|
|
We get letters and feedback through emails and from the
Canaan Connexion Message Centre (CCMC)
(Note: The opinions registered here or those of the writers
and do not reflect those of the Canaan Connexion.)
|
Félio's political doctrine clearly revealed during the debate on the
price of bus passes
Reader applauds new Chamber of Commerce, expresses concerns of possible
City intervention
C-R Mayor questioned on his objections surrounding the Question Period
Fernand Dumaine: Let's not dilute our (Christmas) traditions lest we offend immigrants
Clarence-Rockland City Council’s Report Card - June 2011
Dr. Felio: "He and his wife are famous"
Patrick Meikle's views on Question Period during the 11 April Council Meeting
A flagrant lack of transparency
Diane Choinière wants to hire Stéphane
Lalonde
Radio Canada seems to allege Mayor Guiboard has lied
Municipal Council meeting of January 10, 2011
The agreement is dead for now
The so called "blank cheque agreement is
not dead yet
Response to Patrick's Blog on "Gutter Press"
City of Clarence-Rockland honours long-time volunteer firefighter Gilbert Labelle
Local Tim Hortons Restaurants serious about
environment
Baseline Road should be called BADline Road!!
Keep up the good work
|
|
If you would like to join in on the debate, you can leave your comments
on our:
Canaan Connexion Message Centre (CCMC)
Or send an emaill to:
|
|
| Félio's political doctrine clearly
revealed during the debate on the price of bus passes |
In January (2012) the Clarence-Rockland municipal council debated the cost-sharing formula  applicable to the operation
of the Clarence-Rockland bus service. The debate centered on the portion of that service financed by the city (therefore
paid by all Clarence-Rockland taxepayers) and the one financed by users of that service through purchase of a bus
pass. During that debate, in expressing his views on that matter councillor Félio clearly revealed what
in my opinion is a core feature of his political doctrine: the notion that users of non-essential municipal services
ought to pay entirely for those services.
He explained in French his logic as follows (my translation): "For water and sewage, when a new pipe is provided
in an area, users are forced to connect to it at their own expense. If we do that for a service as essential as
water, I would have difficulty in not adopting the same vision for public transportation".
Therefore, if I properly understand Félio, the city should not subdize in any way the cost of the public
bus service operating out of Clarence-Rockland. He favoured going from subsidizing 22 per cent of those costs as
adopted last year, to 0 per cent this year, leaving users to pay the total cost of that service. There is no need
to do PhD level mathematics to conclude that such a formula would render the price of the bus pass unaffordable
for many users and more expensive than simply taking one's car. I bet that would expose the bus service to the
risk of coming to a grinding halt, due to lack of users. Already users who must finance some 78 per cent of the
bus service cost will see an increase this year of 13 per cent to the price of the bus pass, going from $216 to
$245 a month. Félio's doctrine favored eliminating the 22 per cent subsidy by the city, therefore transferring
that amount as an additional increase to the price of the bus pass in order to completely fund the operation of
the bus service.
Félio's concept claiming that users should pay the complete costs of non-essential services provided by
the city logically implies in my view that the city should, for example, in no way finance the operation of its
public libraries, and that those costs should be entirely and uniquely funded by users of that service. Based on
Félio's political doctrine, all other non-essential services would need to be funded the same way.
By way of information, I'm told that the city of Ottawa subsidizes 40 per cent of the costs of its bus service.
I can hear users of its bus service say: "Thank goodness Félio is not a municipal councillor over there!".
Frankly, in my opinion occasionally Félio has a tendency to publicly showcase a political judgment which
seems to me indirectly proportinal to his PhD IQ. I beleive his doctrine requiring users should pay all costs of
non-essential municipal services would simply be a retrograde step in the development of a fair and just community
committed to enhancing the quality of life and standard of living for one and all; it would simply codemn many
of those services to be eliminated in my view. Is that what the Clarence-Rockland taxepayers want? I really do
not think so.
André Branchaud
Rockland
NOTE: In a related item, Le Droit's Eastern Ontario reporter Samuel Blais-Gauthier wrote a story which appeared
on Tuesday, January 24, 2012: CR Transpo passes will cost $29 more per month. you will
find it here.
Back to top |
| Reader applauds new Chamber of Commerce,
expresses concerns of possible City intervention |
|
(Thursday, January 19, 2012) An interesing report by Denis Babin on the Radio-Canada Ottawa radio station
this morning profiled the official opening of the Clarence-Rockland Chamber of Commerce.
He revealed that it now has 75 members and is aiming to:
- Have 150 members.
- Model its operations on the Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, which apparently is financially on a solid footing,
with $100,000 in financial assets.
- To be financially self-sufficient.
I applaud the creation of the Clarence-rockland Chamber
of Commerce. Although it has asked for financial support to the municipal council, request agreed to in principle
by mayor Guibord, its objective to eventually be financially self-sufficient is in my view crucial.
In my opinion, the saga of the savage treatment meated out to Jacques Tauillefer and Tucker House last spring
by Mayor Guibord and Councillor Choinière clearly shows that it is highly desirable, if not essential, that
the Chamber of Commerce not be in any way financially indebted to the partisan political whims of the municipal
council members as soon as possible. In my view its credibility depends on that.
I beleive that it needs to operate, and be perceived to operate, in a manner which in no way projects it as
a puppet of the municipal council through the Clarence-Rockland taxe-payer funded financial strings manipulated
by the mayor and municipal councillors.
André Branchaud
Rockland
Back to top
|
| C-R Mayor questioned on his objections surrounding
the Question Period |
During the council meeting of Monday, January 16, 2012, the mayor asked that subjects of questionsduring question period
be limited to those which are part of this municipal council's meeting agenda, without explaining why it ought
to be so. To the best of my recollection, this is the third or fourth time he has made that request over the past
year. I was releived to hear councillor Bernard Payer object to that demand, and I would have appreciated hearing
other councillors express the same attitude. Should their silence be interpreted as support for the mayor's demand?
Be as it may, my question requested Mayor Guibord account for the progress made during the past year following
a decision last winter by council to update the applicable rules governing question period. I explained to Guibord
that so far as I knew, nothing had been presented to council since then. I added that since that time however,
in my eyes he seemed to have attempted to unilaterally apply new arbitrary rules, such as the need to limit questions
to those items which are included in a meeting's agenda.
In answering my question, the mayor seemed to have deftly skated around the issue, primarily explaining that over
the past year council had been quite busy and worked very hard at other issues, adding that the subject of updated
rules for question period would eventually be dealt with. Never one to miss an opportunity to add his two cents
worth (useful or not) in defence of Guibord, councillor Guy Félio added that one factor explaining the delay
in progressing this initiative was the abscence on sick leave of the City Clerk.
Having followed quite closely last year's debates on city council about question period , I estimate that development
of an update to the rules governing question period for consideration by the council represents about two hours
of staff work, at most. The changes to those rules currently in place identified during council debates last year
during their public meetings are relatively few, simple and pretty uncrontroversial, such as limiting the time
accorded to each questionner to five minutes. Also, to the best of my memory, the main councillor responsible to
coordinate this question period rules update is André Henrie. I noted that when I raised this subject during
Monday's council meeting, he seemed ill at ease and remained very silent.
However I am grateful to Mayor Guibord for having allowed me to express my views on the subject of question period,
despite the fact my intervention was a short speech. I did stress that in my view, the municipal council, and he
in particiular as mayor, had a moral responsability to publicly account for his and the city's policies and decisions.
I feel this obligation is partly exercised by honestly and openly answering questions by the citizens of Clarence-Rockland
about municipal affairs during the council meeting question period, without imposing any arbitrary constraint limiting
questions to only those included in a council meeting's agenda. In my opinion, to do otherwise is undemocratic,
lacks transparency and is an affront to public accountability.
André Branchaud
Rockland
Back to top |
| Fernand Dumaine - Let's not dilute our (Christmas)
traditions lest we offend immigrants |
|
(Saturday, December 17, 2011 - as it appeared in the Ottawa Citizen)
Some people claim that we must no longer reserve a space for our Christmas tree in our public places, lest we offend
immigrants.
Some claim that to be "inclusive" we must include all sorts of other customs from other countries when
celebrating one of our major festivities, Christmas, lest immigrants feel left out.
Make no mistake, it's not by diluting our own traditions that we will gain an iota of respect from newcomers. When
a person is accepted in our country, he should know that as a new Canadian he must liken to - meaning accept -
our customs, traditions, rules, laws and regulations. Likewise, if I immigrate to a foreign country, I expect the
same requirement from my new homeland; that's fair. Also, newcomers are free to celebrate their own traditions.
Is it possible that some Canadians, for various reasons, don't like some of our traditions, so they hide behind
immigrants, with their "inclusiveness," to dilute our traditions... Just Asking?
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Fernand Dumaine, Rockland
 See related story in Ottawa Sun... Here...
Back to top
|
Clarence-Rockland City Council’s Report
Card - June 2011
(Jean Yves Pigeon) |
After six months at the helm of our City, town council must undergo its first rating. As the saying goes, “The
runner must be given a fair chance”. I am quite willing to do so, except that our runner (town council) is now
way back of the pack.
To be fair, let’s exclude the electoral campaign, although several inaccuracies, half truths, outlandish promises
and extended curriculums were made. Even on election day some quirks were observed. However the new council was
not yet operational and these facts cannot be included in this evaluation. Let’s agree that that the highest rating
will be A+ and the lowest D-.
Swearing in of the elected members:
All governing bodies, that have a profound respect for their beliefs, perform their highest ceremonies at their
venues. Christians at their church, Jews at their synagogue, Muslims at their mosque, Members of Parliament on
Parliament Hill or Rideau Hall, and the municipal council at City Hall. Mayor Guibord decided to hold that formal
ceremony at the Clarence Creek Arena Hall with paying bar, ignoring completely the director general’s recommendations.
Tradition, protocol and decorum appears to be missing from the mayor’s handbook. Rating C-.
Communications with City Hall employees:
It's an open secret that for several years now, the cloth burns between Marcel Guibord and the Director General
Daniel Gatien. Mayor Guibord’s main electoral promise was to repeal By-law 2010-74, concerning the law suit against
the Musketeer Journal and Stephan J. Lalonde, his ex(?) Business partner. That was the first sign that he preferred
his friends to the municipal employees.
The way he treated Daniel Gatien at televised public meetings was simply despicable and unworthy of a man of his
importance in our community. Another proof of his total lack of respect towards employees. On other occasions some
newly elected officials have unequivocally refused to consider recommendations of the Director General and department
heads. One counselor has even accused a department manager of lying during a televised town hall meeting. Rating
D-.
Budget:
Not accepting any help or advice from the director general and departmental heads, the task of preparing and
submitting a budget (especially their first one ever) was a colossal exercise to achieve. It would appear that
the newly elected expected a larger revenue base to enable them to fulfill their electoral promises. The famous
revenue base that was so often wrongly criticized and very frequently labelled as being mismanaged. Left to themselves,
the new administration could do no better than impose a historical budget increase of close to 10 per cent, plus
the property assessment of approximately 4.5 per cent. Not too promising for what mayor Guibord once boasted as
the best council of all time, that this community had ever elected, Rating D-.
Transparency:
Since taking office, during the question period, when asked what their position is respecting the situation
with Daniel Gatien, the answer is always the same, “We are negotiating with Mr. Gatien.” Yet during the last week
we learn that a separation package was offered to get rid of him. Enquiring on their perception of their community
for the future, the answer is always the same, “The budget is not yet approved, so we can’t answer to that.” Yet
with the budget approved recently, and although mayor Guibord did mention that his vision is plentiful, no word
yet what it entails, except for the separation package for Mr. Gatien. Threats of abolishing question period, dictates
which questions can be asked and when certain topics are too embarrassing, in camera meetings are called. Rating
D-.
You will have to agree with me that this report card is far from acceptable from a council, that the mayor once
qualified as the best elected council of all times. Woman and gentlemen you will have to increase your brain activity
to correct this state of affairs. To come down to the level of normal citizens and forget close friends and self
interest, would be a good start. At the next evaluation, you had better correct your decision making and administration
to the highest possible level, or else, you will loose whatever credibility you have left.
Jean Yves Pigeon
A concerned citizen.
Back to top |
Dr.Félio: "He and his wife are famous
check this out"
(Jim) |
(April 13, 2011) Jim has been doing a little Internet surfing. He came up with this reference which includes our
Ward 5 Councillor and spouse: "The National Press Club of Canada Foundation announces its new Board of Directors".
Jim said: Dr. Felio: He and his wife are famous check this out:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2009/05/c7582.html
OTTAWA, April 5 /CNW Telbec/ - At its Annual General Meeting held at the Sheraton Hotel in Ottawa on April 4th,
the National Press Club of Canada Foundation (NPCCF) members were introduced to the new Board.
Under Executive: Dr. Guy Félio - President
Under Directors: Roxanne Brousseau-Félio - Chair, Diplomatic and Multicultural Committee
Biographical details of the Executive and Directors are attached. Read more...
(Comment: Actually, this is old news (2009). The National Press Club folded
for a lack of funds. The National Press Club of Canada Foundation was an attempt to keep the spirit of the old
organization going. As I understand, Guy was the last official president. -Ed.)
Back to top |
Patrick Meikle's views on Question Period
during the 11 April Council Meeting
(Branchaud) |
Posted by André Branchaud on April 12, 2011, 3:56 pm
I take significant exception to Patrick Meikle's description of question period during the municipal council meeting
of 11 April 2011. His words are, as written elsewhere on the Canaan Connexion site: "However there were still
a couple of individuals who used the Question Period to bring up old saws about the link between the Mayor and
certain council members, with Stéphane Lalonde. From the reaction of the audience, there is still a split
within the citizenry with many on the left feeling the mayor is not answering the questions."
Patrtick further links his article to the followintg definition of "old saws": "Banality, bromide,
chestnut, cliche, commonplace, commonplace expression, corn, familiar tune, hackneyed saying, lieu commun, locus
communis, old joke, old song, old story, platitude, prosaicism, prosaism, prose, reiteration, retold story, stereotyped
saying, trite saying, triticism, twice-told tale."
The issue adressed by the two individuals fails to meet in my eyes the definition of "old saws" used
Patrick. It may be an old issue, in the sense that it has been of concern to a number of Clarence-Rockland citizens
since the formation of the current council members. However it is far from being a banal issue; it is far from
being a platitude to those who raise it, no matter how many times. And I reckon it will remain of significant concern
until it is perceived by those who care a great deal about it as been satisfactorily adressed by Guibord. So far
he has dismally failed to do so.
The issue adressed at question period by the two individuals referred to by Patrick goes right to the heart of
Guibord's continued unwillingness or incapability to honor his often repeated commitments during the election campaing
last fall to improve transparency of municipal council affairs.
Specifically it has to do with his unwillingness or incapacity to publicly address in a fortright manner the suspected
influence that lawer Stéphane Lalonde has directly exerted and continues to directly exert on the mayor
and his principal acolytes Choinière and Félio with respect to important municipal council issues;
examples include Stéphane Lalonde's highly suspected direct involvement in the writing of the By-Law aimed
at abolishing the indemnisation agreement between the city and Daniel Gatien (for which Lalonde has an indirect
financial interest), or the writing of a proposal presented by Choinière aimed at recuperating from Richard
Lalonde the costs of three wrings donated to former councillors.
This issue which Patrick disparagingly qualifies as old saw has to do with exposing Guibord and his acolytes Chpoinière
and Félio as instruments of vengeance by Stéphane Lalonde. The evidence that this is going on, although
circumstancial, is nevertheless plentiful in my view.
Back to top |
A flagrant lack of transparency
(Branchaud) |
Posted by André Branchaud on April 5, 2011, 3:24 pm
During the question period at last night's (Monday, 4 April 2011) municipal council meeting the following question
was asked to the following council members: Campeau, Choinière, Guibord and Félio:
"Either as part of a group, or individually, since your swearing-in as a member of the municipal council have
you received any help from lawyer Stéphane J. Lalonde in writing any document concerning the municipal affairs
of Clarence-Rockland?"
In my view, that brief question was quite clear and precise. A brief answer equally clear and equally precise would
have been expressed as a simple "yes" or "no"; nothing more and nothing less was requested.
However no member of council to whom the question was adressed chose to answer that way. Except for Campeau which
to me seemed to more or less deny receiving such help, all others simply provided a reply that completely avoided
stating yes or a no to receiving any help from lawer Stéphane Lalonde in writing documents concerning Clarence-Rockland
municipal affairs.
Those members of council, specially Guibord and Félio, committted themselves during last autumn's election
campaign to improving transparency in the conduct of municipal affairs. It was a cornerstone commitment.
What then has motivated the mayor and the other councillors to refuse to clearly answer the question? Why have
they answered by employing a technique which simply avoided to admit whether or not they had received help from
Stéphane Lalonde in the writing of documents? Why keep this information in hiding? Why is it a secret? Why
this flagrant lack of transparency contrary to their election commitments?
By grouping together the answers provided with an analysis of certain documents adopted by this municipal council,
I have concluded that Stéphane Lalonde has probably played a role in writing a number of documents concerning
municipal affairs under this council. For example, by its content and tone (as illustrated in his many writings
in the former rag called The Musqueters' Journal) I see the pen of Stéphane Lalonde in the document adopted
last December by council aimed at abolishing the indemnisation agreement between the city and Daniel Gatien. That
document indirectly serves the financial interest of Stéphane Lalonde.
Back to top |
Diane Choinière wants
to hire Stéphane Lalonde
(Branchaud/Riopel/Félio/Branchaud) |
Posted by André Branchaud on February 20, 2011
In a rather stunning article in Le Droit on 18 Febuary, journalist Jean-François Dugas writes that councillor
Dianne Choinière is recommnending that Stéphane Lalonde be appointed as a legal advisor to the city
of Clarence-Rockland.
The article notes that a company called Chamberland Crossing, for which Lalonde is a director and president, is
currently under legal proceedings brought by the city of Clarence-Rockland. Moreover, I've been told by a reliable
source that he turn has counter-sued the city on the same matter.
In my opinion, any reasonable person aware of the rules of the Canadian Bar Association's Code of Conduct, and
The Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct would conclude that such an appontment exposes Lalonde
to a real or apparent conflict of interest.
More than that, simple common sense dictates that current city legal actions actions against him and in turn any
of his against the city, obviously render him unsuitable to act as the city's legal advisor. There's really no
need to have a debate here around the relevance of the applicable formal rules. The optics of such an appointment
are patently unaccepatable in my view.
Quite aside from the issue of conflict of interest, in my opinion other factors render Lalonde unsuitable for that
appointment. My description in previous comments in this site, about Lalonde's dishonorable performance as the
editor of the (now defunct) paper called The Musqueteers, render him totally unsuitable from a personal qualities
perspective in my opinion.
By recommending such an appointment, if only in full knowledge of current legal proceedings associated with Lalonde,
Choinière would demonstate a profound lack of judgment, one which in my view brings into question her suitability
as a councillor.
Posted by Carmelle Gareau on February 21, 2011
in reply to "DIANE CHOINIÈRE WANTS TO HIRE STÉPHANE LALONDE"
J'ai confiance que Madame Diane Choinière, conseillère du quartier 8, a vérifié toutes
les lois et que sa proposition d'embaucher Maître Stéphane Lalonde à titre d'aviseur légal
pour notre Corporation de la Cité de Clarence-Rockland, Ontario est sérieuse, vérifiée
et approfondie et qu'aucune obstacle perturbera le respect entre tous et chacun.
Back to top |
Radio Canada seems to allege Mayor Guiboard
has lied
(Branchaud) |
Posted by André Branchaud on February 18, 2011
Wow, now even Radio Canada TV is getting interested in mayor Guibord!
 Look
at this link covering its TV newscast on 16 Febuary which, in my opinion, clearly implies the mayor has lied at
Monday's, 14 Febuary, municipal council meeting when he denied receiving legal advice prior to securing the municipal
council vote abolishing its indemnification agreement with Daniel Gatien. Click
here to view.
(Note: when you visit the CBC RadioCanada site, you will have to "play"
the video which is in the French language, and wait for the Clarence-Rockland item, which comes after a couple
of other news stories. When you see the picture at right, you will know that you are on the right story.)
To support its allegation in this broadcast, Radio Canada contrasts a quote from Guibord denying he received legal
advice with the content of a confidential email shown and reported as originating from a lawer named Marc Labrosse;
Radio Canada claims that email shows the opposite of what Guibord says. Clearly Guibord is portayed by Radio Canada
as lying in my view.
I have obtained a copy of that email from a municipal councillor which assures me it is now in the public domain.
After carefully reviewing it, I'm of the view that Radio Canada's story seems bang on.
As Yogi Berra is quoted as saying: "It ain't over till its over", and this is not over I reckon.
Watch and shoot!
Back to top |
Municipal Council meeting of January
10, 2011
(Branchaud/Riopel/Félio/Branchaud) |
Posted by André Branchaud on January 14, 2011, on the CCMC:
I looked at Monday's (10 January) municipal council meeting broadcast on Channel 22. Here are a few comments related
to this three hours long talking marathon.
Overall, that meeting, again, clearly portrayed to me a council composed of two distinct ideological camps.
The first camp is a close triumvirate comprising its leader mayor Guibord and councillors Choinière and
Félio. Not only do they project ideoligical closeness and a shared agenda (some of which is open and some
of which, I suspect, is still hidden), they even sit beside each other! That group can be viewed as the council's
close knit inner circle.
The other councillors comprise the other camp, with no obvious leader at the moment. These councillors are caracterized
by their ability to independantly voice their views. At various times during the meeting each clearly intervened
in their own way projecting their intent to voice their personnal views and their refusal to be pushed around by
the mayor's triumvirate, specially by Choinière and Félio. That group contains a sub-group: these
are councillors strongly defending the previous council's positive record of accomplishments and openly resenting
what they, rightly in my view, percieve is the inner circle's constantly petty, malicious and vengeful interventions
aimed at denigrating or attacking the previous council's record and reputation. That sub-group consits of councillors
Thivierge, Desjardins and Serrurier. The other members of that second camp, Campeau, Henrie and Payer made it clear
by their occasionnally useful and constructive comments, and questions that they are quite willing and able to
keep the inner circle honest, supporting it or opposing it when, in their judgment, they feel justified to do so.
This camp was totally responsible to shoot down Félio's resolution aimed at appointing himself deputy mayor
for the next year. It was in my view an obvious and ill-presented attempt by Félio at a power grab which,
if successful, would have implicitely annnointed him the official primus inter-pares(first among equals) councellor.
The majority of his peers would have nothing to do with that. That camp was also responsible, with advice from
city administrator Daniel Gatien, for putting away Chénier's proposal to recover from former mayor Richard
Lalonde roughly $1,400 for innapropriately, she claimed, authorizing the purchase of two (or was it three) rings
for former councillors.
Two interventions by mayor Guibord made during e that meeting deserve to be singled out in my view.
The first deals with Guibord's response to Payer's request that he clarify his claim that at a prior meeting he(Guibord)
seeked legal advice prior to the council vote to abolish the agreement with the city administrator Gatien. To be
sure, Guibord's performance on that one was another blow to his credibility in my eyes. At first he outright denied
having seeked advice from a lawer, and he denied it more than once. But at Payer's repeated insistance that he
had said he seeked legal advice, Guibord finally agreed that he sought and received a lawer's suggestions, claiming
that it did not constitute legal advice because the city did not have to pay for it! Playing with words as Guibord
did made a circus out of his performance on that issue. Also he did not reveal who that lawer was, until pressed
to name him later during the open question period by the Cannaan Connexion journalist Pat Meikle. All that scenario
allowed Guibord to make a mockery of his publicly declared commitment to provide more transparency to the city's
business.
The second item worthy of note in Guibord's interventions during that council meeting was his declaration that
during the election campaign last October, a common issue people often raised with him at that time was the need
to improve transparency of city business. I attended the all-candidates meeting held at Bourget during the election
campaign. I listened carefully to all the candidates speeches and their answers to questions. Frankly, to the best
of my memory, I simply do not recall any candidate, other than Guibord, insisting that there was an urgent and
compelling need to improve the transparency of city business. To this day, I still ask myself who exactly were
all those people who at that time were apparently concerned about that issue, except Guibord and his business partner
at the time lawer Stéphane Lalonde and his crew at the "gutter" paper The Musqueteers Journal.
To be sure, supporting government transparency is like motherhood and sliced bread; everybody is for that! However
I feel that Guibord simply made that (non) issue up during the election campaign and is still attempting to gain
political milage out of it. I see nothing in Clarence-Rockland's business conduct clearly showing a significantly
faulty transparency policy that is in urgent need for major improvement, repair or overhaul. Yet, to be sure, like
anything else, I suppose it perhaps can and should be improved; therefore I expect Guibord will continue to publicly
raise that issue to sustain his political capital. But he's really playing games with that one as far as I'm concerned.
This meeting shows signs that the inner circle club is continuing to take steps to marginalize city administrator
Daniel Gatien in the day to day operations of the city. At a recent meeting, the council decided to completely
abolish Gatien's authority to sign procurement cheques. At this meeting, council agreed to create three or four
(I've lost count) committtees dealing with various aspects of city operations. These committees comprise a number
of councillors with Gatien as a non-voting member in all of them. As I understand it, these committees will be
dealing directly with their respective responsible city manager(all subordinates to Gatien), providing policy direction
and management oversight. This means that those managers will now become directly responsible and accountable to
their respective committees, and no longer responsible to the city administrator for their areas of responsability.
City council may not have fired Gatien yet, but its new committee structure seems to largely make him irrelevant
in practice where it really matters.
So, the two camps created at the last municipal election is very much a reality, more and more firmly entrenched
as time goes on. Where will they lead Clarence-Rockland? I really do not know right now, but I'm keeping a close
eye on them.
Posted by Sylvie Riopel on January 17, 2011,
in reply to "MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING OF 10 JANUARY 2011"
Sorry, Mr. Branchaud but I also was a proponent of transparency. Are you sure you were at the all-candidates meeting
in Bourget? Many running for council were also proponents of transparency.
Why? In my case, it was because I felt that the old council had created a major hole in our municipal bank account
with the 'blank check' resolution and that they had done so as quietly as possible. I believe that they (the old
council) would have preferred this 'blank check' not become an election issue but I'm glad it did. It allowed the
residents of Clarence-Rockland to support a majority of candidates that openly stood against that agreement and
that have now revoked it. Congrats to them!
Posted by Guy Felio on January 17, 2011,
in reply to "MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING OF 10 JANUARY 2011"
Tansparency and accountability: see Councillor Felio's electoral platform at http://www.rocklandinfrastructure.ca/Platrform_E.html
, Item 2.
Committees: see example of City of Ottawa Committees at Committees: see example of City of Ottawa Committees at
http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/mayor_council/standing_committees/transportation/index_en.html.html
Posted by André Branchaud on January 17, 2011
in reply to "Re: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING OF 10 JANUARY 2011"
96.20.131.198
The municipal council of the city of Ottawa comprises 24 members (the mayor and 23 councillors), serving a population
of 870,250. Intuitively, it therefore seems to me to make sense for that city council to operate its six Standing
Committees (made up solely of councillors and the mayor as ex-officio in all but one of them). To do otherwise
in my view Ottawa's council operations would likely become unwieldy and bogged down, unable to effectively reach
sound, well developped and thought out decisions in an efficient and timely manner.
The city of Clarence-Rockland has nine members (the mayor and eight councillors) serving a population of roughly
23,000. The business case for creating at the last council meeting the three or four committees is unclear at best
in my view. However, to be sure, it certainly seems to satisfy some councillors' apparent objective to render the
city administrator irrelevant.
OK, so Félio says he was another voice who claimed during the election campaign there is a need to improve
transparency in the city's business. Had he not appeared to have bought without question all of editor Stéphane
Lalonde's self-serving and vindictive diatribes in the "gutter press" Three Musqueteer's, lock, stock
and barrel served relentlessly for the two years preceeding the municipal election last fall, Félio's position
on that issue might be more credible in my eyes.
Improve transparency he says? Well, had Félio given a clear, comprehensive and compelling case supporting
the need for the council committees and the need to have himself appointed deputy mayor, perhaps I would have more
confidence in his intentions and motives about this issue. He failed to do so in my view.
Back to top |
The agreement is dead - for now
(Branchaud) |
Posted by André Branchaud on December 21, 2010, on the CCMC:
Below is an article from Vision hot of the press on its Web site concerning the abolishment of the so-called blank
cheque agreement last evening. Sounds like its a done deal, for now.
(http://www.editionap.ca/newspaper/index.jsp?id=8)
This whole scenario leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Why was Serrurier absent for this vote? Known to oppose abolishment
of the agreement(at last week's council meeting), his abscence this time assured adoption of the resolution to
abolish the agreement; this is because, as previously reported, of those present it was well known that at least
two thirds of them would vote in favour, representing the perceived minimum legally required to carry.
This issue is far from over in my view. For every action there is a reaction; this famous Newtonian fundamental
law of physics is also applicable in human interactions.
Daniel Gatien is now on public record of saying he has been publicly humiliated by that vote. He's on public record
of saying he is far from been satisfied that the proper procedure has been followed by council and that he will
seek legal advice. He's on public record of saying he will persue his legal action against Stéphane Lalonde
and others associated with the Les Mousquetaires paper.
I expect this decision has irrevocally poisoned the professional relationship between the City council, particularly
mayor Guibord, and the city administrator Daniel Gatien. The resulting adverse effects likely puts at risk the
operational effectiveness and efficiency of the City's administration, business and services. It may even put Daniel
Gatien in an untenable position, one where he or City council will eventually conclude he is no longer able to
fully and enthusiastically discharge his responsibilities with unquestioned dedication and loyalty to City council.
And that ill-serves the citizens of Clarence-Rockland. By this vote, this Council withdrew its support for Daniel
Gatien on an issue where he felt personnally wronged by a citizen about the conduct of City affairs. How can Council
now realistically expect to receive from him heartfelt full support?
Was there an alternative to abolishing the agreement, other than keeping it as is? I beleive Council could have
and should have looked hard for that, arbritration been possibly one example of potential alternatives.
Attempting to find an alternative would have had the benifit of appearing to address and balance Council concerns
about the current agreement with its moral obligation to support one of its employees who feels seriously harmed
in the conduct of City affairs. The Council appears to have made no attempt to do so.
In my view, by avoiding to consider alternatives, Council has shown a lack of judgment and deserves severe criticism.
This council includes a MBA and a PhD. The brains are there, but on this issue, as I see it the mature wisdom councillors
are paid by city taxepayers to apply was absent.
It's unclear to me at this time where or how all of this is going to end. I'm pretty sure though that it's not
over yet.
The vote to abolish the agreement in my view has not taken that issue off Guibord's table once and for all. I expect
more to come, some of it unexpected, some of it unanticipated and some of it undesired by Council. Has Council
presumebly solved one issue by unwittingly creating a more difficult and unpleasant one detrimental to the interests
of taxepayers it is paid to serve?
Back to top |
The so called "blank cheque
agreement is not dead yet
(Branchaud/Félio) |
This item was posted by André Branchaud on December 20, 2010,
on the CCMC:
Marcel Guibord clearly, firmly and categorically committed during the municipal election candidates' meeting at
Bourget last October to abolish the so-called blank cheque agreement between the City of Clarence-Rockland and
the city administrator Daniel Gatien. He pledged at that time to make this his first priority as mayor. An attempt
to abolish that agreement was still-born during last week's municipal council meeting.
During last Monday's council meeting, by a vote of 5 for and 4 against, Council voted to abolish the agreement.
In an article titled "L'entente d'indemnisation du dg divise le Conseil", the Vision newspaper of 16
December writes that, following their vote, a City official advised council members that "pour modifier une
résolution adoptée par un précédent Conseil, une majorité des deux tiers des
voix étaient nécessaires" (that a two third majority was required to abolish a resolution adopted
by a previous council). Therefore one vote was missing to abolish the agreement. The Vision further reports that
"Les membres, dans la confusion, ont convenu de revenir avec le dossier ultérieurement". (Members
in their confusion decided to revisit that issue in the future.)
Obviously, it would appear that the councillor who presented that motion and those who supported it were blindsided
by the revelation of the legal requirement to have at least two thirds members support it. That, in my view, should
have and could have been known to them before tabling that motion at the council meeting. Moreover an informal
check of the extent of support among councillors by proposal's sponsor done before that meeting would have likely
revealed it had virtually no chance of been adopted, thus saving him and those who supported it the public embarrassement
of looking ill-prepared and ill-informed.
Curiously the agreement at issue is no longer on Les Mousquetaires Web site. That paper(or Gutter press as the
Cannan Connection colourfully calls it), its editor Stéphane Lalonde and others associated with that paper
are at issue in that agreement. It was there a few weeks ago and I took time to carefully read and study it. Why
has it been removed? In my view Stéphane Lalonde in some editions of Les Mousquetaires negatively misinformed
and disinformed regarding the meaning and application of that agreement. Obviously as a principal target of the
legal proceedings covered by that agreement, it was in his self-interest to do so. Sounds to me there are some
municipal councillors, including mayor Guibord who is a friend of Stéphane Lalonde, who is a relatively
recent former business partner of his, and who has admitted using his legal services from time to time, have bought
Stéphane's Lalonde's version of the meaning of what some call the blank cheque agreement, lock stock and
barrel.
Guibord and the councillor who presented the motion to abolish the agreement last Monday at a public Council meeting
clearly have not properly done their homework before it was tabled. I therefore have no reason to beleive that
they and those who supported its abolishment have done the homework needed to gain a credible and thorough knowledge
of its content and background, with advice from a credible, fair, independant, and unbiased advisor in the matter.
They wasted precious time in ineffectively dealing with that issue at Council and that translates in wasting Clarence-Rockland
taxepayer funded resources. That ill-serves its citizens. To Guibord and those councillors supporting abolishment
of the agreement I say: get a grip folks, and do your homework! You are paid big bucks from the city taxepayers
to do so.
This item was posted by Guy Félio on December 29, 2010
in reply to "THE SO-CALLED BLANK CHECK AGREEMENT IS NOT DEAD YET"
Correction: City staff made an error (not corrected by the City’s Director General at the time it was made but
acknowledged later by the Clerk) during the December 13 Council Meeting’s vote on the resolution to revoke Bylaw
2010-74 – the indemnity agreement.
The resolution should have passed by majority vote and did not require two-thirds in favour. This, I submit to
you, was not a lack of preparation or knowledge by the “proponent of the motion” (I proposed the resolution), the
Mayor or other Councillors, but erroneous guidance to Council by staff.
Bylaw 2010-74 was revoked by a majority vote of Council (5 in favour, 3 against) at the December 20, 2010 Special
Meeting of Council.
I invite you to visit my website http://rocklandinfrastructure.ca/Feedback.html to learn the facts about this and
other votes, which unfortunately are not reported in detail by journalists, opinion letters, or blogs.
Back to top |
Response to Patrick's
Blog on "Gutter Press
(Branchaud/Louise) |
This item was posted by André Branchaud on November 16, 2010,
on the CCMC:
I was delighted by and completely agree with the article titled Clarence-Rockland deserves better than gutter press.
The "rag" at issue in that article, The Musqueteers' Journal, projects in my view an intellectually dishonest
editorial policy, one in effect since its founding more than two years ago.
As I see it, its core editorial policy includes publishing half-truths, distortions, misinformations, disinformations
and negative allegations, all for the clear and sole purpose of relentlessly attacking, discrediting, humiliating
and embarrassing the Clarence-Rockland mayor, the municipal council and city administration. It refuses to publish
opinions from readers contrary to its own views.
Unfortunately silence in response to accusations all too often is taken as an admission to those accusations. The
results of the municipal elections last month suggests to me this may have been at play in response to those levied
by The Musqueteers's Journal; its attacks had gone publicly unanswered by city council far, far too long.
Also, I deplore the local print and electronic media for publicly ignoring too long the Musqueteers' malevolence.
This is in my view a major failure in its public duty to provide balance, and search for thruth and fairness in
prosecuting their editorial policies.
Posted by Louise on December 15, 2010, 1:12 pm, in reply to "GUTTER PRESS":
Thank you for expressing your opinion on this matter. Well said and I could not agree more.
Back to top |
| City of Clarence-Rockland honours
long-time volunteer firefighter, Gilbert Labelle |
On 20 June 2010, the City of Clarence-Rockland officially recognized the work of Mr. Gilbert Labelle
of Bourget who has dedicated 50 years of his life as a volunteer firefighter for the Firefighters Association of
Township of Clarence.
It is very rare in Ontario that a volunteer firefighter accumulates so many years of service and the City Council
of the City of Clarence-Rockland has appointed Bourget Barracks in honor of Mr. Labelle. City Council Clarence-Rockland
wishes to thank Mr. Labelle for his dedication to the community.
Richard Lalonde - Mayor, Clarence-Rockland
Back to top |
|
NOTE: The following
items were sent in when I was still writing a column in the Vision newspaper. When the paper was bought out by a larger company, they dropped the columnists...
money being the bottom line, as the space we took would convert to a few hundred dollars. - pwm, Editor
|
| Local Tim Hortons Restaurants serious
about environment |
(Editor's comment: This letter goes back a few years, but still has merit. -pwm)
Every so often, I read in our local newspaper only to find out that our customers at our Tim Hortons' restaurants
are the 'number one' polluters in our beautiful City of Clarence-Rockland.
In his columns, Patrick Meikle frequently accuses that our restaurants' patrons are solely responsible for the
neglecting the environment in our city. Maybe Mr. Meikle is correct in assessing his observation for determining
those culprits. However, we would like to point out our pro active approach for discouraging customers who neglect
the environment by constantly throwing the Tim Hortons' cups on our parking lots and in our city's streets: We
are convinced that Mr. Meikle is fully aware that Tim Hortons is the only 'fast food' company in Canada that serves
china cups, stainless steel cutlery as a alternative to paper cups for our in-store customers. Furthermore, our
restaurants offer a substantial discount to all our customers who purchase a travel mug instead of the paper cups.
In our two restaurants in Clarence-Rockland, we invested in 15 garbage containers on our properties to encourage
customers to respect the environment and discard their litter in the appropriate garbage areas. On a daily basis
we dedicate a full time employee ( in all our three locations) to maintain the cleanliness of our properties. But
most importantly, we would encourage our by-law officers to utilize our tax payers' dollars to enforce the law
and ticket those who constantly and knowingly disrespect our initiatives in keeping the community clean and free
of debris. Finally we ask all our faithful and loyal customers, please stop littering.
Yves Paris
Tim Hortons, Rockland
Back to top |
| Votre orthographe et gramaire... |
Allo M. Meikle,
Object: Article dans Vision du 18 février, 2005
Votre orthographe et grammaire sont excellentes. BRAVO!!!
We love your articles. Keep up to good work.
R. Trottier - Location unknown
Back to top |
| Baseline Road should be called BADline RD...!!
Looking back... |
(Editor's comment: We keep this letter on our website because here we are six years later and
the road is worse than ever! -pwm, Editor)
(30 Jan 2005) - This last stretch of road just before Canaan Road is simply a disaster. Although
the extreme cold and snow have not helped keeping this road stable, it is simply unacceptable.
My husband and I communte through this road everyday in order to get on the 17 and lately we have been forced to
take an alternative route. The potholes are simply too deep and too many to avoid. We counted over 15 potholes
that are more than 1 ft wide and almost 1 foot deep. Trying to avoid one of these huge potholes in the winter is
also a hazards as it is very icy!!
Although the last part of Vinette Road is a dirt road and you cannot go 80kmh, it is pothole free.
The last time I looked we were paying taxes, this is simply unacceptable. Even when we get a snowfall this road
seems to be a forgotten child. It is always the last one to be cleaned. Sometimes I wonder if this road has been
taken off the map!!
Can we put this road back on the map and clean it up???
Lucie Meloche - Clarence Creek
Back to top |
| Keep up the good work |
I just wanted to take a minute to tell you that I look forward reading your column every week. I
find it interesting and sometimes informative in regards to the community’s events.
Keep up the good work.
P.B. - Clarence-Rockland
Back to top |
|
|
Things are heating up at
Clarence-Rockland
Council meetings. More...
|
|
