Wednesday’s Non-Council Meeting: How Much did it Cost?
I looked at the City’s web site after 5pm today and saw no notice of cancellation. Accordingly I left home at 6:30 to catch the meeting. I got there to find no meeting. This should not happen.
How much did today’s (Wed. June 24) non-Council meeting cost the taxpayers of Nanaimo given the rental of the “Council Chamber”, the crew from Shaw Cable to video the event, directly related City Staff time, plus any related VICC security costs, not to mention the costs to citizens who may have attempted to attend.
What is the lead time notice which must be given by the City to these bodies in order to eliminate or reduce these charges?
Is there no policy on notice to be given by a Councillor who is unable to attend so that it will be known whether a quorum will exist? (I note that apparently four Councillors did give such notice.) And must that notice (barring the unforeseeable) be sufficient to eliminate non-meetings such as tonight’s and the costs which they entail? Should a meeting be cancellable by the Mayor or by Staff where the question of a quorum is unclear? Council meetings should not be surprises. And shouldn’t that notice be done in a manner which reduces or eliminates the costs to taxpayers.
Again we find ourselves in a ridiculous position which could have been avoided…. and there is no body which I would find entirely without blame in the matter.
May it, like the matter of signs in the “Council Chamber”, be quickly put behind us with more than just a call for decorum or respect. Where trust is lacking, decorum and respect fly out the window.
I look forward to your comments on these matters.
Ron Bolin
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
Very good points Ron. There was no notice so I too wasted a trip downtown and the cost of parking. Your points on the costs to the taxpayer are very valid and I too want to know the process so that we can avoid wasting money that way. There must be a clear direction.
In an email dated June 24, Mayor McKay responded with a statement followed by the following threat:
“The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system.”
I draw your attention in particular to the sentence which reads: “If you are the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.”
Threatened, I can supply only my responses to the Mayor’s statements at this time.
____________________
I responded to the Mayor on June 25:
Mayor McKay:
I am much more interested in seeing that such a situation does not arise
again than in determining blame. Of that I think there is plenty to go
around.
I look forward to the costs and the deadlines for expenditures involved.
What is unforeseeable is unforeseeable, but the rest is on the block….
???? “The information contained in this communication is intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged
information. If you are the intended recipient you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
system.” ????
Ron
____________________
In response to a further prohibitive message from the Mayor, I responded:
Mayor McKay:
I am sure that you are aware that we are living in the internet age and thus
every citizen with an email address, access to a facebook page, a blogger or
web site operator is a “member of the media”. If you, as a public servant,
choose to believe that your correspondence with any of the public is to be
secret, even in matters which do not deal directly with the security of the
City, I trust that you will hold a press conference to announce this
position to all our fellow citizens at your earliest convenience. This is
not the 19th century. Media is everywhere and the internet and video are
the records of our time.
When I write to my elected representatives, I do so in the knowledge that my
message may be passed on to others. In fact the auto response to emails to
“Mayor and Council” carries the following message:
“This is to confirm that your email to Mayor and Council has been received
by each member of City Council. A copy of your email will be directed to
the appropriate department/office as may be required for a response.
Citizens should be aware that all written and email correspondence addressed
to Mayor and Council become public documents once received by the City.”
What is the nature of the special status to which you seem to be laying
claim for yourself. I am currently unaware of whether Councillors other
than yourself have staked out your current position, but will investigate
the matter further.
Ron Bolin
____________________
I responded to Mayor McKay’s next message:
Mayor McKay:
Could you please point out the information that was intended for me alone,
so that I can, without hindrance, pass on the rest?
Thanks,
Ron Bolin
____________________
I responded to Mayor McKay’s latest communication which now seems to always include the offending sentence:
Mayor McKay:
EVERYTHING?
Ron Bolin
___________________
I await his response. And look forward to the position of our other Councillors in such matters.