously standardized answer that the use of the Taser had saved lives, but we all know that its use by the police have cost some lives as well.

In addition I was shown the common 9mm pistol of the force, which can take 15 rounds, and - most shockingly – a clip filled with 15 hollow-point bullets. The bullet at the top of the clip showed several slits carved in to make it “mushroom” even more on impact.

Hollow-point bullets are designed to spread once they enter a target to inflict more damage. They expand greatly and are designed to loose about 10% of its mass in the process and split up to hit different parts of the target. HP handgun ammo creates small entry point wounds but, on exiting, it leaves at least a fist-sized flesh wound if it will go through straight at all not hitting a bone and being broken up into pieces.

Having served in the Army in my younger years, I know that hollow-point bullets are prohibited for very good reasons by international law in any kind of warfare. Modern hollow-point bullets go back to the expanding “dum dum” ammunition created by the British in an arsenal of the same name near Calcutta, India, at the end of the 19th century. They were outlawed internationally under the “Hague Declaration” in 1899.

This means that our Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan would break international law if they used such kind of ammunition.

Why are our police in Wolfville allowed to use hollow-point bullets in their handguns?

The young constable was unable to tell me the legal backing for the use of HP handgun ammo under federal and/or provincial legislation.

Is there no legal prohibition on police use of such ammunition?

Is it at the sole discretion of Police Chief Officers to decide on whatever ammunition they consider appropriate to meet their "operational needs"?

And if these questions can be answered with “yes”, you as a Resident of Wolfville should be concerned as well and help stop our police using hollow-point bullets.

The 15 rounds of 9mm bullets in a clip provide a tremendous fire and killing and maiming power, even if the clip is filled with regular bullets only and not with hollow-point ones.

A “violent” offender, attacker (e.g. drunks, druggies, mentally challenged people - maybe unable to judge and/or control their actions towards a police officer - and even a violent criminal) would normally be stopped on the spot after being hit by at least one of 15 clipped regular 9mm bullets instead of hollow-point ones, but thereafter he or she would have a much better chance to survive and stand trial in court.

When I tried to make this point to the young constable in front of me, we became interrupted by an elderly officer in gala uniform overhearing our conversation and he said: “When I draw my pistol I do it with the intention to kill.”

This statement further shocked me. So far I had been under the obviously wrong impression that the motto of our police force reads “Serve and Protect” or vice versa, which does not include the “intended” killing part.

Is it really acceptable to our rural community that police officers - a young constable after just having graduated from the Academy or even a very experienced senior on the force - would be allowed, entitled and empowered to shoot hollow-point bullets instead of regular ones, hereby increasing the killing risks tremendously, even if there would be immediate and sufficient medical help available?

I do understand that police officers have to be able to use their handguns in specific situations and carry pepper spray, the baton and the Taser as well. To subdue any kind of attacker they have to make very subjective decisions on what weapon to use as a response. In addition they can call for back-up and even the deployment of the SWAT team. To me the use of hollow-point bullets instead of regular ones equals the use of excessive and unnecessary killing and/or maiming force.

It amazes me to learn that we, the public, seem to know nothing about the fact that the police are using hollow-point ammunition in their handguns.

After the reception at the open-door event I had a word with an Executive Assistant to a Nova Scotia MLA, who set up a meeting with the public relations officer at the Wolfville RCMP detachment. This 30-year veteran then told me stories about dangerous situations he had been in and that a colleague had been killed in a shoot-out with a criminal. But all those could not convince me that the fire and killing power of 15 regular rounds in a clip would have to be drastically increased by the use of hollow-point bullets with carved-in slits to mushroom even better to hopefully prevent and stop a “very personally judged” threat to the life of a police officer when using the handgun.

My concerns are not meant just to favour really violent criminals and/or diminish the fire power of the police in possible heated confrontations.

In the meantime I have learned that police officers are trained at the firing range (where they use regular 9mm bullets) to aim their handguns at upper parts of the attackers’ bodies (where they can score a “10”) and do not go for arms or legs. This makes the use of hollow-point bullets even more problematic and could result more likely in a kind of “death penalty” outside of our court system. And what about stray bullets in regards to innocent by-standers?

Dear Residents of Wolfville, I would appreciate your feed-back. Please let me know what you think about the use of HP ammo by our police force. You should have a say while paying more than one million dollars for the policing of Wolfville out of your tax dollars. In addition, I was told by quite some people that the drastic increase in yearly policing costs - since our local Wolfville Police became an integrated part of the RCMP - does not really match a measurable increase in police services in Wolfville. But this is a different issue and I shall try to find out why Kentville kept its Kentville Police.

Your feed-back should be addressed to leb.3999@yahoo.ca.

Thank you in advance.

Lutz E. Becker / January 02, 2009

Comments:

Comment from someone who does not want to be named

Mr. Becker,

Let me say at the outset that I am not a resident of Wolfville (I live in Greenwich), but I have the feeling that your concerns about ammunition loads extend far beyond the town's borders.
I was shocked to read your handout, available at the Wolfville post office, about the use of hollow-point bullets by the Wolfville police. Any municipal council worthy of its name should immediately disallow such a practice. Having said that, I acknowledge immediately that police forces in Canada (in contrast to those in the United States) do pretty much as they please, and the taxpayers and their representatives who pay for the police service are impotent to bring about change.
As it happens, I have seen the effect of hollow-point bullets on living flesh. A hunter of my acquaintance once shot a deer through the heart using a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 mm sniper rifle whose ammo he had modified. The deer was basically cut in two. To use such a load on humans is nuts.
Your comments about a 15-shot magazine seem to me to be irrelevant.
I believe the RCMP is under the supervision of the Solicitor General of Canada (or the Attorney General) - I haven't looked it up. That is the office where, I think, you should begin your enquiries. The town's solicitor is, as you have already discovered, a comlete dead end.
Please, do not attribute to me anything I have said here.

Comments from Mr. Brian Sanderson, Wolfville

Dear Lutz,

Good to see someone is keeping an eye on things.
I find hollow-nose bullets distasteful. I'm not a big fan of the shoot for the chest/torso policy, either.
These police practices are totally out of place in Wolfville... Perhaps they are necessary out in the wild west or in Toronto --- but even then, I think they are just as likely to cause the villains to take things to the next level.

Cheers,

Brian

Comments from someone who played a cop on T.V.

Hollow Point BulletsThursday, February 12, 2009 12:52 AM
From: "Denzel Washington" dwashington1960@hotmail.com

I am appalled by your website and you comments. Do you realize that these men and women put their lives on the line everyday. I would like to see you spend a day in their shoes, having to deal with unpredictable drunks night in and night out. Most of the criminals carry a wide assortment of weapons from knives to fully automatic machine guns and they for sure don’t care what bullets the police have. These criminals carry high power assault rifles with armor piercing rounds, so the police having hollow point bullets is actually a disadvantage.
Yes these hollow points are meant to do a lot of damage, but they are also meant not to penetrate the body. The reason for this is so that the bullets don’t exit the subject and hit an innocent victim. I am sure the public would appreciate the fact the there is less likely the chance that a bullet will exit a criminal and hit an innocent person.
People like you make me glad to know that the police carry weapons.
They are there to help us in need and should be left alone to do their job. You are a person that complains about the police and anyone just to hear yourself talk. You will be the first one calling when your residence is broken into and be making a complaint because they weren’t fast enough getting to your house. And you will be the same person next week complaining that a police car was speeding down the street going to someone else complaint.
You mentioned you were in the military did you peal potatoes or were you the guy that swept the floor? Did you actually see any war time?
If not, you can’t even mention that you were in the military or talk about guns.
Simple solution, don’t point a firearm at a cop or any other weapon.
Listen to their instructions and you’ll have no issues. This is from personal experiences, when you do what they ask they won’t point their scary guns with hollow point bullets at you.
Denzel Washington (Not a Cop, but Played one on T.V.)

bxs said...

The assumption is that police are always the "good guys" and their adversary is always a "bad guy". Thus police have been given maximum killing power. Also, one can use hollow-point bullets for hunting --- so I guess the police don't like to be at a potential disadvantage since the people shooting at them may have hollow-nose bullets.On the battle field, it's not clear which soldier is the "good guy". The soldiers are just unfortunate proxies to settle a failed political dispute --- so we have rules that try to limit the damage to both sides (really these rules are a total failure in view of modern weapons).Personally, I don't trust anyone with a gun --- and neither should you. Perhaps us law-abiding citizens should be issued bullet-proof vests, Council should look into a bulk order?

Isaac said...

The issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. First, the hollow point shifts the center of gravity of the bullet to the rear, improving stability in flight. Second, hollow points do not ricochet as much, minimizing risk to innocent bystanders.I don't see what is so wrong with wanting the maximum incapacitation. Provided that the shooting is justified in the first place (e. g., there is risk of imminent death to the officer or a bystander), one wants to eliminate the target as quickly as possible so that the target can't retaliate.

B4. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

2009-08-02T13:31:00.000-07:00

B4.:

Dear Wolfville Residents:

Do you know the police in Wolfville are shooting hollow-point bullets in their handguns?
Do you know that hollow-point bullets are designed to spread (“mushroom”) and split into pieces once they enter a target to inflict more damage and more likely can cause death or maiming?
Do you know that hollow-point bullets are outlawed by international law to be used in any kind of warfare since 1899 (Hague Declaration)?
Do you know that our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan would break international law if they used hollow-point bullets?
Do you know why the police in Wolfville are allowed to handle the use of hollow-point bullets different from any regular army on our planet?
Do you know that the hollow-point bullets used by the police in Wolfville show carved-in slits at the top to make them mushroom and split even more on impact?
Do you know that the police in Wolfville are carrying (besides pepper spray, the baton and the Taser) a pistol which holds a clip with 15 rounds and that these 15 rounds provide the officers with a tremendous fire/killing/maiming power even if the clip would be filled with regular 9mm bullets instead of hollow-point ones?
Do you know that out of your tax dollars more than one million dollars a year is paid to the police in Wolfville and that you should have a say on what kind of bullets the police are using in their handguns while patrolling our streets?
Do you want hollow-point bullets used against “attackers” (drunks, druggies, mentally challenged people - all maybe unable to judge/control their actions - or even violent criminals) thereby increasing their chances of death rather than standing trial?

You will find my complete article under the headline “Police Practices Affecting the Wolfville Community” on the blog: http://www.voices-of-wolfville.blogspot.com/

Lutz E. Becker / January 03, 2009

B5. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

2009-08-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

B5.:

No Contract between the Town and the local RCMP?

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.

June 06, 2009

Town of Wolfville
Ms. Rachel Turner
359 Main St.
Wolfville, NS
B4P 1A1

Dear Ms. Turner:

Re: My FOIPOP request dated Jan. 23, 09 – the Town’s answering letter dated Feb. 17, 09

My request was directed at a contract or provisions of the Town with the local RCMP detachment. I had expected contractual statements regarding

· policing roles and duties, servicing goals, responsibilities of the parties involved
· number of officers on duty
· use and necessary renovations of the provided premises
· number of police cruisers (who pays for these? who maintains them?)
· details concerning the compensation for the officers incl. medical and other benefits,

overtime payments
· duration of contract (who has the authority to terminate the contract and when and under

what conditions can it be done? when did the contract begin and when will it end?)
· complaint procedures
· evaluations of police services
· services on week-ends and holidays
· amendments of the contract since 2000
· total yearly costs
· base for yearly cost increases

The material I was provided with is not this kind of contract covering any or all of the points outlined above. What I got in response to my request is insufficient and entirely different.

I would like to ask the Town to consider a re-imbursement of my paid FOIPOP fees. I may have to re-phrase my questions and maybe address them to a different public office.

I regard the provided document copy between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Town of Wolfville as a very generalized and overall RCMP framework. In it the Town was allowed to enter the existing and eight years old Nova Scotia Provincial Police Service Agreement (PPSA), dated February 27, 1992, in June 2000 with the signatures of Stead and Brideau.

None of the points as above is outlined and/or detailed in the provided framework copy. And I was not provided a copy of the PPSA.

During a recent Council meeting, when you were sitting in for the CAO, you stated publically that nothing else but this framework copy between the Province and the Town exists at Town hall governing, directing and controlling the provided RCMP services in Wolfville.

I have a major problem to believe that.

Considering the fact that the Wolfville tax payer will have to come up in this budget year with proposed costs of $1,042,425.00 (an increase of $51,318.00 over and above last year’s police expenditures) for RCMP services or 14.7% of the Town’s drafted total yearly budget figure and that these payments should become based on nothing but a framework copy between the Province and the Town is more than ridiculous.

During my investigations into the minutes of 1999 and 2000 I found entries like:
· Policing roles and Responsibilities Agreement – Request for Decision
· Changes have been made to the Agreement (as above) including addition of a title page,

disclaimer clause and sidnature page; Appendix „B“ will be added to the final document
· Policing Services Strategic Goals – Request for Decision
· Altenate Policing Services Study Group – Final Report
· RCMP proposal of August 09, 1999 passed to the Study Group

When I then had asked Annette D. for more specific information regarding these entries (additional reports, documents, notes, minutes etc.) she told me – or was ordered to tell me – that nothing would exist anymore and that it is the Town’s policy to destroy everything after seven years of storage.

In general such a rule is understandable but for sure it would not be followed through regarding living and ongoing contractual relationships like the one between the Town and the local RCMP detachment where about $1,000,00.00 and more will have to be paid yearly.

Please, revise your public statement.

Sincerely,

Lutz E. Becker

Cc/ Voices of Wolfville

B6. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

2009-08-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

B6.:

No response at all from the Town Clerk as of August 02, 2009!

Lutz E. Becker / 08/02/2009

C01. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T13:07:00.000-07:00

C1.:

PCB Clean up in Wolfville?

On March 28, 2008 I – a concerned resident – had a meeting on different subjects with Mr. J. Roy Brideau, Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Wolfville.

In trying to prepare myself for the meeting, I had checked the Town’s website http://ww.town.wolfville.ns.ca/ that morning and had found an Important Notice to Residents, set in a colored frame at the top of the website. This notice is still to be found further down on the website and without a colored frame.

It states that Jacques Whitford will conduct an investigation and excavation “of any identified free product at the NSPI property located at 282 Main Street, Wolfville, NS” and that the Department of Environment & Labour had been notified. It states as well that for health and safety reasons no one should enter the site without proper protective equipment.

When I had asked Mr. Brideau during our meeting if the works of Jacques Whitford were related to the “filled-in PCB ponds” with – as I was told – overflow pipes into the harbor, his answer was astonishing and created even more suspicion.

His answer was a strict “no” to PCB and then he tried to tell me that he doesn’t really know the subject of the investigation and excavation, because it was ordered by NSP and not by the Town. To me, there seems to be no logic in telling me “no” to PCB on one hand and then “I don’t know what the investigation is all about” on the other one.

I even had a bigger problem to believe him telling me that the Town, its Administration and its Councilors knew/know nothing about any PCB ponds. In this context he then gave me – as expected of a Town’s officer – a kind of “sweet talk” that the Town would do and would have done everything to keep any harm from its residents.

Thereafter, I had spoken to quite a number of people regarding the “filled-in PCB ponds”. Mr. Brideau’s statement at the meeting that the Mayor, the Town’s Administration and the Councilors knew/know nothing about “filled-in PCB ponds” created quite a variety of reactions.

Some could recall talking about the “PCB ponds” with the Mayor, some called the Chief Administrative Officer a liar, and some said that he should not hold the job as CAO, if he really doesn’t know anything about the “filled-in PCB ponds”.

Whatever the truth, if he really lied to me, all his “sweet talk” about keeping harm away from residents would have to be regarded as hypocrisy and I would have to ask myself if I and/or the public could trust this Administration at all.

On April 07, 2008 I wrote a fax to Jacques Whitford asking if the works would be related to the “filled-in PCB ponds”. No answer as of today.

The very same day I emailed the question to the Honorable Mark A. Parent, Minister, because the Town’s Important Notice states that the Department of Environment & Labour had been notified.

The answer I got reads:

“Will do a department response will take a few weeks”.

Is this a standardized answer, or is it because those ponds were used during times as well when the Government owned NSPI and someone in the Department of Environment & Labour is playing for time, maybe hoping, that Jacques Whitford won’t find anything?

As well I emailed Mr. Brideau, the Mayor and the Councilors on April 07, 2008 again telling them that it would be due time to go public with my “PCB” concerns. No response from the Town as of today.

The Town’s reaction or non-reaction, including the possible lies of its Chief Administrative Officer, leaves some following questions unanswered:

Why does the Town publish an Important Notice about health risks and pretends not to know, what these risks are all about?
Does the Town try to keep its residents uninformed and stupid?
Does the Town try to cover up that it has done nothing for very many years in relation to the clean up of the “filled-in PCB ponds”?

Lutz E. Becker / 04/10/2008

C02. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T12:55:00.000-07:00

C2.:

Wolfville’s Political Climate in the Spring of 2008

In one of her recently published articles Wendy Elliott referred to the napping of Wolfville’s residents in regards to how the Town has been administered itself for very many years.

What actually and finally woke up its residents?

A. THE MPS DRAFT

It was the unbelievable try to superimpose ideas of the MPS draft on to the residents suggesting drastic changes to the Town’s current Land Use By-Law with potential very negative outcome and deteriorations to the residents’ chosen lives and lifestyles. A presented dreamy vision of Gregg Morrison, Director Planning, that the Town - within its boundaries and given limitations - would grow over time from about 3,800 inhabitants (without students) to about 14,500 created some outrage. The MPS draft was somehow based on this dreamy vision proposing “higher and increased density” in general, additional uses in the existing R1 Zone, the creation of “Flag Lots” and the designation of large lots for “Bonus Density” developments. Some less important and non-critical parts of the draft may even be a change for the better of the current Land Use By-Law and to be forwarded to Council for a final decision.

All of the MPS was drafted under some idealistic guidelines of “sustainability” copied from somewhere else over a time period of many, many months by the Town’s Sustainability Community Planning Task Force (SCPTF) under its chairman, Robert Wrye. The Declaration of Sustainability (Section 2.2 of the MPS draft) states “… sustainable development requires a constant and equitable balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making …. to provide the highest possible quality of life for all its residents”.

This reads very well on paper and seems to fool its reader by sounding to be too good, but nowhere in the draft are there any additional references or practical advice on how to achieve (maybe in small steps) the “constant and equitable balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making”.

To me the long and never ending path to an idealistic sustainability in this Town - with all its limitations - is and will be directly related to its biggest employer, the Acadia University. Should the student population for whatever reason decline even further and - hypothetically - the University would have to close its doors, the Town would turn into a sleepy little village with no importance at all. And nowhere the draft shows this direct dependence and/or actions to be taken to avoid any possible “disaster”.

Furthermore, I question the contradiction of at least some of the proposed idealistic sustainability pointers to be put into a practical planning document – a revised Land Use By-Law.

The SCPTF drafted the first version of the MPS at the end of an almost two-year period of “input and work” and handed it over to the Planning Services Planning Advisory Committee (PSPAC). The PSPAC was chaired again by the Deputy Mayor, Robert Wrye. Personally, I have a major problem to see the Mayor and Councilmen as final decision makers (Wrye, Mangle, Stead) sitting in and acting as members of the PSPAC as well. The problem has to be seen in my distrust in people who pretend to be able to change their hats and maybe opinions, depending on what role they have to play in changing circumstances. This is not my understanding of a democratic and fair handling of Wolfville’s debatable issues.

When Mr. Wrye was asked during the public meeting (Apr. 08, 2008) on how many R-1 property owners he had consulted prior to the proposed R-1 changes, his answer was “zero”. This created laughter in the audience. Laughter was there as well when the issue of Development Agreements was covered shortly and Mr. Wrye exclaimed in this context: “Trust me”! Obviously, there seems to be a very low level of trust in this Administration in relation to Development Agreements or Mr. Wrye seems to be the Deputy Mayor of a different town on a different planet chairing important committees without asking or preparing for any feed-back on what the residents - he is supposed to serve - really want.

Thinking of all the time and money ill spent (about $160,000 so far), I can easily relate to people feeling sick about it and starting to wake up and rebel. Mayor Stead, who is automatically a member on all committees, was quoted to call this rebellion a “verbal stoning”.

From a strategic point of view and due to the fact that it is ELECTION YEAR, it may turn out to be a big mistake to have what turned out to be the controversial MPS draft presented and argued about in this year as well. It might have been a lot smarter if all this “turmoil” would have happened last year. For sure, there was enough time to do it then. On the other hand, I believe that the Town’s Administration had not expected such a strong opposition and was caught by surprise. For the about past 10 years the Administration was able to do what it wanted to do without any real questioning from the public. That hopefully will change now and the Town will have to learn about it and adapt to the new and changing situation fast.

It has to be regarded as a deliberate try to get rid of most or all the tension and calm down the “significant and vocal opposition” ( original tone Wrye), when Chair Wrye brought his written proposal to the table at the beginning of the public PSPAC meeting on Apr. 22, 2008 and got it passed entirely detrimental in the outcome to the defeated motion during the prior public meeting. Had a miracle happened? Obviously, Chair Wrye had either brainwashed himself and the majority of the Committee members or PSPAC members had changed their opinions and decisions with the change of wind directions, weather and/or temperature. With his proposal and the then passing motion Chair Wrye abandoned his “baby” he had directed, controlled and nurtured for about two years, by responding to public pressure. As mentioned above already: All the ill spent time and money!

Some overheard voices explained Chair Wrye’s sudden reconciliation with the public pressure as a first and maybe important step to enhance his reputation in the eyes of the residents as a potential runner-up for mayor in the election this year. Hopefully, those voices were wrong entirely.

At this stage of the discussion of the proposed MPS draft it seems to be really questionable to go on with the PSPAC’s review of amended versions of the draft. All the really controversial parts are taken out or are postponed and only minor and less controversial changes, suggestions and/or maybe improvements of the current Land Use By-Law will make it to the Council table. The big idealistic umbrella of sustainability should be taken out of the MPS draft and put into a different document guiding and governing the Town in all its future activities, actions and maybe visions.

Congratulation at least to the non-napping residents of Wolfville for standing up a first time for what they want and think is right!

B. THE TOWN BUDGET

Parallel to the recent PSPAC meetings the proposed Budget 2008/2009 became introduced to the public. The fired-up tension experienced during PSPAC meetings carried over to the first public budget meeting when the CAO, Mr. Brideau, presented a tax rate increase and an increased budget total of $7,402,078. In his written Introductory Notes Mr. Brideau stated: “This proposed budget at the suggested rates is only possible due to unusually significant new assessment growth in the past year. Given average years of growth, it will become increasingly difficult for the Town to balance future budgets due to costs increasing over and above limited assessment growth.” This statement of the CAO could be interpreted as an excellent and advanced general excuse for doing a bad or insufficient job in the near future.

The first public budget meeting showed a lot of confusion in the audience. Mr. Brideau presented dollar figures of “wish lists” of rounded up estimates provided by his departmental directors. The audience had no or not enough background information to really question the quoted about 500 or more money figures in regards to what has to be done, with what priority, with what level of depth/commitment and thereafter with what attached money amounts. Mr. Brideau would do at least part of his job well in presenting relevant budget figures (especially expenditures) to the public in a different, more simplified but understandable way by having them labelled correctly. From his point of view it may be necessary to have the budget figures departmentalized. I would like to see defined and understandable “key figures” totalled for the entire Administration of the Town and to be able to compare them with the ones from previous budget years. As an example, this means that I don’t want to search on 37 or 38 pages of the budget drafts for parts of salaries and salary add-ons of different departments; I would like to see the number of employees and the total of their budgeted salaries. The same should go for other “key figures” for example computer expenditures, consultant services, telephone, bureau supplies, water, heat, travel, grants, insurances, interest, debts, savings, specific projects etc..

The audience could only argue why certain items were included in the budget while others were not. The audience learned as well that putting pressure on Mr. Brideau and the Town would result in suggested opportunities to present “missing” items (School playground) during the next Council meeting with the outcome, that the School playground- Phase 1 was given there a green light.

For me it was outrageous to learn that the Town’s administration had committed itself to certain new expenditures already with the intent to honour them prior to having the Budget 2008/2009 settled. My recommendation would be: Have all these “early” committed expenditures up for public discussion again (Acadia Field, Acadia Cinema, ….).

Focusing just on one item, the Acadia Cinema Grant in the amount of $20,000, I have a major problem to understand why the Town has to subsidize this cinema. Even as a Co-op and a non-profit organization it has to be run as a business and to survive without the Town pumping money into it a second time ($5,000 for the sign). I was told that the Wolfville Business Development Corporation Ltd. has or will provide some money for the planned new digital projector as well. In general, I like the cinema with their sometimes very special movies and - despite the fact that not very many residents will go to see those - it even may be an attraction for the Town, but its business should not rely on grants from the Town. The $20,000 could be placed somewhere else, where a lot more residents or all could really benefit.

Councilman Zimmerman, who is on the board of directors of the Acadia Cinema as well, brought the request for the $20,000 grant to the Council table but had left the room when the other Councillors voted in favour of this motion. I expect him to do the same during the voting for the 2008/2009 budget.

Only Councilman MacKay had questioned the amount of $20,000 before and had suggested half of it.

Additional questions running through my mind are:

Why does it have to be a grant and can’t be a loan?
Had the Council seen assuring financial statements that the cinema will be around in the years to come (without additional subsidies)?
Has the Council checked the relevance of the quoted price and the size for a digital projector in the $70,000 bracket?
What is the value of the trade-in for the current projector?
What concrete benefits should the Town demand for all its residents prior to providing the grant (maybe an installation of a microphone system for some free-of-charge Town meetings)?
Could the grant be avoided by increasing the ticket price?
What financial relationship is established between the Cinema and the space renting “just us!” Café, another Co-op co-founded by Councilman Mangle?
Does the “just us!” Café pay a fair market rent, a fair share on power, heat, taxes, frontage fees etc.?

These are at least some of the questions all voting Councillors should be able to understand and answer fully unless they just would like to do Councilman Zimmerman a favour in his other role as a board member of the cinema. And in a similar way I would like to have all the other items analyzed, where the Town is giving money away for really nothing in return that will benefit all its residents.

The uproar in the audience culminated in regards to two issues, the tax rate increase to 1.49 and the expanded budget to a total as above of $7,402,078. There were demands from the audience to limit the budget total to $7,000,000. Councilman MacKay seemed to be supportive to a cap like this as well.

I firmly believe that having the Council cap the 2008/2009 budget at $7,000,000 will not be felt anywhere as a decline in services to Wolfville’s residents. There still will be a lot of “safety” built into the presented and rounded amounts of the departmental directors. To cap the total to $7,000,000 should be at least a little challenge to the CAO, Mr. Brideau, and his directors. Personally and for the sake of all residential taxpayers, I would like to see measures established and published to control all of the Administration doing a good, average or bad job within their budget boundaries and responsibilities.

Towards the end of the first budget meeting Mr. Wrye played “Mr. Nice Guy” again - probably and possibly driven by his political ambitions in the election year - and asked for a revised budget draft before the end of April. His suggestions were to stay with the current tax rate or below and to try to get the budget total down significantly.

Very interesting was the content of an “emotional” speech of Councilwoman Segado telling that she needs help and that she doesn’t’t really know how to decide on the Budget 2008/2009 when it will come to the Council table for the final approval. Is she really up for the job requirements and responsibilities invested in her as a Councillor? Wait and see how she will vote finally.

On April 28, 2008 Mr. Brideau came back with a revised budget. The tax rate was proposed to stay at last year’s rate (1.44) and not below it and the budget total became reduced by 4.325% to $7,081,967. This will be still too easy to work with and in my opinion will not present any real challenge to Mr. Brideau and his departmental directors. The tension in the audience felt drastically reduced during this meeting. Obviously, most of the rebellious ones had just opposed the previously proposed tax rate hike despite the fact that the assessment had gone up at least 2.3% anyhow.

C. THE RESIDENTS’ SUMMARY

The Town’s non-napping residents would be very well advised not to let go and to put permanent pressure on the Administration by attending the public meetings and by always questioning measurable benefits to all residents in relation to all actions and activities undertaken by the Administration. The outcome should reverse the previous practice entirely that way that the residents play the Administration and not the other way around.

There is an excellent chance for change this year. If the Mayor was quoted correctly in a recent article in The Chronicle Herald (“Wolfville’s growing pains”) where he partly contradicted some key messages of the MPS draft he had worked on for about two years as a member of the two committees, SCPFT and PSPAC, he is not going to run for Mayor again. Though, Wolfville will need a new face, a new Mayor with new ideas and the ambition to really serve “to provide the highest possible quality of life for all its residents” (original tone MPS draft).

As I have said and written before, I would like to see a new Deputy Mayor in place as well due to the fact that about ten years of administrative services are more than enough and new ideas and maybe new directives can only favour Wolfville and its residents.

Furthermore, the Town needs at least four Councillors with no other and/or conflicting responsibilities, interests, influences, conflicts etc. but the ones to serve Wolfville’s residents only and exclusively and to represent and stay in for feasible, common requests of the majority of the population.

All this doesn’t’t seem to be a set of difficult tasks. There is so much brain power and intelligence available in Wolfville. I would be very happy to act as a relay station for your input of suitable names and would not mind to help check thereafter level of interest and availability of potential candidates. My email reads leb.3999@yahoo.ca.

Let’s get started before the summer period will slow everything down.

Good luck to all of us!

Lutz E. Becker / May 18, 2008

C03. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

C3.:

The “Clock-Tower Park” Issue

In an email sent to the Mayor and the Councilors on Apr. 24, 08 I had copied my letter to the Honorable Mark Parent, Minister Environment and Labor asking to investigate environmental concerns regarding the Clock Tower property.

At that time it was clear to me that the Town and its Administration “know about and accept” an obviously unsolved environmental problem without putting pressure for a complete clean-up on one of the richest companies in the Atlantic Provinces and furthermore, that the current Mayor of Wolfville, Mr. Stead, (a former administrator at Acadia University) might regard it more important to have Irving finance and erect additional buildings at the University grounds (the Irving sons received honorary PhDs in return) instead.

After I had learned from the Town’s CAO, Mr. Brideau, that the transfer of the Clock Tower property to the Town is now in its final stage and that the Town had set aside major amounts of money for the creation of the “Clock Tower Park” in previous budget years already, my suspicions even grew.

The questions arising on my mind were:

Why had the business, Irving Oil Ltd., offered to the Town this piece of property on Main Street and within the down-town business core for just $1? (If not polluted, this property would have quite a different market value and the Town can’t provide additional honorary PhDs.)
Is this a planned “cover-up deal” between Irving and the Town due to the fact that for the creation of a park nobody will have to dig deep and therefore may not touch or disturb polluted soil and/or groundwater levels?

To get answers to these questions I paid the obligatory $25 fee to file an application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get all records regarding the clean-up of the Clock Tower property.

In return I got a huge parcel of documents - several hundred pages thick - from the Department of Environment & Labour, weighing 3.520 kg in total.

Most of the records are lab reports, risk analysis and well monitoring reports of different years and statements of opinions and/or believes of consultants and other “experts”.

The interesting ones are:

the description of the Emergency Response by MGI Ltd. and actions taken on behalf of Irving Oil Ltd. in December 1998 and January 1999
the monitoring reports with soil and groundwater pollution levels up to the fall of 2005
the statement of the fact that the Department of Environment & Labour did not receive any monitoring data since the fall of 2005
the critical comments and responses of the Department of Environment & Labour to those monitoring reports of what was done incorrectly, missing, incomplete etc. ( i.e. a letter dated July 29, 2003 sent from the Department of Environment & Labour to Health, Environment & Safety in Saint John, NB states under point 4. “Samples collected on site were sent to the Irving Oil Limited Laboratory in New Brunswick. The perception of bias is apparent with Irving analyzing samples collected from their properties.”
a memo from a hydrologist to the Department of Environment & Labour dated October 16, 2007 (about half a year ago) stating under point 1) “….Wolfville has not finished developing their SWPP [Source Water Protection Plan]…..Wolfville are in the process creating their plan. They have identified potential sources of contamination and created a land use map, but haven’t specified how they are to manage the risks within their protection zone yet.”
And under point 2) “…The town should somehow be informed that they will not be able to put a park on this site until it is below Teir 1 RBSL residential potable water levels (only half of the property is currently at those levels)”
the letter dated November 19, 2007 from the Department of Environment & Labour to Irving Oil Ltd. stating “…Based upon the above, and a meeting held between Dillon Consulting and the Town of Wolfville on November 9, 2007, please be advised that the Department is in agreement that no further remediation is required on the site. Notwithstanding this, the Department reserves the right to evaluate the site should activities change that cause an adverse effect. …. All future property owners should be made aware of the limitations to land use associated with this site. It should be communicated that a consultant must be contacted to conduct further assessment should a future property owner intend to alter the site in any way which may affect the risk (i.e. through the construction of buildings or wells).”

As of now and due to the restrictions and limitations of the future land use, imposed by the Department of Environment & Labour, the Clock Tower property can only be used as a park.

No deep digging, no buildings, no wells are allowed.

There are the answers to my questions as above and why the Irving business has offered the property to the Town for $1. It obviously has no real market value.

And to demonstrate its future land use Irving just recently planted a tree in the middle of the property and in the presence of the Mayor.

Why are there those restrictions and limitations?

There are still risks present which no one can really calculate and/or evaluate which may or will have some impact on residents of Wolfville.

Did the Town and its Administration advise you and warn you - a resident of Wolfville - about these still present risks? The Town has communicated the creation of a park in the down-town area only and you may feel good about it and may love the idea.

But have you really been told the truth behind it? Do you want to be kept stupid? Wouldn’t you expect to be told the truth paying this Administration with your tax dollars?

Give your answer in this Election Year. Make the current Administration understand that they do not own the Town and get new faces with new ideas and a better understanding on what serves Wolfville’s residents best voted in!

Lutz E. Becker / June 03, 2008

C04. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

C4.:

Some comments on Council Meeting on June 09, 2008

After point 7. of the Agenda “REPORTS ADMINISTRATION” was brought to the table, I had problems with the presentations of the subsections “a. Farmers request for annexation update – Director Morrison” and “d. Summer Soccer Coordinator Position – Request for Decision No. 012-2008”.

Mr. Morrison showed the Councillors and the audience the more “technical” steps to be taken to make any annexation and an extension of the Town’s boundaries become a reality. To me, he was dancing around the key point of the farmers’ request. The farmers were turned down by Kings County Council to have their land parcel of about 400 ac rezoned from “agricultural” to “industrial/residential”. Fury Farms even withdrew court documents filed with the Kentville Supreme Court. The farmers now seem to see a better chance to become “millionaires” by giving Wolfville an opportunity. Would the farmers still ask for an annexation if the Town would make it clear that there would be no rezoning?

Only Councilman Zimmerman tried to clarify that an annexation does not automatically mean a rezoning to “industrial/residential” and that there will be some contradictions in relation to the sustainability issues of the new MPS draft.

Mr. Stead, Mayor of Wolfville, obviously abandoned the Town’s suggested sustainability ideas in a published interview with The Chronicle Herald on May 06, 2008 despite the fact that he had been sitting for about two years through the Sustainability Task Force meetings and the Planning Advisory MPS meetings as a member.

A rezoning would stir up a lot of controversy, for sure.

The request for a money grant by Mr. Fry, Director Department and Community Services, and a representative of the local Soccer Club and the discussion at the table thereafter took an unbelievable more than 20 minutes time slot. There is no amount for a grant to the Soccer Club in the approved Budget 2008/2009 and everybody present in the Council Chambers was told that there would be no money support from provincial and/or federal sources as well.

The representative left an emotional fart by talking about the 120 children as members in addition to about 70 adult members. For children the fee for the season was quoted at $65 each. In my sports club parents pay $45 a month and not for an entire season of three or more months.

Councillor Segado suggested that the fees at least for the adults should be increased instead of asking the Town for a grant. This was countered by the representative with the unqualified arguments that adults had their registration fees paid already and that an increase of the fees for the children would be quite a burden for families with three children. I really would like to know how many families have 3 kids in the club.

To me it sounded almost hypocritical when Councillor Zimmerman suggested that the Soccer Club should try to stay sustainable and without grants from third parties after he had voted for the Budget 2008/2009 which included a $20,000 grant to the Al Whittle Theatre.

Astonishingly, I had to learn as well that the Soccer club has a reserve (contingency) fund of about $5,000 which the representative doesn’t’t want to be touched to pay a soccer coordinator.

During the discussions the requested amount came down from $1,900 to $1,200 and even to $620. Any amount would have made the representative happy. The CAO warned that the money for a grant could only be taken out of the contingency fund and $1,900 would deplete it by 20%. Why should it be taken out of the Town’s contingency fund and not out of the Soccer Club’s one?

At the end the Council voted 4 to 2 in favour of a grant in the amount of $1,900.

At least some Councillors seem to have learned nothing from the uproar during the recent public budget meetings. What a charade!

Lutz E. Becker / June 10, 2008

C05. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

C5.:

Impressions regarding the PSPAC meeting June 19, 2008

The Planning Services Public Advisory Committee meeting under the Chair, Mr. Bob Wrye, covered different issues. I shall limit myself to the proposal of a new subdivision on Maple Avenue and the hereto expressed concerns about surface waters.

This proposal of Omaray Developments Ltd. was discussed under the Implementation Policy 10 of the current MPS and to be forwarded – if agreed by the PSPAC - for approval to the Town’s Council.

Open to the public for input and discussions was the development of Phase 1 only showing 33 dwellings of single unit and two unit ones illustrated on the map attached to the proposal. The future development of multiple unit dwellings was excluded and would have to be discussed at a later point in time in form of an amendment. With this decision of Mr. Wrye all and any implications on the development in total were not looked at. The Chair, Mr. Wrye confirmed at least that an amendment would have to go through the same process as a development agreement. For sure, any amendment will have to be based on the “new” MPS and the “new” Land Use Bylaw.

Mr. Morrison, Director Planning, showed in a power-point presentation 25 R-1 dwellings, 9 R-1A single unit dwellings and 9 R-1A semi-detached unit ones with 51 units in total. Obviously, he was mistaken in regards to the 25 R-1 dwellings and this figure became corrected to 15 by the developer later on.

Mr. Morrison presented as well that 72% of the runoff of the surface water would be directed to the East and to a natural watercourse “which carries water to Olsen pond and then across Main Street and eventually to the dykelands” and that a “smaller amount of drainage will be directed to the ditches on Maple Avenue and then to the natural drainage course on the west side of Maple Avenue.”

I stated for the record that any additional water in the watercourse on the west side of Maple Avenue would for certain be beyond the capacity of this natural watercourse and that - speaking for my neighbour, Mr. MacDonald, as well - we both oppose this development agreement unless there is a guarantee by the Town and the developer that any additional surface water will not increase our current flooding problems and having the Town telling us that it has no responsibility.

Mr. Morrison then pointed out that he had spoken to Mr. MacDonald in the afternoon and prior to the meeting and that Mr. MacDonald had been in agreement with the section “Drainage” of the proposal and had only expressed concerns with the then increasing traffic on Maple Avenue in its current desolate state and its missing infrastructure. Talking to my neighbour the next morning again, he verified that it was true that he and Mr. Morrison had spoken and that he had asked for a guarantee by the Town and the developer under the “Drainage” section that no additional surface water would be directed into the watercourse - as it is - on the west side of Maple. This part of his conversation with my neighbour Mr. Morrison had obviously forgotten entirely.

And there will be plenty of additional surface water coming downhill.

The proposal states correctly: “The site is gently sloped to the north with the exception of a steep slope area adjacent to Maple Avenue.” Before the top soil became heaped up and the entrance to the site was cut in by a dozer the grass surface could easily absorb any surface water. I even doubt very much that there was any runoff from that site and into the watercourse on the west side of Maple prior to the works done already. With all the planned hard surfaces on the 14 acres site (streets, driveways, buildings etc.) masses of surface water will have to go somewhere. And quite a portion will rush down the “steep” slope of the street to be built towards Maple and across Maple and into the watercourse there carrying a lot of sediment as well.

When I had questioned the presented 72% of drainage water to be directed to the watercourse at the North East, the developer even had corrected Mr. Morrison’s figure to 80% a little later. Whatever the truth might be it leaves more than a cup filled with drainage waters for the natural watercourse at the west side.

When Mr. Morrison then answered that calculations like the 72% were very easy ones for engineers and that it would be an easy job for an engineer as well to calculate and determine exactly the runoff prior to any development works (prior to touching the top soil and prior to dozing the entrance to the site with a steep slope towards Maple), I was wondering if Mr. Morrison would really understand what he was talking about.

Mr. Morrison has neither credentials as an engineer nor as a planner and - according to what I was told - does cost the Wolfville tax payers in addition to his salaries extra money for buying knowledge from outside consultants. I would like to hear these more than possible limitations in his public presentations when he tries to get a “professional opinion” across as the current Director of Planning.

For all the very critical and very technical details I had suggested an independent study to be done beforehand neither influenced by the Town nor by the developer.

Personally, I disagree with the decision taken by the Chair, Mr. Wrye, to have the PSPAC motion for Phase 1 of the development passed without a detailed clarification of all the open technical and other issues, forwarded to the table by the public and by PSPAC members as well.

This means that the Council will get the proposal presented for a final decision next month with crucial technical input defined, prepared and filled in by Town staff only and without any public participation and control. I am certain, at least Mr. Wrye understood on what he was doing.

Long live the “made-believe democracy” with a “pseudo” public participation in Wolfville! This is along the lines of the Mayor, Mr. Bob Stead, when he had cut off the public at the latest public Budget meeting by stating that there had been enough public input during the previous two sessions already and that the table would not take any additional questions anymore.

Who do these people “in power” think they are? They do not own the Town!

Lutz E. Becker / June23, 2008

Cc/ Public

C06. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T11:39:00.000-07:00

C6.:

Wolfville’s and a present PCB issue?

Dear Mayor:
Dear Councillors:

On March 31, 2008 I provided all of you with a copy of my e-mail sent to the CAO, Mr. Brideau, covering in detail different points discussed with him during our previous meeting on March 08, 2008.

During the meeting I addressed the CAO directly regarding a possible PCB issue. Hereafter, you will find excerpts from my notes:

"... Thereafter, I showed you (the CAO) a printout of an important notice to residents taken from the Town's website. I asked you if Mr. Whitford's investigation and excavation would be in relation to the filled-in PCB ponds with - according to what I was told - overflow pipes into the harbour.
Your answer was a strict "no" and then you tried to tell me that you don't really know the subject of the investigation because it was ordered by Nova Scotia Power and not by the Town.
(To me, there seems to be no logic in telling me "no" to PCB and then "I don't know what the investigation is all about". I even have a big problem to believe that the Town, its Administration and its Councillors knew/know nothing about the PCB ponds. I shall find out.)
I told you that I had been in the process of writing a second investigative request to the Honourable Mark Parent, Minister, in relation to the PCB ponds and then had stopped after finding the Whitford-notice on the Town's website.....
But thank you for your "sweet talk" that the Town would do and would have done everything to keep harm from its residents. Such a talk is expected of you in any case…."

On April 07, 2008 I e-mailed to all of you copies of my e-mail to the CAO which reads:

"Sent questions this morning to the Honourable Mark Parent and Jacques Whitford.
Spoke to quite some people in the meantime regarding the filled-in "PCB ponds". Your statement at our meeting that you, the Mayor and the Town's Administration know nothing about the filled-in "PCB ponds" created quite a variety of reactions with these people. Some could recall talking about the "PCB ponds" with the Mayor, some called you strict a liar, some said that you should not hold the job as CAO if you really don't know anything about the "PCB ponds".

Whatever is true, if the CAO really lied to me, all his "sweet talk" about keeping harm away from the residents would have to be regarded as hypocrisy and I would have to ask myself if I and/or the public could trust you at all."

On April 22, 2008 Jacques Whitford Ltd. wrote back to me stating: "We are not aware of any in filled PCB ponds, nor was the remedial work associated with such contaminants, as noted in your letter."

On July 08, 2008 Mr. Bob Petrie, Regional Manager of the Western Region of the Environmental Monitoring & Compliance Division located in Kentville, wrote back to me on behalf of Minister Parent responding to my correspondence regarding PCB concerns.

Mr. Petrie writes:

"... According to an Environmental Site Assessment report, remediation was completed on the NSPI property in 1997 to address pentachlorophenol (PCP) contamination which was the result of the area being used as a storage area for utility poles. In addition to PCP testing, testing for PCBs and hydrocarbons were conducted and these were found to be limited to a small area. Soil from this area was subsequently removed, and this area is inaccessible to the public. NSPI has more recently retained an environmental consultant to investigate historical impacts. The Department has not yet received reports on this recent work as it is ongoing."

Thanks to the Department of Environment & Labour there is now the confirmation that the Town of Wolfville has a present PCB contamination problem!

Even if it is limited to a small area (what does this actually mean?), it is a fact. Why would it have been made "inaccessible to the public" otherwise?

If some remediation was done in 1997 it is unbelievable that the CAO - being in his job as such since May 1996 already - does not know anything about it.

In hindsight, I personally regard it as a very bad joke to be told by him that the Town would do anything to keep harm from its residents. If he really would understand his responsibilities in keeping harm from residents, he could have found out since very many months that a 10-year old child can easily pass the remaining fence parts surrounding the area "inaccessible to the public". I took photos of the broken-down fence this morning. Furthermore, I am missing any kind of warning sign. Congratulations CAO!

In the meantime I have paid my fees and filed another application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get the complete documentation of the clean-up as of today.

I would like to get questions answered like:

Where was the polluted PCB soil taken?
How many truck loads were taken?
Where were the burned-out transformers (filled with PCB when in use) stored and then taken? (I was told about a different storage location at the West end of Town)
What about the in filled ponds with overflow pipes into the harbour?

Whatever will come out of this environmental issue, it seems to be fact again - as with the clock-tower park pollution issue - that the Town and its Administration does nothing to advise and/or warn you - a resident and tax payer of Wolfville - of or about still present risks and the possible impacts on you and your health.

Why would there be those restrictions and limitations otherwise?

No one can really calculate and/or evaluate these still present risks and its possible present/future impact.

But do you want to be kept stupid about these risks? Wouldn't you expect to be told the truth paying this Administration with your tax dollars?

Give your answer in this Election Year. Make the current Administration understand that they do not own the Town and get new faces with new ideas and a better understanding on what serves Wolfville's residents best voted in!

Lutz E. Becker / July 22, 2008

P.S.: Just recently I witnessed two workers from an Environmental Consultancy Company in Dartmouth taking samples from the NSPI property. On order from NSPI they took ground-water samples from 15 pre-drilled and secured holes all over the parking lot and the lawn and put them into a cooler for a lab analysis. Handling the water samples they had covered their hands all the time by rubber gloves. Obviously, they must have known or expected some toxidity levels present.

When I asked the workers what they were doing and if they would check for PCB levels, their answer was that they would take samples for a water-quality check.

The questions here are:

Why does this company still have to monitor the ground-water quality more than 10 years after NSPI left the property to relocate to Truro?
What kind of pollution with what kind of toxidity level is still out there?

Lutz E. Becker / 06/30/2009

C07. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T10:04:00.000-07:00

C7.:

Dear Wolfville Resident: VOTE FOR CHANGE!

Do you happen to know that the Municipal Government Act states in Section 22 (3) “no decision shall be made at a private council meeting …”?

Do you tolerate that this Mayor and this Council “breached the law” and made decisions in “in camera” sessions? How many more might there be beside this one?

Do you allow this Mayor and Council to provide Mr. Brideau, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), with salary increases up to the year 2011 despite the fact that Mr. Brideau’s Employment Contract with the Town states clearly that a full work performance evaluation every year will be the basis for maybe salary increases for the very next employment year?

Do you wish to ask this Mayor and Council why they decided to pay this year 15% and next year 18% of Mr. Brideau’s annual salary towards his retirement savings plan, while his Employment Contract with the Town states 5% only?

Do you accept that more than $100,000 a year (including the Town’s contributions to his pension plan) is paid to Mr. Brideau in his position as CAO in the Town of Wolfville with about 3,500 residents?

Do you know that Mr. Brideau has hired an “Executive Assistant” to do at least part of his job and that the salary of this assistant should be added to the total of the Town’s payments for the Chief Administrative Officer’s position?

Do you think that this Mayor and this Council have ignored their responsibilities and obligations towards you as a Wolfville resident and tax payer by misusing their given authority at least in this Brideau issue?

Don’t you deserve a new Mayor and new Councillors to get new visions, new ideas, new approaches and new attitudes to serve all Wolfville residents best in the future?

New candidates for Mayor are: Garry R. Balcom, Jeff Cantwell, George Townsend.

Candidates to choose six new Councillors from are: Ann Anderson, Peter Drummond, Eric Hughes, Keith Irving, Jim Laceby, Carl P. Oldham and Sheila G. Richardson.

Consider the re-election of Hugh Simpson as well. He seriously stood up for the concerns of the Wolfville’s residents, sometimes opposing all other Councillors.

Lutz E. Becker (a very concerned resident) / Oct. 09, 2008

Dear Resident: GRAB YOUR CHANCE AND VOTE FOR CHANGE!

C08a. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

C8a.:

The Mayor’s letter dated October 06, 2008
(Hereafter you will find the retyped text of the Mayor’s letter under the seal of the Town of Wolfville, Office of the Mayor)

“TO THE RESIDENTS OF WOLFVILLE:

Municipal Government is the level of Government closest to the people and our Town is a shining example of this. I am proud that all the affairs of the Town, with minor and legal exception, operate in an open and transparent manner. It is not only that this helps to make your elected representatives and Town administration accountable but also it opens up many avenues for the public to understand and participate in its civic affairs. Both of these are strong virtues. I know that I speak on behalf of the entire Council and staff when I say that we would not want it any other way.

The vast majority of residents who come to Council sessions, participate with one or more of our committees, volunteer for civic events or who just want to talk about something of concern are well-meaning, well-intentioned people who have only the best interests of the community at heart. This does not mean that we will always agree but rather when there is disagreement it is presented in a thoughtful and respectful manner.

As in all walks of life, there are individuals who will take the freedoms and opportunities that we all enjoy and use them for self-serving purposes. They simply and cleverly disguise self interest under the umbrella of community interest. Their behavior also acts as a negative role model and thereby discourages others from participating. As a politician I take this as part of the landscape and accept it as an unfortunate part of the price of open government.

Over the past several weeks many items of correspondence have been circulated throughout the Wolfville community. In that correspondence, Town staff has been subjected to accusations which are unfair and incorrect. The focus of much of this correspondence has been the Chief Administrative Officer Roy Brideau, the Director of Planning Gregg Morrison and Council and me.

Because of the challenging, negative, threatening tone and nature of much of the materials which impugn the qualifications and work records of these persons and indirectly bring into disrepute the records of support staff, I feel it necessary as Mayor to respond.

The atmosphere being created within town is negative and divisive and springs from your being provided information which at times is at best inaccurate. In other cases you are being provided with information which is misleading, only half true or frankly is completely false. It is designed to foster suspicion and lack of trust in both your council and your staff. This makes me very sad since our Town staff should not have to be subject to this kind of treatment to which they cannot respond and be distracted from their important duties.
I simply state for the record and on behalf of Council that the Town of Wolfville has an outstanding staff who act selflessly and tirelessly on behalf of all residents in the Town in both a legal and professional manner. I have complete confidence in their ability and the highest respect for their integrity. It is simply no accident that Town administrations from across the Province and elsewhere look to Wolfville for best practices. We all have reason to be proud of our Town and the men and women in the Town administration who work on our behalf.

We have a wonderful community which is held as a model for municipal units in Nova Scotia and have often been recognized provincially and nationally for leadership and success. I am confident that the voices of reason which predominate in this community will be heard.

Yours very truly,

(signed)
Robert A. Stead
Mayor”

C08b. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

C8b.:

A necessary response to the Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008

Dear Wolfville Resident: Vote for Change!

There are only a few days left before you will elect a new Mayor and a new Council.

The open questions here are:

Was the production and mailing of this letter based on the unilateral decision of the Mayor?
When was this letter discussed with Council and when had Council carried a motion regarding its content and its way of distribution?
Was this letter of the Mayor used poorly for self-serving purposes to enhance Mr. Stead’s chances to become re-elected as Mayor?

During last Wednesday’s public debate at the Wolfville school it became clear that at least some of the new candidates seem to have quite a different understanding on “transparency” and “accountability” and “leadership”. These are the differences that hopefully will inspire you - as a Resident of Wolfville - to vote for change.

To the dismay of Mayor Stead and certain Town staff I am the one who decided to share with you, Residents of Wolfville, some outrageous pieces of information on the “Brideau Issue”.

At my own expense I made copies of a shortened information flyer and used the costly postal service to make sure that my flyers reached all of you. This became necessary, after I had witnessed that my piled-up copies at the Post Office had landed in a trash can just after the Mayor had been the only visitor and at a different point in time the Town’s Director of Finance had grabbed the pile in front of my very eyes and had destroyed them. “Thank you” Mr. Mayor and Mr. Director of Finance for ignoring my Charter Right of “Freedom of Expression”.

You, the Residents of Wolfville, have a RIGHT TO KNOW what is going on at Town Hall! Our Town should be run as an open and transparent democracy and not as a dictatorship.

In addition to the “Brideau Issue”, I have questioned the qualifications of the Director of Planning, Mr. Gregg Morrison. At this point in time he holds a very important and powerful position on the Town staff without being able to show credentials as neither an engineer nor a planner. Even last week he presented at Council his very personal and “in-correct” interpretation of the law by quoting his understanding of relevant sections of the MGA, the MPS and the LUB.
If this Mayor sees it as impugnment on Morrison’s qualifications after I did document that Mr. Morrison had “knowingly” violated the Environment Act at least once and if the Mayor feels threatened by the fact that I got the Department of Environment to re-investigate possible additional violations and actions, which have caused damage to my property, those will be his problems alone and I will be unable to comfort him on his reported “sadness”.

This Mayor could have shown leadership and vision and along with the Council taken responsibility to alleviate the ongoing flooding problem at my property months/years ago. He has chosen not to.

The Mayor’s terms “at least inaccurate”, “misleading”, “only half true” or “completely false” and taken out of a specific context cannot be taken for an excuse of the Town’s and/or the Mayor’s “wrongdoing” or inactivity.

Lutz E. Becker / October 09, 2008

C09. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T09:33:00.000-07:00

C9.:

The Wolfville Municipal Election “Soap Opera”
(“Stay tuned to the next weekly episode!”)

On October 18, 2008 and during the “early voting dates” app. 1,340 electors (about 42%) voted at the Wolfville school to fill the offices of the Mayor and the Councillors for the next four years.

On October 20, 2008 at the regular Council Meeting, the “unofficial” results were presented. The public was told that these figures and the winning candidates would be made official the very next day.

Unbelievably, on the third day after the election a surprising fact surfaced – a “miscount”. About 137 votes, cast in the early voting, were somehow “misplaced and/or overlooked”.

These particular votes favor the candidate Carl Oldham and - when official - Carl will take office as a Councillor instead of Eric Hughes, who had “won” prior to the discovery of the “miscount”.

Unfortunately, “early congratulations” (including mine) to Eric now prove embarrassing because according to the “new” count he is no longer a “winner”. What a turn of events – like in a soap opera. Perhaps, an apology to Eric is in order.

It is very understandable why Eric paid 200 dollars deposit and filed an application for a recount with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Section 131 of the Municipal Elections Act with the subsections (1) and (2) entitles him to do so. A judge will now appoint a time and a place to recount all votes within a time frame of 30 days after the date of Eric’s application (MEA s. 132 (1)). And section 133 (1) then reads: “The returning officer shall attend throughout the proceedings at the place and time appointed for the recount with the sealed ballot boxes and poll books used at the election, ..”.

Some ideas and implications read as follows:

There is a thin border-line between excusable human errors and incompetence and - having been trained and sworn in as a deputy returning officer myself at the recent federal election - I find it almost incomprehensible that about 137 votes became somehow “misplaced and/or overlooked”.
Having been glued to the TV screen during the night after the polling stations were closed, I found it difficult to comprehend that the small Town of Wolfville was unable to present its results on TV, while much bigger municipalities like Halifax were able to do so. What was so time consuming to count app. 1,340 votes and why were the final results still incorrect despite all the time taken?
This “miscount” delays the “new” Councillors to be sworn in and allows the “old gang” to go on ruling Wolfville.
For sure, this returning officer will be an honourable and trustworthy person, but the fact that she is employed with the Town and takes her orders from the Mayor and the CAO should not be ignored. Personally, I would like to see an independent person, chosen by Council, to fill the position of the returning officer as the highest authority in a municipal election.

Lutz E. Becker / Nov. 02, 2008

C10. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T09:26:00.000-07:00

C10.:

My Post-Election Reflections

First, I would like to express my deeply felt appreciation to all residents who obviously understood and supported my wishful suggestions for a “new crew” regarding the Town’s elected Administration.

Especially, I would like to thank all the people including new acquaintances, who stopped me and talked to me in the streets, e-mailed me and/or phoned me to share my concerns and hopes for a necessary change.

Well, the outcome did not show a “victory change”. Instead of a majority of four new Councillors - I had wished for - only three new but really good ones became elected. Even if they work together very well they will not be able to block any and all motions brought to the table which may not favour the majority of residents. At least one Councillor of the “old Guard” will have to be with them. But it may be a promising start.

The situation on the Mayor’s re-election is entirely different. Out of 1,332 valid votes 790 votes or almost 60% (the overwhelming majority) of the electors/residents (including me) voted for change and against Mayor Stead. Amongst the four candidates, Bob Stead got 542 votes or 40.69% while Jeff Cantwell achieved with 512 votes or 38.44% the second place only. The remaining almost 21% of votes were divided between the other two candidates, Garry Balcom and George Townsend. It is not difficult to predict that Bob Stead would not have become re-elected as Mayor if there would have been three candidates or even two in total only. Of course, having been in power for eleven years and additional nine as a Councillor should have made Bob Stead at least some friends.

Our election system does not seem to be sufficient enough and could even be questioned as a democratic one. Despite the fact that it does not include a limit for additional terms of candidates to give new faces the chance for new approaches, new and maybe better ideas and new sets of priorities and directions to do well for a permanently changing municipality, it is nice to know and understand that there are countries on this globe which have a different and more democratic election system established. In a situation as above, the two top candidates would have to undergo a second election process again until one would really emerge with the majority of votes, which means more than 50%.

I hope and wish that the re-elected Mayor would understand his responsibilities towards all residents a little different and would stop bragging about “personal accomplishments” like “First Fair Trade Town” and first Town with a “No-Smoking-in- Cars-with-Children By-law”. The single “Just Us! Café” was opened here in Wolfville by accident, because its founder lived close by. What is the accomplishment of Mayor Stead, except for doing free marketing and free advertising for the Café, co-founded by Councillor Mangle and why does one Café make Wolfville a “Fair Trade Town”? And what is his accomplishment regarding the above By-law when he should have been aware that it would become Provincial law months later and that the police are unable to really enforce it due to lack of manpower? Was it just a nice gimmick for the Mayor to appear on TV?

Good luck to a Mayor, who the overwhelming majority of voters rejected!

Lutz E. Becker / Nov. 30, 2008

C11. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T09:13:00.000-07:00

C11.:

Wolfville and the new “Fiscal Sustainability Task Force”

The almost unbelievable discussion about the staffing of the intended “Fiscal Sustainability Task Force” at the Council meeting on December 15, 2008 convinced me in the end to hold back on forwarding my résumé to the Town clerk and to skip any idea to volunteer and serve on this Task Force.

Despite the fact that I would have been able to show certain qualifications (University degree; Employment with international companies in different positions incl. management; CEO positions; Co-owner and executive director in a software company with on average 40 programmers and specialists; Self-employed consultant with jobs in different parts of this world (i.e. U.K., Finland, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Germany etc.), I am almost certain that at least some people in the Town’s administration will be pleased with my negative decision.

When I learned that evening that the Mayor and all the Councillors plus four experienced volunteers would become members of this Task Force, I was able to visualize a nice “debating and chatting club” with eleven participants and different political interests but no hard working and manageable team to come up with practical and suitable recommendations for Wolfville’s future. And what could be the significance and the role of the four volunteers, representing the Wolfville public interest in this kind of grouping?

Personally, I regard the statement shown during the power-point presentation, that the Task Force has to provide the Council with recommendations for a final decision, as an redundant idiocy due to the fact that the Councillors will sit in on the Task Force meetings as well and will have voted on these recommendations beforehand anyhow already.

In the past some Wolfville residents saw a similar problem with the formation of the Planning Advisory Committee and its members’ composition. Obviously nothing has been learned from that experience.

In my published article “Impressions during the last Planning Advisory Committee Meeting April 08, 2008” I wrote:

“As I understand it, the members of the Planning Advisory Committee will finally provide the Council of the Town with an amended MPS draft for the decision process. I have a major problem to see several Councilmen sitting in and acting as members of the Planning Advisory Committee as well. Personally, I don’t trust people, who pretend to be able to change their hats and may be their opinions depending on what meeting and/or decision making process they are on. This is not my understanding of a fair role-play and public participation.”

One point can be made in favour of all present Councillors. They obviously realized that this particular Task Force might become the most important one in the future and they all would like to be on it, fearing otherwise for lack of influence and power.

But if this is a fact, why don’t they then call it a regular “Committee of Council Meeting” with the very particular subject “Fiscal Sustainability” supported from time to time by outside specialists on demand.

I was missing a clear understanding of the scope and the goals and/or limitations of this Task Force. I am almost certain that no Councillor has a clear understanding either.

For what were the Councillors then actually voting when they made this Task Force become a reality?

During the discussions Councillor Irving tried with very positive intentions to limit the numbers of fellow-Councillors on this Task Force. Unexpectedly, he had to face quite some opposition.

Transparency was one of the key words used over and over again by most of the candidates in the recent election campaign.
Several Wolfville residents had distrusted the Town’s administration in how their tax money was spent and had asked directly and indirectly for some control.
They demanded something like a “Financial Committee” as a kind of control instance to check on how their money was spent and with what priorities covering absolute necessities and ultimately controlled by Council. In my personal wishes I had even gone that far to ask - regarding the credit cards provided by the Town - that past credit card statements of Brideau and Stead would become checked under the premise that all shown expenses were actually related to Town business and approved by Council beforehand.

And in addition I had wished to see a motion carried that at least every two years the auditing company had to be changed and that the rules of the actual auditing process and its focus would be made public. If the relevant auditing process just checks “what went in and what was paid out”, I shall regard such an auditing process as entirely insufficient and beside the point of transparency.

What has happened during this Council meeting? There was a motion carried for a Fiscal Sustainability Task Force which seems to be an entire distortion of what at least some residents wanted to see for a change. Nobody seems to have a clear understanding of what this Task Force will cover and for sure, it is not set up to cover any function of a controlling instance and/or may make financial issues more transparent to the public.

Does this mean that Wolfville residents are back to “same old, same old”?

Lutz E. Becker / December 17, 2008

C12. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T08:58:00.000-07:00

C12.:

“Bargain Booze” and one local bar responsible for Wolfville’s social problems?

On December 19, 2008 a new Provincial Law came into effect to prohibit drinks in bars (341 millilitres of beer, 142 millilitres of wine, 28.4 millilitres of liquor) to be sold for less than $2.50 a piece. In December 2007 cheap drinks (“Dollar Shots”) came under scrutiny after police had arrested 38 people in a drunken brawl at a Halifax bar offering cheap ones.

The Chronicle Herald wrote on December 20, 2008 that the NDP-MLA, Leonard Preyra, was happy about the government finally taking action after he had forwarded a private member’s bill on the subject on November 03, 2008. Before that the government had set up a committee to make recommendations regarding the drinking problem, and in October 2008 this committee came up with a suggestion of a minimum price of $2.50 per drink.

Thereafter, in early December 2008 MDs at Dalhousie University sent a letter to Mr. Preyra outlining that “binge drinking” can result in alcohol poisoning and sexually transmitted diseases and that the student population, in particular those on reduced budgets, are targeted to buy cheap drinks.

The article then quoted a student at the St. Francis Xavier University to have said that the newly set minimum price of $2.50 might not persuade students from drinking less overall, for they might be just more inclined to stay and drink at a private party.

In a similar article on the subject The Globe and Mail on December 20, 2008 quoted another student to have said that making cheap drinks more expensive will not keep students from getting trashed - $2.50 is still pretty cheap. This student is supposed to have said: “I think that when people go out, they have it in mind anyways to get completely wasted, so I don’t think it really matters how much the price is, to tell you the truth.”

The Advertiser wrote on December 16, 2008 an article linking the so far mostly Halifax problem to the university town of Wolfville. The headline reads: “Mayor asks bar owners to forego cheap drinks”. The article states that the mayor is going to call on all six liquor outlets in his[?] town to work together to set minimum drink prices.

I am amazed that either the Mayor or the reporter are unable to count up to “nine” for there are nine outlets within Wolfville’s boundaries (beside the liquor store itself) serving liquor and/or beer.

The article then points to the “only one liquor establishment on Harbourside Dr.” selling cheap drinks.

This is a completely false statement. I experienced other establishments in Wolfville promoting cheap drinks during “Happy Hours”. True however is that the Axe, a bar on university grounds had started to serve cheap drinks and that the owner of the Harbourside outlet had to follow suit to compete for customers on a plain-level field. Obviously, the research for this article was done in a superficial and/or shallow fashion rather than in-depth.

During my meeting with the owner of the Harbourside establishment, he stated that the reporter had not talked to him at all to find out about his position on the subject.

It may be even true that Stead said “The practice of allowing cheap drinks leads to binge drinking and in this small town creates community living’ issues such as rowdiness, property damage, trespassing and noise” as he is quoted in the article, for it reminded me on another article in The Advertiser on November 18, 2008 where Stead was quoted to have said something during the swearing-in ceremony of the new Councillors which had not even taken place when The Advertiser and the article in question became printed and distributed.

Anyhow, the owner of the Harbourside outlet told me during our meeting that Stead had not called on him to clarify the subject but that he had been accused by Stead of “trying to get the young people drunk” when both had met by accident. Furthermore, the owner told me that he regards it almost impossible to talk to Stead to find a solution for the very many facets of the present “drinking issue”. He even gave a possible explanation why Stead is trying to blame only him and his establishment for all or most of the “social problems” in Wolfville.

The facts are that the Harbourside outlet has served cheap drinks Thursdays and Saturdays from 8:30 PM to 10:00 PM only. Maybe, Stead should check police files about complaints and their responses in relation to “rowdiness, property damage, trespassing and noise” close to these time frames during the two days of the week. Problems, when they happen, have occurred on average much later in the night.

The owner of the Harbourside outlet made the following points:

Young people, mostly young students, won’t even try to do any binge drinking paying the regular rates for their drinks. The 1.5 hour period twice a week of the cheap-drinks offer is necessary to get customers in early thereby hoping and wishing that most of them will stay after 10PM and buy drinks at the regular price rates. The cheap drinks during the 1.5 hours do not result in binge drinking at my premises. Cheap drinks were limited to two “doubles” or four “singles” per person. This means that during the happy 1.5 hours customers could consume twice e.g. a coke and a liquor shot (vodka, rum) or four times a liquor shot of 28.4 millilitres for the reduced price rate. And even the selection of the liquor shots was limited to two brands only. A different taste or a variation of choice would mean regular price rates again. From a business point of view I was loosing money while offering cheap drinks.
My clientele is not stupid and very price-sensitive. If the intention is to do binge drinking and get wasted, the local liquor store (holding the Town’s approval for a considerable extension after a Development Agreement had passed the Council table) will get the business and the drinking will be done at private parties. Some young people come sober or slightly alcoholised already, just for the music. They are not buying any drink at all and will return to their private parties and organized cheap drinking thereafter. (In the meantime I have been more than once at the local liquor store pretending to read labels on various wine bottles while actually watching several groups of young people paying far more than $100 each for kegs or cases of beer and bottles of liquor or wine after a piece of identity was checked to show their legal drinking age.)
All outlets in Wolfville have to close at 1AM except The Axe at university grounds which seems to be able to follow at least sometimes different rules and regulations. Why there are different regulations for The Axe is not understandable. A difference in closing times at certain dates in the past sometimes resulted in huge hoards of young people with some alcohol content in them leaving our Harbourside outlet at 1AM and walking down Main Street and in the direction of The Axe or going to join private parties planned and organized in advance.
These young people are still full of energy at 1AM and seem to have no intention to call it a night. The problem of huge groups of young people on Main Street could be eased by allowing our Harbourside outlet to stay open longer. A direct result could then be that people would leave in much smaller parties over time and not all of them at the same point in time - at 1AM - causing sometimes potential problems.
A big problem I see in the difference of safety and security levels affecting our young people. At our establishment we have to follow e.g. strict fire regulations, provide ventilation and a sufficient oxygen level and employ security personnel to guard the safety of our customers on our premises in general. I doubt very much that the same safety and security levels will be found at private house parties - sometimes attended by big crowds - where young people can drink as much as possible, can smoke, can take drugs and even can fall asleep without any control and/or security at all. Maybe, the mayor should look into this aspect of the drinking problem as well.
The new minimum price of $2.50 for drinks will change nothing and won’t provide any solution.

If Stead would have shown more leadership and vision he would have asked for a problem-solving meeting with the owner of the Harbourside outlet, the other outlets and with officials of the university and The Axe.
Especially the university should be involved in any discussions looking for solutions. This town and its university are together bound to perform the very difficult task to educate and groom young people - away from home and their parents - to become responsible adults. The Mayor should really understand that the students make this town and without them this town would have very little importance and no business at all.

To try to make the owner of the Harbourside outlet the sole scrape-goat shows nothing but incompetence to me.

It seems to be a fact that Stead wrote in early November a letter to Premier Rodney MacDonald supporting Mr. Preyra’s private member’s bill and jumping on the Halifax bandwagon instead of really trying to find a local solution for Wolfville. The Advertiser even wrote that Stead was calling on the Premier for help.
I really wonder if Stead wrote his letter on his private paper. If he wrote this letter asking for help as Mayor of Wolfville and on the official letter head of Wolfville, this letter, its content and its mailing should have made the Council table beforehand and a necessary motion should have been carried. I shall check the minutes. If nothing will be found in the minutes it will prove again - as with his letter dated October 06, 2008 - that Stead has obviously a mixed understanding of the meaning of the words democracy and dictatorship.

I understand the role of the mayor as the speaker of the council to the public. At the council table he has only one vote like all the other six councillors and he can act and/or speak up about Wolfville issues only after being backed beforehand by the majority of the councillors’ votes. I would not understand it if our Councillors allowed him to play his role any other way.

Lutz E. Becker / January 05, 2009

Comments:
Kyle Steele said...

As a correction - the Axe hasn't served discounted drinks as cheap as the Anvil in over two years. We lowered our prices originally to compete with their dollar drinks but then saw the practice as socially irresponsible and stopped it as of May 2007.

Regards,

Kyle Steele

PresidentAcadia Students' Union
January 13, 2009 2:44 PM

C13. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T08:25:00.000-07:00

C13.:

Is Wolfville governed by a Tyrant?

Major suspicions started after a 1-page letter, dated February 15, 2007, to the CAO, Mr. Brideau, signed by the Mayor, Bob Stead, surfaced during my Freedom-of-Information request in 2008.

In his letter Stead provides Brideau with salary increases to more than $100,000.00 and four years in advance, while, contrary to the earlier employment contract with the Town which stated that possible salary increases have to be based on complete/full yearly evaluations of Brideau’s work performances.

Furthermore, Stead ignored the provision in the existing employment contract which states that 5% of Brideau’s yearly salary will be paid by the Town to his retirement plan. In his letter Stead increased these yearly retirement contributions up to 18%.

Stead’s letter, regarded as an amendment to Brideau’s original employment contract, can in addition even be interpreted that Brideau does not really have to work - due to the fact that work-performance evaluations have been eliminated - and the Town will have to pay Brideau up to $120,000.00 a year for just being present from time to time at Town hall.

The key question partly phrased during the council meeting on September 28, 2008 was:

Did this Brideau amendment and its terms and conditions ever make the Council table for approval or was it a “solo trip” of Stead to do his now about 12-year Town-hall companion a personal favour?

The Stead-letter reads that the decisions were reached during an “in camera” session on February 05, 2007 and we all know that the law, the Municipal Government Act, does not allow decisions to be taken during “in camera” sessions.

The Town solicitor gave a questionable response during the Council meeting on October 20, 2008 stating in writing that “the letter was in error” regarding the four decisions reached “during the in-camera session” on February 05, 2007. The solicitor obviously does not see that there are many more parts of Brideau’s employment contract “in error” as well. If these decisions were taken outside the “in camera” session - as required by the law - these decisions would then be part of published minutes for everybody to read and based on documented motions passed with the majority of Council. But there is nothing to be found in the minutes and therefore the requirements of the law were not followed.

Even a previous amendment to Brideau’s contract did not make it into the minutes and no reference and/or indication could be found that this previous amendment and its specifics were presented to the Council and discussed and decided upon at all. According to the published minutes all the amendments to Brideau’s contract never existed.

In my article Update on “Wolfville and the Brideau Issue”, dated and published on October 27, 2008, I came up with six questions:

Where and when did the majority of Council entitle and authorize Stead to somehow negotiate and finalize Brideau’s entire compensation package as part of his Employment Contract?
Where and when did the majority of Council provide Stead with a “carte blanche” for these negotiations?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Stead with “directions” to increase the Town’s yearly contributions to Brideau’s retirement plan from 5% (original contract) to 12 % and 15% and 18% of his yearly salaries?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Stead with “directions” to delete the provision in Brideau’s original contract that his work performance had to be fully evaluated at least once in a year as a base for potential yearly salary increases by providing salary increases four years in advance?
Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Stead with “directions” to change Brideau’s Employment Contract with this amendment that way that Brideau does not really have to work at all and the Town will have to pay more than $100,000 a year for his presence at Town hall?
Is there no Councillor with courage to stand up and disclose to Wolfville tax payers and the public what directions were actually given to Stead and where and when - if at all - and by doing so re-establish the trust into the Council and a democratic process prevailing in Wolfville?

None of these questions - which can be answered by Councillors in power during the previous term only - has really been answered. The Town and the re-elected Councillors have chosen to play it the silent way.
And if Stead did all this on a “solo trip”, could this not be regarded as a breach of public trust?

A second suspicious issue - and you are all aware of - was Stead’s letter TO THE RESIDENTS OF WOLFVILLE, dated October 06, 2008 and just before the upcoming municipal election.
In my published article under the headline A necessary response to the Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008, I wrote on October 09, 2008:

“… The letter circulated by the current Mayor defending himself, the Council and the Administration of any “right or wrong-doing” during at least this last term in power should be regarded as an act of desperation in fear of loosing at the upcoming election and should produce a bad taste in everybody’s mouth.”

“Despite the fact that this Mayor avoided any reference to the upcoming election, his letter - at this particular time - can only be interpreted as a political campaign ploy. And the Town’s Returning Officer, the highest authority during the election period and employed with the Town, saw obviously no reason to object to this letter or was ordered to disregard objections.”

“And all this then can only mean that the production of more than 2,000 copies of this Mayor’s campaign ploy and its distribution via the local postal service to more than 2,000 households in Wolfville was paid for by your tax dollars, dear Residents. …”

In his letter Stead states “I speak on behalf of the entire Council and staff”. This is either wrong or it means that the entire Council was involved in the writing of the letter.

My published and unanswered questions here are again:

Was the production and mailing of this letter based on a unilateral decision of the Mayor (“solo trip)?
When was this letter discussed with Council and when had Council carried a motion regarding its content and its way of distribution?
Was this letter of the Mayor used poorly for self-serving purposes to enhance Stead’s chances to become re-elected as Mayor?

These questions address the re-elected Councillors only. And under the condition that this was another “solo trip”, could Stead’s letter not be regarded as a breach of public trust again?

The complete published article you will find further down on my blog www.voices-of-wolfville.blogspot.com.

The third suspicious issue I became aware of was partly taken from the content of an article in The Advertiser on December 16, 2008.

Its headline reads:

“Mayor asks bar owners to forego cheap drinks”.

The article then stated that the mayor was going to call on all six liquor outlets in his[?] town to work together to set minimum drink prices. (On December 19, 2008 the minimum drink prices became set under provincial law to $2.50)

It amazed me that neither the mayor nor the reporter was obviously able to count up to “nine”, for there are nine outlets within Wolfville’s boundaries (beside the liquor store itself) serving liquor and/or beer.

The article then pointed to the “only one liquor establishment on Harbourside Dr.” selling cheap drinks. This was a completely false statement. I experienced other establishments in Wolfville promoting cheap drinks during their “Happy Hours”.

Anyhow, the article also states that Stead wrote a letter to Premier Rodney MacDonald in early November. He tried to underline Mr. Leonard Preyra’s (NDP MLA) private member’s bill forwarded to the provincial Assembly on November 03, 2008 and by doing so he was jumping on the Halifax bandwagon instead of really trying to find a local solution for Wolfville. And all this under the pretext that “bargain booze” has been really a social or even is the social problem in Wolfville. The Advertiser wrote that Stead was calling on the Premier for help. Asking for help from the Premier instead of at least trying to find a local solution together with the Council could be interpreted as incompetence as well.

I really wondered if Stead wrote this letter on his private paper as Mr. Bob Stead. If he wrote this letter and asking for help as Mayor of Wolfville and under the official letter head of Wolfville, this letter, its content and its mailing should have made the Council table beforehand and a necessary motion should have been carried all actions.

I spoke about this letter to a Councilman in power in early November. He stated that he had not seen a copy of the letter but saw a response to the Mayor’s letter from the Premier. If nothing can be found in the minutes it will prove again - as above - that Stead obviously seems to have a very confusing understanding of the meanings of the words democracy and tyranny.

I understand the role of a mayor as the speaker of the council to the public. At the council table he has only one vote like all the other six councilmen and he can act and/or speak up about Wolfville issues only after being backed beforehand by the majority of the council.

My questions here addressing the re-elected Councillors are again:

Where and when was the issue of “bargain booze” discussed with Council and decisions regarding actions to be taken (asking the Premier for help) in a public meeting?
Where and when did the Stead-letter make it to the Council table where its contents and its mailing passed with a carried motion?
Was this letter just a “solo trip” of Stead?

And as above, if a “solo trip”, could Stead’s action be regarded as a breach of public trust again?

My responding complete article to this issue you will find on my blog under the headline “Bargain Booze” and one local bar responsible for Wolfville’s social problems?

The fourth suspicious event I learned while listening to the repeated news on the local radio station (AVR) recently.
As I understood it, Stead was quoted to have said that the Capital Budget would amount $1.6 million this year, that the central parking space in front of Shoppers’ (not even owned by the Town) would get a facelift and that a hired architect would talk to business owners downtown to ask them to beautify their storefront facades. Then I heard Stead’s voice over the radio stating that Central Ave. would be closed for cars and become a walk for pedestrians only.

As above, my questions are:

When and where were the decisions for the activities as above made by the majority of the Councillors during a public meeting?
Was the stating of these activities another “solo trip” of Stead?
And if the second question can be answered with “yes”, could Stead’s statements be regarded as another breach of public trust?

When I spoke to a Councilman about these statements three days ago, he answered that the Mayor gets carried away from time to time and that we [the Councillors] can stop all these stated activities.

In fact, the relevant law, the Municipal Government Act, prints in section 14(1) clearly: “The powers of a municipality are exercised by the council.”

Thereafter, the powers of a mayor are described in section 15. In subsection 15(1) it reads that the mayor shall preside at all meetings of the council. And in 15(3) it is written that the mayor may monitor the administration and government of the municipality; and communicate such information and recommend such measures to the council as will improve the finances, administration and government of the municipality.

The Act does not allow “solo trips” by the Mayor! The Mayor has the right to preside Counsil meetings but no privilege to act as he alone likes.

Our Mayor became re-elected by a minority of the given votes only and due to the fact the majority of the votes against him were distributed over three other candidates.

It might be another very useful decision to be taken by the Council in power to limit the terms of a mayor to two max., to provide new candidates and new ideas and attitudes to get into the Mayor’s position.

I have absolutely no problem with the Mayor as a person, but - under the condition of confirmed “solo trips” as above - I shall strongly object to the Mayor usurping the powers of the Council for whatever reasons.

On the other hand and in confirmed cases as above I shall strongly object to the Councilmen as well allowing the Mayor to act like this and not calling him to order.

I would have to regard this as a breach of public trust on the Councillors' side as well.

Lutz E. Becker / February 01, 2009

Comments:

ww said...

The mayor is his own worst enemy. He talks as if everything that happens is due to him. It is HIS newsletter, HIS land trust project, HIS park, HIS vision of the Town that is becoming reality. There is no room or credit for anyone else. So, naturally he sounds and looks like a tyrant. We think in truth he may be more like the wizard of OZ, a paper tiger. [Strangely it is not HIS vandalism, HIS rowdy students, HIS empty storefronts. Those things the Council can wear.]
February 4, 2009 4:58 PM

C14. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T08:20:00.000-07:00

C14.:

From: Jordan Calder
<mailto:095891t@acadiau.ca%20/%20_blank>
Subject: Re: Tyranny
To: leb.3999@yahoo.ca
Received: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 7:59 PM

To Lutz Becker:

My name is Jordan Thompson-Calder, and I have been a resident of Wolfville for 6-years. Currently, I am a first-year student at Acadia University, and the News Editor for Acadia's campus paper, the Athenaeum. On the side, I've also been working on a blog of my own, and have actually linked to yours.

Suffice it to say, many Acadia students have read your pamphlet and/or blog post and are curious, so as News Editor I've decided to run a story on it. I've actually contacted Mayor Stead's office for a potential interview for him to rebut your statements, but His Worship was not so inclined, and only responded with a brief statement.
I'm wondering if you have time to conduct an interview, either in person or over the phone, or via e-mail or IM. Whatever you are comfortable with.
I plan on publishing an article that would contain an overview of your concerns, the statement (albeit a brief one) I got from Mayor Stead's office, and any statements you'd like to give in addition to what has all ready been posted.
Thanks in advance for your time, and please get back to me at your earliest convenience as we go to press late tomorrow night (short notice, I know.)
If this goes under and there isn't time for us to correspond and/or meet this week, then I'd be more than willing to publish the story later on.

Sincerely,

Jordan Calder
News Editor
The Athenaeum
http://www.theathonline.ca%20/%20_blank

C15. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

C15.:

The Pending Budget Draft Meetings in 2009

On May 18, 2008 I wrote an article under the headline Wolfville’s Political Climate in the Spring of 2008. The article was then published, copied and placed at the Wolfville Canada Post office for public distribution.

Section A. of the article covered my critical comments on MPS DRAFT issues while section B. was titled THE TOWN BUDGET.

Although, this is old stuff or history, we are about to go through a new budget process 2009 again and it might prove interesting to compare its draft-meeting discussions, its progress and outcome with my comments of 2008. I recall that Mr. Brideau had promised last year that the whole budget process will become more transparent to the public in the future while presenting it and its content in a much more comprehensible format and different from the format required by government regulations.

Let’s find out!

Hereafter, you will find the relevant part of my last year’s comments regarding the Budget-finding process as a snap-shot of the situation I saw it at the end of April beginning of May 2008:

B. THE TOWN BUDGET
Parallel to the recent PSPAC meetings the proposed Budget 2008/2009 became introduced to the public. The fired-up tension experienced during PSPAC meetings carried over to the first public budget meeting when the CAO, Mr. Brideau, presented a tax rate increase and an increased budget total of $7,402,078.

In his written Introductory Notes Mr. Brideau stated: “This proposed budget at the suggested rates is only possible due to unusually significant new assessment growth in the past year. Given average years of growth, it will become increasingly difficult for the Town to balance future budgets due to costs increasing over and above limited assessment growth.” This statement of the CAO could be interpreted as an excellent and advanced general excuse for doing a bad or insufficient job in the near future.
The first public budget meeting showed a lot of confusion in the audience. Mr. Brideau presented dollar figures of “wish lists” of rounded up estimates provided by his departmental directors. The audience had no or not enough background information to really question the listed about 500 or more money figures in regards to what has to be done in 2008/2009, with what priority, with what level of depth/commitment and thereafter with what attached money amounts.

Mr. Brideau would do at least part of his job well in presenting relevant budget figures (especially expenditures) to the public in a different, more simplified but understandable way by having them at least labelled correctly. From his point of view it may be necessary to have the budget figures departmentalized. But I would like to see defined and understandable “key figures” totaled for the entire Administration of the Town as well and to be able to compare them with the ones from previous budget years.

As an example, this means that I don’t want to search on 37 or 38 pages of the budget drafts for parts of salaries and salary add-ons of different department members; I would like to see as well the number of all employees and the total of their budgeted salaries. The same should go for other “key figures” for example computer expenditures, consultant services, telephone, bureau supplies, water, heat, travel, grants, insurances, interest payments, debts, savings, specific projects etc..
The audience could only argue why certain items were included in the budget while others were not. The audience learned as well that putting pressure on Mr. Brideau and the Council resulted in presentations of “missing” items (School playground) at the next Council meeting with the outcome, that the School-playground-Phase 1 all of a sudden was given a green light.
For me it was outrageous to learn that the Town’s administration had committed itself to certain new expenditures already with the intent to honour them prior to having the Budget 2008/2009 settled. My recommendation would be: Have all these “early” committed expenditures up for public discussion again (Acadia Field, Acadia Cinema, etc.).
Focusing just on one item, the Acadia Cinema Grant in the amount of $20,000, I have a major problem to understand why the Town has to subsidize this cinema. Even as a Co-op and a non-profit organization it has to be run as a business and to survive without the Town pumping money into it a second time ($5,000 for a sign beforehand). I was told that the Wolfville Business Development Corporation Ltd. has or will provide some money for the planned new digital projector as well. In general, I like the cinema with their sometimes very special movies and - despite the fact that not very many residents will go to see those - it even may be regarded as an attraction for the Town, but its business should not rely on grants from the Town. The $20,000 could be placed somewhere else, where a lot more residents or all could really benefit.
Councilman Zimmerman, who is on the board of directors of the Acadia Cinema as well, brought the request for the $20,000 grant to the Council table but had left the room when the other Councillors voted in favour of this motion. I expect him to do the same during the final voting for the 2008/2009 budget.
Only Councilman MacKay had questioned the amount of $20,000 and had suggested half of it. Additional questions running through my mind are:

Why does it have to be a grant and can’t be loan?
Had the Council seen assuring financial statements that the cinema will be around in the years to come (without additional subsidies)?
Has the Council checked the relevance of the quoted price and the size for a digital projector in the $70,000 bracket?
What is the value of the trade-in for the current projector?
What concrete benefits should the Town demand for all its residents prior to providing the grant (maybe an installation of a microphone system for some free-of-charge Town meetings)?
Could the grant be avoided by increasing the ticket price?
What financial relationship is established between the Cinema and the space renting “just us!” Café, another Co-op co-founded by Councilman Mangle?
Does the “just us!” Café pay a fair market rent, a fair share for power, heat, taxes, frontage fees etc.?

These are at least some of the questions all voting Councillors should be able to understand and answer fully beforehand unless they just would like to do Councilman Zimmerman a favour in his other role as a board member of the Cinema.

And in a similar way I would like to have all the other items analyzed, where the Town is giving money away for really nothing in return that will benefit all its residents.

Personally, and for the sake of all residential taxpayers, I would like to see measures established and published for control of all members of the Administration doing a good, an average or a poor job within given budget boundaries and responsibilities. There is no control like this at all.

Towards the end of the first budget meeting Mr. Wrye had played “Mr. Nice Guy” again - probably and possibly driven by his political ambitions in the election year - asking for a revised budget draft before the end of April. His suggestions were to stay with the current tax rate or below and to try to get the budget total down significantly.

Very interesting was the content of an “emotional” speech of Councilwoman Segado stating that she needs help and that she doesn’t’t really know how to decide on the Budget 2008/2009 when it will come to the Council table for the final approval. Is she really up for the job requirements and responsibilities invested in her as a Councillor? Wait and see how she will vote finally.

This will be still too easy to work with and in my opinion will not present any real challenge to Mr. Brideau and his departmental directors. The tension in the audience felt drastically reduced during this meeting. Obviously, most of the rebellious ones had just opposed the previously proposed tax rate hike despite the fact that the assessment value on the properties in total had gone up at least 2.3% anyhow.

Lutz E. Becker / Jan. 19, 2009

C16. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T07:55:00.000-07:00

C16.:

From: Jordan Calder
Subject: Mayor Stead's Reply
To: leb.3999@yahoo.ca
Received: Saturday, February 21, 2009, 9:37 PM

Good evening Mr. Becker,
Thanks again for the interview today. The following is Mayor Stead's reply
to my e-mail in it's entirety, as you requested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your email of February 10,2009 you reference the online blog entitled
"Is Wolfville Governed by a Tyrant" and it's author Mr. Lutz E.
Becker.
What appears in that blog is largely a repeat of communications directed
to the Town of Wolfville and it's officers and elected officials over
the past several months.
This town does not have the resources to assign to issues that are so
destructively critical and without substance or foundation. We prefer to
deal with constructive criticism that make us better at what we do for
the people who elect or hire us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The e-mail did not contain a salutation, close, or signature, so I am not
positive as to whether or not it was written by the Mayor himself. The e-mail
address is rstead@town.wolfville.ns.ca though.
Regards,
Jordan Calder
News Editor
The Athenaeum
www.theathonline.ca

C17. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T07:36:00.000-07:00

C17.:

The Town’s violationof the Municipal Government Act

The Municipal Government Act of Nova Scotia (MGA) starts with a sentence outlining that municipalities have legislative authority and responsibility with respect to the matters dealt with in this Act. This means that this Act is the law under which municipalities - including the Town of Wolfville - have to be governed, to become accountable to the people.

On May 19, 2009 I filed an Application for Access to Records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act with the Town office.
My question read:

When and in what newspaper(s) were the grants and contributions of
the Town of Wolfville published during the last five budget years ending
with the budget year 2008/2009?

The MGA states clearly in section 65 ss. (au) that “the municipality shall publish annually a list of the organizations and grants or contributions made pursuant to this clause in a newspaper circulating in the municipality”. This requirement is the law since 2003.

The answer from the Town – dated May 27, 2009 – was devastating and seems to be symptomatic to the governing of this Town:

“…To this date, the Town has not submitted the listings of groups and
amounts for publication; …”

The almost stupid excuse of the Town Administration reads that they are not aware of any other municipal units in the Province following this requirement.

At least they seem to understand that was and is a legal requirement they did not follow.

The Administration’s attitude raises questions like:

What is the penalty/punishment for violating the law year after year for about six years? and
Can the Town Administration do whatever they like and “laugh” about
the provisions and requirements of the MGA

The Town’s answer states further: “Regardless of this fact, and our past practice, the Town of Wolfville will take action and begin publication of this information retroactively beginning with the prior year (fiscal year 2008/2009).” “It will be published in the local paper The Kings County Advertiser within the next few weeks.”

Isn’t it amazing that residents of Wolfville have to tell the Administration what their legal responsibilities are they are paid for to follow?

Maybe, Mayor Stead can go on TV again bragging that Wolfville will be the first municipality obeying from now on the 6-year-old legal provisions and requirements of the MGA in respect to the publication of grants.

Congratulations to this kind of Administration!

Lutz E. Becker / June 06, 2009

C18. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T07:16:00.000-07:00

C18.:

The Town’s deceptive Budget-finding Process 2009

As of today, democratic principles in the budget process like accountability, transparency and the involvement of the public seem to have been trampled on by the Town Administration. Such principles obviously work in this Town as slogans during election campaigns only.

The Town’s 1-page flyer – delivered via Postal Services prior to the Council Meeting on May 26, 2009 – under the headline “2009-2010 Proposed Budget Overview” states in its first sentence “There have been several Council working sessions, which were open to members of the public, …”.

This is entirely misleading. During these working sessions no copies of drafted budget versions were available to members of the public; attending Councillors had versions on their lap-tops only. Absolutely no one in the audience would have been able to understand details discussed at the table without a draft and without sufficient time to read and digest more than 60 pages with 500 to 600 budget items and prepare questions for clarification. And if a member of the public would have completely wasted time to attend these working sessions he or she would not been allowed to ask even one question anyhow.

On May 26, 2009, at the official Council meeting, Mr. David Daniels was turned down by Mayor Stead when he intended to ask some questions to get necessary explanations. The Mayor as chair of the table was accepting “input” only but no questions. Maybe, he could learn that related questions are very valuable input as well.

And so the evening’s “input” was mostly filled by people asking for money grants from the Town, meaning the Wolfville tax payer. The items like School Playground, Hospice and Visitors Information Centre were not even mentioned nor included in the proposed budget version and can only lead to additional increases of the tax rate and the taxes to be paid by all Wolfville residents.

To me the most valuable and most useful comment that evening was done by Mr. Doug Lutz. He pointed out that in difficult and challenging times ahead the budget expenditures should be broken down into 3 categories (priorities) freely interpreted as:

What does the Town absolutely need to do?
What would be nice to do?
What would be very nice to do?

This was obviously not done and was never done before. And each category then would determine different amounts of expenditures and directly related services the Wolfville residents would be able to get at that required tax level.

The money available would be spent in the highest category first. And if money would be left there the next category down would be addressed and so on.

As always in the past, the too many directors provided Brideau with a wish list at the beginning of the budget process.

They then defended their items to underline and boost their ego and imagined importance during the process and no outsider and maybe even Councillor would understand in most cases the actual necessity of the requested amounts of rounded thousand-dollar figures and its direct impact on general service levels to be provided to Wolfville residents.

There are no challenges to these directors to do an excellent or even a good or poor job only.

They are not given and measurable objectives at the beginning of the budget year and full performance evaluations at the end of it. They have easy and well paid jobs because these directors are dealing with tax payers’ money and not their own.

In this context I regard Director Kerr as an exception due to the fact that he really made an effort to cut his wish list back.

As stated at the beginning of this article, democratic principles like accountability, transparency and the involvement of the public were trampled on by the Town again.

This is underlined by the fact that a proposed budget draft - accessible to the public - was available on the Town’s web site in the late afternoon of Friday, May 22, 2009 only, just 4 days prior to the Council meeting on May 26, 2009.

No resident could really understand, grasp and digest the 63 pages with the very many short-labelled items on them drafted according to governmental regulations.

There was not enough time and question periods for the public had been eliminated beforehand by this Administration.

I regard all these planned actions of the Town Administration as an intentional deception to keep the public uninformed and out of the important budget process.

Obviously, the Town Administration did not want to repeat the good intentions during last year’s budget process sessions when the public got really involved and was allowed to ask questions about the multiple short-labelled and sometimes wrongly labelled budget items.

Last year the interest and attendance of residents and tax payers during these sessions were much higher due to the created emotions by the Town regarding the proposed high tax rate figure in the beginning of the process. Brideau had promised there and then to come up this year with different versions of budget drafts, especially for the public (in addition to the governmental ones), to make the whole process and the very many items more understandable and maybe self-explanatory. The 1-page Overview is just a farce of the Administration not covering Brideau’s promise to any possible degree of satisfaction.

The quick reader of the Overview may become fooled by the enlarged statement that the residential tax rate might go down this year by two cents to $1.39. In relation to the actual taxes to be paid by the residents this is a deceptive projection as well due to the fact that the taxes this year will increase to its highest level ever according to the increase of assessment values. Even with a possible decrease of the tax rate by 2 cents the taxes will go up.

This proves again that repeated election slogans regarding “no tax increases” are worth nothing to Wolfville residents. In this context I was enlightened to read Brian Sanderson’s critical comments on his blog under the headline: “Rocket Science: what goes up, just keeps going up!” He writes: “…Taxes increase because Council, Staff, and Special Interest Groups just L-O-V-E to spend more and more of your {the residents’} money. … ” And further down he writes that he could not make it to attend the meeting on May 26, 2009 stating: “Perhaps it’s just as well I wasn’t there. It seems that a bunch of Hospice Builders descended, like a plague of locusts, to strip-mine the pockets of the long-suffering taxpayers of the woeful Town of Waffleville. Apparently, they expect Wolfville Taxpayers to build them a Hospice in some other town!!!”

The Hospice request in the amount of $114,553 is for sure based on a worthy cause but does it have to be superimposed on Wolfville tax payers over a time period of many years?

To me it is very questionable from a legal point of view that this Council is given the powers and authority to bind Wolfville residents 8 to 9 years into the future for yearly grant payments to the Hospice. Grant items 8 to 9 years into the future should not even discussed at the table during the budget process 2009.

Symptomatic for the Town’s attitude on spending tax payers’ money exorbitantly seems to be the recent trips of Brideau and 3 Councillors to Whistler B.C. Whistler was the selected meeting point for the 72nd conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCA). Brideau went to Whistler prior to the actual conference to chat with CAOs of other municipalities across Canada. I do not mind one Town official to attend a FCM conference but I have a problem to understand why - in difficult and challenging times - three Councillors were provided “pleasure trips” in addition to Brideau on tax payers’ expenses as well.

What is it these Councillors don’t understand about necessary budget constraints, hopefully resulting in no tax increases for residents?

Maybe it would have been asking too much of Brideau, who does cost the Wolfville tax payer more than $115,000 this budget year in salaries and pension contributions, to take some notes at the conference on issues of possible relevance or interest to the Wolfville community. Even with multiple sessions running in parallel during the conference, it should have been an easy task to collect important hand-outs and/or web site addresses comprising the presented key messages for a briefing of all Councillors after his return.

The remaining 3 Councillors and the Mayor will have to be briefed anyhow and I would like to sit in and listen during these briefings to evaluate if any “new ideas” have a chance to become implemented which thereafter should make Wolfville a better governed community.

During one of the oncoming Council meetings I shall ask about the costs for the 4 officials involved (air-fares, transfers to and from airports, hotel expenses, meals and food allowances, conference or registration fees, etc.). My best guess is that the total costs will be far more than $ 10,000.
Furthermore and regarding travel expenses, I cannot accept the almost stupid excuse that two Councillors used Air-Miles acquired by the Town to pay for their flights. These Air-Miles represent a money value and have to be treated like tax payers’ payments and have to be compared to the regular prices of full-fare tickets. The Air-Miles could have been used on different occasions, even in a different year, when a Town official really will have to go on an important trip benefiting the Wolfville community.

Maybe, these “pleasure trips” on tax payers’ expense were intended to “motivate” the attending Councillors to vote this month on an increase of the tax rate over and above the proposed $1.39. I really wonder what travel promises or other ones were made to the Councillors left behind this time to vote for an increased tax rate to cover for unnecessary and/or pleasure expenditures as well.
If this is really symptomatic on how Councillors deal with tax payers’ money and their broken election promises the Wolfville tax payer cannot rely on the proposed budget figures including the proposed tax rate and should expect the worst when the budget is planned to be finalized this month.

Lutz E. Becker / June 09, 2009

C19. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T07:03:00.000-07:00

C.19.:

Are Wendy and Bobby playing the same tune?

The false tenor in Ms. Wendy Elliott’s article in The Advertiser under the headline “Wolfville sets it rate” (this is not even correct English) made me become upset about this kind of reporting on what had happened during the Council meeting on June 22, 2009.

This article reminded me of another printed and distributed one prior to an actual Council meeting last year quoting the Mayor, Robert Stead, to have said something during that meeting which he actually did not do. The author of that article failed to act as a mind reader predicting what Mayor Stead would say during the meeting days later.

I regard it as a disgrace how Ms. Elliot reported about Councillor Irving in her article. To me he was the only Councillor who fought hard for a decreased tax rate to at least $1.39, but the other Councillors and the Mayor seemed to have no interest in listening to his arguments. And I am talking here about the Council meeting on June 15, 2009 when Ms. Elliott was not even present. Mr. Irving fought a frustrating up-hill battle, and if new elections would be due tomorrow and I could vote for one Councillor only, he for sure would get my vote.

Ms. Elliott’s sentence: “This year marks the fifth consecutive year the residential rate has declined.” is a foolish way to report about the realities in this Town. As an unbiased reporter she should have written that this year’s tax rate - as the ones in many consecutive years before - will result in another increase of the taxes to be paid by residents instead of covering this important fact up to make the Town Administration look good.

Listening to the recording of the June 22nd Special Council Meeting and taking certain parts down verbatim, I found that Mr. Stead did not use Ms. Elliott’s freely invented word “disparagement”. The Mayor did not speak in general terms - as Ms. Elliott describes it in her article - but related to comments received regarding the Hospice issue only, quoting them in his very personal opinion as “uneducated”, “inappropriate” and “unfair”.

Covering this “motivational” speech of Mr. Stead at the end of the meeting, there are three very questionable parts that got my attention.

The first one is Mr. Stead’s sentence: “What we have expressed over and over again and the budget will reflect that, we are not prepared to see the character of the Town changed for reasons that in our opinion or estimation are not sufficiently good”.

This made me come up with questions like:

What has the budget to do with the “character” of the Town?
Where and when has Mr. Stead ever defined his opinion or a collective public one on what the “character” of the Town is or has to be?
Does Mr. Stead, who was re-elected by a minority of voters, really understand what he is talking about here?

In my opinion the “character” of this Town has deteriorated drastically during the too-long Mayor-ship of Mr. Stead. As just one example I would like to refer to the “Railtown monstrosity” built on a flood plain. As another one I would like to draw the attention of the reader to the fact that I was able to count 14 empty business locations on Main Street alone lately. Maybe a change of the Town’s “character” would only require an exchange of some people who try to govern Wolfville and obviously misunderstand their mandate of good stewardship.

Secondly, Mr. Stead went on to say “..there are enough of us at the table that are prepared to support those things that we think protect the integrity of the Town while at the same time committing ourselves to frugality..”. This statement of Mr. Stead confused me even more. To me “integrity” is directly related to an honorable person.

How can integrity relate to a Town?
Does Mr. Stead really understand the meaning of such a powerful word?

If the people in charge at Town Hall would show and demonstrate real openness, transparency and accountability my confusion might be put to rest.

The third point covers Mr. Stead’s statement that the whole budget process (without the public being allowed to ask questions at all) had been teambuilding as well and that he hoped “..that we are now at a point where in fact we are ready and able to operate as a team of seven..”.

My hopes are entirely different.

I hope and wish that Mr. Irving and other Councillors will not be swallowed in and will go on to put their feet down whenever necessary and in favour of Wolfville residents to be represented.

Is a teambuilding of seven a required part of the given mandates?

I do not think so!

Lutz E. Becker / June 30, 2009

Cc/ Voices of Wolfville
Wolfvillewatch

C20. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T06:59:00.001-07:00

C20.:

Dear Lutz,

Thank you for your informative posting regarding the Special Council Meeting and the Elliott/Stead Affair.

Frankly, I'd accept criticism that I myself am sometimes a bit "inappropriate" and "unfair". But the Mayor is out to lunch if he thinks he can dismiss his other critics so lightly.

The people of Wolfville are well served by people, like yourself, who make a serious and concerted effort to unscramble the mischief that some of our elected representatives get up to.

Your efforts are all the more important in view of lightweight reporting from some of our local commercial news outlets.

Thanks,

BrianBrian Sanderson
Wolfville, Nova Scotia

C21. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

2009-08-02T06:53:00.000-07:00

C21.:

Dear Ms. Boyd:

For decades and maybe centuries this Town has obviously done “business” and survived without the presence of a Strategic Plan.

To ask our residents – during the holiday period – to provide input and suggestions within 5 to 6 days after the draft of the Plan was available proves again that this Town and its Administration have absolutely no understanding of what it means and/or no intention to really involve the public in their decision-making process.

I regard it as irony in Mayor Stead’s introductory letter indicating that the Council wishes “suggestions and comments” within this given time frame of 5 to 6 days for a key document like a Strategic Plan.

I strongly demand the decision by Council to be delayed until after the holiday period to provide more time for our residents – incl. the now absent holiday seekers – to come up with their ideas and suggestions for such a key document.

Best regards,

Lutz E. Becker

Cc/ Councillors
“Voices of Wolfville”
“Wolfvillewatch”

D1. THE MORRISON MYSTERY

2009-08-02T06:49:00.000-07:00

D1.:

My acquaintance with Mr. Gregg Morrison started on the wrong foot in
200.….. (in progress)

E1. THE WOLFVILLE "BUY LOCAL" GIMMICK

2009-08-02T06:31:00.000-07:00

E1.:

The Wolfville "Buy Local" Gimmick

Just recently I came across some fliers under the headline BUY LOCAL CHALLENGE 2009 where residents and visitors were asked to commit to “join onto the spirit of living a more local life over the next 12 months”. I had asked myself what joining the spirit of living a more local life could mean and if this could really be a goal I would like to pursue. I did not think so.
My impression of a gimmick started when I then read that all people joining had to define “local” by themselves while seeking out products to match their definitions wherever they were shopping.

There was obviously a very blurred vision with the organizers on the intended goal of the BUY LOCAL CHALLENGE as well. When I then learned from the fliers that this gimmick was “Inspired and Sponsored by the Wolfville Farmers’ Market” I regarded it as an almost very foolish marketing idea of the vendors/distributors at the Market, not matching the given realities at all. It seems that living a more local life means shopping for local products. For the remainder of my article I shall stick to food products and articles to be bought at the local food store, for products like craft, art, music, jewelry and clothing rarely meet my taste.

And of course, while the BUY LOCAL CHALLENGE became launched to the public, Mayor Stead and even two Ministers had their say supporting this almost foolish idea.
I would like to congratulate the organizers who put this idea on paper and are trying to sell it during the Market hours to obviously blind-sighted people for $5 a piece while providing a canvas shopping bag, a challenge card, a button and a resource kit. At least these organizers seem to understand the basic meaning of capitalism and how to generate money for almost nothing in return.

Speaking to people all around and asking them for their understanding of the meaning “local” I got quite a variety of answers. Those actually reached from “Wolfville in its boundaries” to entire “North America” including answers like “Annapolis Valley”, “Province of Nova Scotia”, “Atlantic Provinces” and “Canada”. All these different perceptions would fit into the “local gimmick” idea.
Personally, I regard local the Town of Wolfville and with my chosen definition I should not buy produce at the Market, for most of the vendors come from outside Wolfville’s boundaries. Some of the offered products come from far away as well (e.g. coffee, tea etc.). But this almost foolish labeling BUY LOCAL and my definition would not stop me from buying my bread every Saturday morning from a German bakery stand, originated in Annapolis Royal.

Maybe, the Market offers fresher produce than available at the local food store. Maybe, it offers healthier produce stemming from organic farming (available at the local food store as well). Here you have to know that every produce grower can call the harvest organic if he will not have polluted the soil with chemicals during the last four years. But we all know that the provided chemicals to the soil will not have disappeared entirely during a four-year period of abstaining from spraying chemicals. Anyhow, it is for sure beneficial to have the Market every Saturday as a stage and focal point for people to meet and talk with each other.

Just for the record, there are additional Farmers’ Markets at different weekdays located close to Wolfville as well.

What is the food-buying reality in Wolfville?

After Foodland became closed there was no competition any longer to the only SaveEasy store located in Wolfville. Everybody knows that this Wolfville franchise outlet of Loblaws sells its merchandise with a normally much higher pricing structure than the other subsidiary of Loblaws, the Atlantic Superstore in New Minas.

I had to apologize last year to the owner of the Wolfville franchise outlet regarding the sometimes drastic price differences for the very same brand product. The prices are not decided by the owner but are superimposed by the franchise provider.

The reality may read like this:
To buy your basic food products for a week, drive to the Atlantic Superstore in New Minas and you may save at least the fuel expenses for the use of your car plus the expenses for a large coffee plus a muffin at Tim Horton’s plus some change in your wallet!

This means to elderly residents of Wolfville on a fixed retirement income and without a car and to students without a vehicle either that they get punished and “screwed” (sorry my language) while shopping locally in Wolfville. Otherwise they would have to add quite some time and $7 bus fare to New Minas and back to their shopping expenses.

To make this dilemma known, I had spoken to a Town’s Councillor last year. I had suggested to him that the Town should provide me with a van for a couple of hours about 3 times a week. Through ads in The Grapevine I then would ask needy residents without a car to provide me with their shopping lists which I would fill in at the Atlantic Superstore and/or Sobeys and deliver the merchandise back to their homes. I had planned to do this on my own time and free of charge. The needy resident would have to pay the lower New Minas price only and maybe a little fuel surcharge.

My idea behind it was that doing this for a certain time would force the franchise provider to lower the prices at the SaveEasy outlet in Wolfville to meet Atlantic Superstore levels.

The Chronicle Herald reported on its front page on February 10, 2009 that “inside this province, grocery shoppers in Wolfville and Halifax spent $30 more on the same list of items than a person in Sydney”. Maybe, in Sydney there is an Atlantic Superstore and no SaveEasy.

And paying more for groceries might mean as well that there is not enough money for buying healthier food or for living a healthier lifestyle.

The Councillor did not seem to feel very enthusiastic about my idea. If Mayor Stead would like to polish his public appearance - as he normally tries to - maybe, he can come up with ideas for a solution. That’s what he was elected for even by a minority of voters only.

In addition I had spoken to the assistant manager at the Atlantic Superstore in New Minas. He was fully aware that the pricing structures in all SaveEasy outlets in the province are much higher for the very same products than in Superstore outlets. I had then suggested changing the name in Wolfville from SaveEasy to Atlantic Superstore to maybe solve the problem of drastic price differences. I am still waiting for a promised response.

If I expand my definition of buying local from Wolfville just to New Minas the situation becomes even worse.

I read somewhere in the papers that almost 90% of the merchandise at Walmart gets imported from China.

And even a lot of products at our SaveEasy and Atlantic Superstore stem from China and other Far East countries. Try to find there some packaged and frozen salmon pieces that are not imported from China. You may not succeed.

And the cheap imports from the China do kill jobs - especially in the manufacturing industry - in the West and over here and make a communist country superrich while our economy is in shambles.

Internationally, the recent Buy American campaign shows very lately tried protectionism in the U.S.. With more than 80% of our exports oriented to the U.S., Canada may have to start a very serious thinking process fast on how to secure its economic future.

Coming back to the BUY LOCAL CHALLENGE 2009, inspired and sponsored by the Wolfville Farmers’ Market, the question here is: What do we have to protect with the BUY LOCAL CHALLENGE in Wolfville? Is it just a regular income of some 60 small business people?

Fact is, that you cannot buy all your basic groceries at the Market and will have to shop somewhere else as well.

And why would you want to limit yourself and commit yourself to local produce while availability, price and quality of comparable produce from outside of your “local definition area” might trigger your taste butts as well? Wouldn’t some cognitive dissonances create some unnecessary guilt feelings? And don’t you sometimes prefer oranges over apples?
I call this idea unclear in its intention, nebulously defined and stupid and doubt very much that this CHALLENGE will reduce Wolfville’s carbon footprint even a little bit.

Think for yourself!

Lutz E. Becker / February 12, 2009

Comments:

dN said...

this is simply poorly written. too many points that don't support your 'gimmick theory'. perhaps a little more explanation of some things instead of expecting us to know all the details. less bitching without supporting information. i can not agree, or disagree, with any of this post as you've not properly stated an argument. it's simply an emotional rant, which is fine, but ineffective. this will not move anyone to act, but will simply confuse the emotions.
May 26, 2009 6:20 AM

F1. THE "IDIOTIC" COURT CASE: TOWN OF WOLFVILLE VERSUS LUTZ E. BECKER

2009-08-02T06:11:00.000-07:00

F1.:

The Town lost its case entirely and the honourable judge seemed to have a problem to understand why such a case made it to his Court chambers and “steal” his valuable time. …..” (in progress)