CAO Resignation

The news has been out of a few days and it is true; our CAO has resigned. I want to say upfront that I think very highly of Tully Clifford and I have been constantly impressed by his efforts. I will miss working with him and I shall hazard a guess that all of council shares this sentiment. I have had many good people working with and for me over the years and Tully ranks as one of the best. In my opinion council has a very good relationship with Tully and he is well respected by staff. Rightly so – he is a solid leader.

Tully is leaving for personal reasons and will relocate back to the USA. I have heard many unfounded rumours out there but if there are other reasons for his resignation he has not shared them. As I have from day 1, I will take him at his word. If anyone need further details or wants to hear it from the horse’s mouth, I suggest they give the office a call at 403-562-8833 and ask to speak with him. Perhaps everyone can call and tell him how important it is that he stays in Crowsnest Pass.

I do see this as a setback for 2011 and it could take several months to fill this position. Although Tully will be sorely missed, I have learned over the years that staff come and go and we will find another good person soon enough.

About Brian

Thank you for electing me to be a member of council.
This entry was posted in Staff. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to CAO Resignation

  1. John Prince says:

    Brian, it sounds like you and maybe some of your other fellow councillors are working in a ‘bubble’ not knowing what is going on in your own backyard? Pretty much how our former mayor kept his ‘team’ as well. Looks like nothing has really changed, except the faces at the table. Pretty sad!

    p.s. please don’t take my comment above as a knock against you personally, just stating how things were in the past and seem to still be in the present, with this new mayor.

    • Brian says:

      Hello Mr. Prince,

      Thank you for your candor. Let me assure you that I am not in a bubble and I am definitely not a gullible person. I question everything and I have gone over this 1,000 times in my head, mostly because I am disappointed that Mr. Clifford is leaving. I trust what he says and if he says it is a personal reason, I will not doubt him. Doubting him is basically the same as saying I do not believe him and I know Tully well enough to take him at his word. He is an honorable man and if he says it is for personal reasons, I will not press him on this further. He has a right to his privacy and I respect that. If there is more to it than what he is saying, I too would like to know. If something was done to force Tully to leave, I would be the first one calling foul. I promise you that here and now.

      I want to make a suggestion. You seem to categorically condemn Mayor Decoux, and by extension this council, but I do not think you have really given anyone a chance. I would like to invite you to come to council and see how things are being run. Please come; every council meeting is open to the public. Once you have sat in on a few sessions, I hope that you will change your mind about how things are going. If not, at least you tried to become better informed.

      • Keith says:

        “every council meeting is open to the public”

        The Municipal Act requires meetings of council and council committees to be open and advertised to the public. I don’t think you can get around these legal requirements by calling your meetings “retreats” and your committees “task forces”.

        Anyone with $25 can make a FOIP request for minutes, notes and emails, including in camera sessions. The FOIP Commissioner can determine if withholding information is legal.

        • Brian says:

          Hello Keith -

          We are getting off topic here but I will answer your comments the best I can. You are somewhat right but not completely. Yes, every council meeting is open to the public except the in camera portion. We have not been getting around anything and our meetings are held in accordance with MGA standards. In camera items are typically in three categories; land, legal, and labour. If an item falls into these categories and it is of a sensitive nature (see my attached documentation below for specifics), it can be discussed in camera. This is not a time for chit-chat and our administration are typically the ones to present the in camera topics or ensure items added by council are appropriate. If they are not appropriate, they are not heard. I checked with our director of Legislative & HR Services and they do not record meeting minutes in camera, nor is this required by the MGA. There is generally documentation provided by administration for council review and this material is FOIP-able should anyone want to get it, assuming the commissioner feels it should be open. It is critical to note that no motions can be made or passed in camera. Any motions made must be done so in public after the in camera session. I would actually like it if the media would stay until after the in camera session but they rarely wait. Regardless, these items are always recorded in the minutes, which are public. If you have any questions about any items in the minutes that you feel was discussed in camera I would be happy to go over them with you.

          The Economic Task Force is a body completely independent of council. No council members sit on the Task Force. They are to provide recommendations to council and they have received no input from us. I do believe their meetings are recorded by our Director of Legislative & HR Services and the minutes may be FOIP-able. I am not sure but you can call our FOIP coordinator Marion Vanoni at 562.8833.

          Retreats are common with all municipal governments. In order to reduce expense we have hosted our retreats in council chambers so they may look like a council meeting but they are not. No decisions can be made at a retreat and typically it is just a chance to vet ideas. The results of our retreats will be made public once the information is compiled and written out in a format that makes sense. I believe this is FOIP-able as well as long as it is not one of the three L’s I mentioned above. Anyone is welcome to pursue FOIP action if they feel it is necessary.

          Please call me at the number located on the top right corner of the screen if this is unclear or seems inaccurate.

          From a FAQ on FOIP
          http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/documents/faq-municipalities.pdf

          18. Can municipal councils meet in camera, that is, in the absence of the public?
          * On October 1, 1999, section 197(2) of the MGA was repealed, and replaced with the following, “councils and council committees may close all or part of their meetings to the public if a matter to be discussed is within one of the exceptions to disclosure in Division 2 of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”
          * Councils and their committees can make a motion to go in camera when the substance of their deliberations relate to the matters covered by the exceptions to disclosure in the FOIP Act, sections 16 to 29. For example, a discussion regarding the employment of an individual should be held in camera to protect the privacy of that individual.
          * There is no requirement to take notes or minutes during in camera sessions. If notes have been prepared, they may be requested as part of a FOIP request. The municipality has the discretion to refuse to disclose these notes under section 23 of the FOIP Act, local public body confidences.
          * The council minutes should show that a motion was made to go in camera and then another to return to the open meeting so that section 23 may be applied.

          From the FOIP Act as referenced above (this is why Legal, Land and Personnel are always incamera as per the rules below)

          Exceptions to Disclosure
          Disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party
          16(1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an
          applicant information
          (a) that would reveal
          (i) trade secrets of a third party, or
          (ii) commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or
          technical information of a third party,
          (b) that is supplied, explicitly or implicitly, in confidence, and
          (c) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to
          (i) harm significantly the competitive position or interfere
          significantly with the negotiating position of the third
          party,
          (ii) result in similar information no longer being supplied to
          the public body when it is in the public interest that
          similar information continue to be supplied,
          (iii) result in undue financial loss or gain to any person or
          organization, or
          (iv) reveal information supplied to, or the report of, an
          arbitrator, mediator, labour relations officer or other
          person or body appointed to resolve or inquire into a
          labour relations dispute.
          (2) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an
          applicant information about a third party that was collected on a tax
          return or collected for the purpose of determining tax liability or
          collecting a tax.
          (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if
          (a) the third party consents to the disclosure,
          (b) an enactment of Alberta or Canada authorizes or requires
          the information to be disclosed,
          (c) the information relates to a non-arm’s length transaction
          between a public body and another party, or
          RSA 2000
          Section 17 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          23
          (d) the information is in a record that is in the custody or under
          the control of the Provincial Archives of Alberta or the
          archives of a public body and has been in existence for 50
          years or more.
          RSA 2000 cF-25 s16;2003 c21 s4
          Disclosure harmful to personal privacy
          17(1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose personal
          information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an
          unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.
          (2) A disclosure of personal information is not an unreasonable
          invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
          (a) the third party has, in the prescribed manner, consented to or
          requested the disclosure,
          (b) there are compelling circumstances affecting anyone’s
          health or safety and written notice of the disclosure is given
          to the third party,
          (c) an Act of Alberta or Canada authorizes or requires the
          disclosure,
          (d) repealed 2003 c21 s5,
          (e) the information is about the third party’s classification,
          salary range, discretionary benefits or employment
          responsibilities as an officer, employee or member of a
          public body or as a member of the staff of a member of the
          Executive Council,
          (f) the disclosure reveals financial and other details of a
          contract to supply goods or services to a public body,
          (g) the information is about a licence, permit or other similar
          discretionary benefit relating to
          (i) a commercial or professional activity, that has been
          granted to the third party by a public body, or
          (ii) real property, including a development permit or
          building permit, that has been granted to the third party
          by a public body,
          and the disclosure is limited to the name of the third party
          and the nature of the licence, permit or other similar
          discretionary benefit,
          RSA 2000
          Section 17 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          24
          (h) the disclosure reveals details of a discretionary benefit of a
          financial nature granted to the third party by a public body,
          (i) the personal information is about an individual who has
          been dead for 25 years or more, or
          (j) subject to subsection (3), the disclosure is not contrary to the
          public interest and reveals only the following personal
          information about a third party:
          (i) enrolment in a school of an educational body or in a
          program offered by a post-secondary educational body,
          (ii) repealed 2003 c21 s5,
          (iii) attendance at or participation in a public event or activity
          related to a public body, including a graduation
          ceremony, sporting event, cultural program or club, or
          field trip, or
          (iv) receipt of an honour or award granted by or through a
          public body.
          (3) The disclosure of personal information under subsection (2)(j)
          is an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy if the third party
          whom the information is about has requested that the information
          not be disclosed.
          (4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an
          unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
          (a) the personal information relates to a medical, psychiatric or
          psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment or
          evaluation,
          (b) the personal information is an identifiable part of a law
          enforcement record, except to the extent that the disclosure
          is necessary to dispose of the law enforcement matter or to
          continue an investigation,
          (c) the personal information relates to eligibility for income
          assistance or social service benefits or to the determination
          of benefit levels,
          (d) the personal information relates to employment or
          educational history,
          (e) the personal information was collected on a tax return or
          gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax,
          RSA 2000
          Section 17 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          25
          (e.1) the personal information consists of an individual’s bank
          account information or credit card information,
          (f) the personal information consists of personal
          recommendations or evaluations, character references or
          personnel evaluations,
          (g) the personal information consists of the third party’s name
          when
          (i) it appears with other personal information about the third
          party, or
          (ii) the disclosure of the name itself would reveal personal
          information about the third party,
          or
          (h) the personal information indicates the third party’s racial or
          ethnic origin or religious or political beliefs or associations.
          (5) In determining under subsections (1) and (4) whether a
          disclosure of personal information constitutes an unreasonable
          invasion of a third party’s personal privacy, the head of a public
          body must consider all the relevant circumstances, including
          whether
          (a) the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the
          activities of the Government of Alberta or a public body to
          public scrutiny,
          (b) the disclosure is likely to promote public health and safety
          or the protection of the environment,
          (c) the personal information is relevant to a fair determination
          of the applicant’s rights,
          (d) the disclosure will assist in researching or validating the
          claims, disputes or grievances of aboriginal people,
          (e) the third party will be exposed unfairly to financial or other
          harm,
          (f) the personal information has been supplied in confidence,
          (g) the personal information is likely to be inaccurate or
          unreliable,
          RSA 2000
          Section 18 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          26
          (h) the disclosure may unfairly damage the reputation of any
          person referred to in the record requested by the applicant,
          and
          (i) the personal information was originally provided by the
          applicant.
          RSA 2000 cF-25 s17;2003 c21 s5
          Disclosure harmful to individual or public safety
          18(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an
          applicant information, including personal information about the
          applicant, if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
          (a) threaten anyone else’s safety or mental or physical health, or
          (b) interfere with public safety.
          (2) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an
          applicant personal information about the applicant if, in the opinion
          of a physician, a regulated member of the College of Alberta
          Psychologists or a psychiatrist or any other appropriate expert
          depending on the circumstances of the case, the disclosure could
          reasonably be expected to result in immediate and grave harm to
          the applicant’s health or safety.
          (3) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an
          applicant information in a record that reveals the identity of an
          individual who has provided information to the public body in
          confidence about a threat to an individual’s safety or mental or
          physical health.
          RSA 2000 cF-25 s18;2000 cH-7 s153
          Confidential evaluations
          19(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an
          applicant personal information that is evaluative or opinion
          material compiled for the purpose of determining the applicant’s
          suitability, eligibility or qualifications for employment or for the
          awarding of contracts or other benefits by a public body when the
          information is provided, explicitly or implicitly, in confidence.
          (2) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an
          applicant personal information that identifies or could reasonably
          identify a participant in a formal employee evaluation process
          concerning the applicant when the information is provided,
          explicitly or implicitly, in confidence.
          RSA 2000
          Section 20 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          27
          (3) For the purpose of subsection (2), “participant” includes a peer,
          subordinate or client of an applicant, but does not include the
          applicant’s supervisor or superior.
          1994 cF-18.5 s18;1999 c23 s11
          Disclosure harmful to law enforcement
          20(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose
          information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be
          expected to
          (a) harm a law enforcement matter,
          (b) prejudice the defence of Canada or of any foreign state
          allied to or associated with Canada,
          (b.1) disclose activities suspected of constituting threats to the
          security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian
          Security Intelligence Service Act (Canada),
          (c) harm the effectiveness of investigative techniques and
          procedures currently used, or likely to be used, in law
          enforcement,
          (d) reveal the identity of a confidential source of law
          enforcement information,
          (e) reveal criminal intelligence that has a reasonable connection
          with the detection, prevention or suppression of organized
          criminal activities or of serious and repetitive criminal
          activities,
          (f) interfere with or harm an ongoing or unsolved law
          enforcement investigation, including a police investigation,
          (g) reveal any information relating to or used in the exercise of
          prosecutorial discretion,
          (h) deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial
          adjudication,
          (i) reveal a record that has been confiscated from a person by a
          peace officer in accordance with a law,
          (j) facilitate the escape from custody of an individual who is
          being lawfully detained,
          (k) facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the
          control of crime,
          RSA 2000
          Section 20 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          28
          (l) reveal technical information relating to weapons or potential
          weapons,
          (m) harm the security of any property or system, including a
          building, a vehicle, a computer system or a communications
          system, or
          (n) reveal information in a correctional record supplied,
          explicitly or implicitly, in confidence.
          (2) Subsection (1)(g) does not apply to information that has been
          in existence for 10 years or more.
          (3) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information
          to an applicant if the information
          (a) is in a law enforcement record and the disclosure could
          reasonably be expected to expose to civil liability the author
          of the record or an individual who has been quoted or
          paraphrased in the record, or
          (b) is about the history, supervision or release of an individual
          who is under the control or supervision of a correctional
          authority and the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
          harm the proper custody or supervision of that person.
          (4) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose information
          to an applicant if the information is in a law enforcement record
          and the disclosure would be an offence under an Act of Canada.
          (5) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply to
          (a) a report prepared in the course of routine inspections by an
          agency that is authorized to enforce compliance with an Act
          of Alberta, or
          (b) a report, including statistical analysis, on the degree of
          success achieved in a law enforcement program unless
          disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to
          interfere with or harm any of the matters referred to in
          subsection (1) or (3).
          (6) After a police investigation is completed, the head of a public
          body may disclose under this section the reasons for a decision not
          to prosecute
          (a) to a person who knew of and was significantly interested in
          the investigation, including a victim or a relative or friend of
          a victim, or
          RSA 2000
          Section 21 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          29
          (b) to any other member of the public, if the fact of the
          investigation was made public.
          RSA 2000 cF-25 s20;2002 c32 s7
          Disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations
          21(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose
          information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be
          expected to
          (a) harm relations between the Government of Alberta or its
          agencies and any of the following or their agencies:
          (i) the Government of Canada or a province or territory of
          Canada,
          (ii) a local government body,
          (iii) an aboriginal organization that exercises government
          functions, including
          (A) the council of a band as defined in the Indian Act
          (Canada), and
          (B) an organization established to negotiate or
          implement, on behalf of aboriginal people, a treaty or
          land claim agreement with the Government of
          Canada,
          (iv) the government of a foreign state, or
          (v) an international organization of states,
          or
          (b) reveal information supplied, explicitly or implicitly, in
          confidence by a government, local government body or an
          organization listed in clause (a) or its agencies.
          (2) The head of a public body may disclose information referred to
          in subsection (1)(a) only with the consent of the Minister in
          consultation with the Executive Council.
          (3) The head of a public body may disclose information referred to
          in subsection (1)(b) only with the consent of the government, local
          government body or organization that supplies the information, or
          its agency.
          RSA 2000
          Section 22 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          30
          (4) This section does not apply to information that has been in
          existence in a record for 15 years or more.
          1994 cF-18.5 s20;1995 c17 s9;1999 c23 s13
          Cabinet and Treasury Board confidences
          22(1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an
          applicant information that would reveal the substance of
          deliberations of the Executive Council or any of its committees or
          of the Treasury Board or any of its committees, including any
          advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation
          or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the
          Executive Council or any of its committees or to the Treasury
          Board or any of its committees.
          (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
          (a) information in a record that has been in existence for 15
          years or more,
          (b) information in a record of a decision made by the Executive
          Council or any of its committees on an appeal under an Act,
          or
          (c) information in a record the purpose of which is to present
          background facts to the Executive Council or any of its
          committees or to the Treasury Board or any of its
          committees for consideration in making a decision if
          (i) the decision has been made public,
          (ii) the decision has been implemented, or
          (iii) 5 years or more have passed since the decision was made
          or considered.
          1994 cF-18.5 s21
          Local public body confidences
          23(1) The head of a local public body may refuse to disclose
          information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be
          expected to reveal
          (a) a draft of a resolution, bylaw or other legal instrument by
          which the local public body acts, or
          (b) the substance of deliberations of a meeting of its elected
          officials or of its governing body or a committee of its
          governing body, if an Act or a regulation under this Act
          RSA 2000
          Section 24 Chapter F-25
          FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
          PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
          31
          authorizes the holding of that meeting in the absence of the
          public.
          (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if
          (a) the draft of the resolution, bylaw or other legal instrument or
          the subject-matter of the deliberation has been considered in
          a meeting open to the public, or
          (b) the information referred to in that subsection is in a record
          that has been in existence for 15 years or more.
          1994 cF-18.5 s22
          Advice from officials
          24(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose
          information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be
          expected to reveal
          (a) advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy
          options developed by or for a public body or a member of
          the Executive Council,
          (b) consultations or deliberations involving
          (i) officers or employees of a public body,
          (ii) a member of the Executive Council, or
          (iii) the staff of a member of the Executive Council,
          (c) positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions
          developed for the purpose of contractual or other
          negotiations by or on behalf of the Government of Alberta
          or a public body, or considerations that relate to those
          negotiations,
          (d) plans relating to the management of personnel or the
          administration of a public body that have not yet been
          implemented,
          (e) the contents of draft legislation, regulations and orders of
          members of the Executive Council or the Lieutenant
          Governor in Council,
          (f) the contents of agendas or minutes of meetings
          (i) of the governing body of an agency, board, commission,
          corporation, office or other body that is designated as a
          public body in the regulations, or
          RSA 2000

  2. peter rosner says:

    I dont believe for one minute he quit for personal reasons and we will find out eventually these things have a way of revealing themselves. That would be the same as saying all the administration that we have gone through quit for personal reasons quit insulting our intellegence

    • Brian says:

      Mr. Rosner, I take it from your comment that you think I am lying about this, which I find astounding. People who know me well will confirm three things: I’m honest to a fault, I believe in fairness above all, and I talk too much. If there were some sort of surreptitious dealings regarding Mr. Clifford’s resignation, I would be running through the streets with a bullhorn. You say these things “eventually have a way of revealing themselves” – if there is a boogeyman hiding somewhere in all of this, I hope it reveals itself quickly, not eventually, because I want to get on with business. Further to that, If council wanted him gone, we would not have danced around the issue – he would have been fired. No one on council wants to be looking for a new CAO right now. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to hide. As Freud said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.

      I assume you have not had any interactions with Tully so I will tell you a few things about him. He is a straightforward person who says what he means. He is also very strong willed and determined. He has clearly stated that his resignation is for personal reasons, he stated that he likes his staff, and he stated that he likes this council. If he says it is for personal and not professional reasons, I believe him. I will not continue to press him on this as I respect his decision and his privacy. As I suggested above, you should call Tully if you want to hear it directly from him.

      Honestly, the only insult to anyone’s intelligence is all of these ridiculous stories of political subterfuge that people are spreading. If you would like to discuss this further, please give me a call; my number is on the top right corner of this window.

      • peter rosner says:

        Brian i will take you up on that offer and give you a call. I will tell you this however that the more things “change around here the more they remain the same”. I have seen this scenario repeat itself many times here and this council will have to recognize this and deal with it or we are going nowhere

        • Brian says:

          Hello Mr. Rosner -

          You are 100% correct that if there are issues we have to deal with them or we are going nowhere. I am all for change and if I see problems, I will call them out. We have asked Mr. Clifford his reasons and he hasn’t told us anything beyond “personal”. If there was something else, I would have appreciated knowing before he gave his resignation because I personally don’t want to lose him. I’ve managed people in much larger organizations and it is very frustrating if someone has a problem and will not share it. It simply disrupts your progress and in most cases can be solved. If there are valid professional reasons, we can fix them. If someone is simply not happy here, I do not think there is anything we can do about that.

  3. John Prince says:

    Brian,
    From what I understand you are an astute business person so I am having a hard time rationalizing a council (you and Emille, so far) which seems overly concerned with an employee’s ‘privacy’ vs. doing an ‘exit interview’ which is customary practice in most businesses so that a company does not waste time, money and energy hiring someone who lands up leaving them in a lurch shortly after.

    Personally, having been on council, I know one of the worst things you can do is to hide behind ‘privacy’, in-camera, etc. in doing the publics business in order to avoid dealing with situations. Please do not think people such as Peter and myself and so many others in this community are deaf, blind and stupid. You are showing too much arrogance for someone being only on the job for six months, while the rest of us have seen this scenario with management leaving (or being forced out) over the years play out many, many times.

    To build trust in the community you have to come clean in your dealings, which is something this mayor and council have still to do. To suggest people here are playing at and spreading “ridiculous stories of political subterfuge” when it is you and your counterparts who are deliberately keeping us in the dark with your roadblocks, firewalls and elitist attitudes around long outstanding issues such as Bridgecreek, the Centre, and so much more, including now the real reason for our CAO leaving, is really blaming the innocent taxpayers in this community for your own transgressions. Now isn’t it?

    With respect to the mayor, I do not even know Mr. Decoux so it is unlikely I would condemn someone I don’t know. In fact, a few posts back, I said the following with respect to Bruce and the rest of you “I’m not too quick to judge and give up on this new mayor and council. The truth as they say is in the pudding and we still have yet to lick the spoon, never-mind eating the full-meal deal, we have been promised”. What I do know is that he and this council are behaving pretty much like what the former mayor and councils have done in the past. The similarities are what I pointed out. That is all! If I am wrong here, then you the mayor and the rest of council need to step up to the plate and proof this is so. Stop hiding behind ‘privacy’, in-camera (fyi, when I was on council I could count on one hand the number of times we went in-camera over a three year period. How many times have you gone in-camera in the last six months?) and other venues to skirt your duties, responsibilities and obligations to the people you are suppose to be working for… and serving.

    btw/ your advice to phone and speak with Tully does not seem to be the answer, as I phoned yesterday morning and got an answering machine, and having left a message I am still waiting to hear back from him?

    In conclusion, I say to you, Emile and the others on council please don’t play us for fools as most of us have been around the block several times, while most of you have not even been around once, yet.

    Either give us the straight goods, or don’t bother.

    p.s. Although I could take your invite to attend your council meetings as a condescending and patronizing attempt at insinuating I do not know what goes on there at these meetings, with respect to this council, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and appreciate you informing me that these meetings are “open to the public”. :-( Although, from what I understand from Dean who attends these meetings regularly and from our local press there is not much to see as most debate and discussion (decisions) it appears done held ‘in-camera, or at retreats, with little if any real public debate taking place. But in all fairness and respect to you I will attend your next meeting (June 7) and see for myself.

    p.p.s. My apologies for being so long-winded but there was much that needed to be said.

    • Brian says:

      Hello Mr. Prince -

      You have some interesting opinions. I disagree with them but at least you know you have been heard. I have said what I have to say so with that I will wish you well and bid you good day.