Loading...
The Citizen, 1990-05-02, Page 4PAGE 4. THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1990. Editorial Don’t fight personal feuds in village council Everybody breathed a sigh of relief following the March 29 meeting of Blyth village council when it seemed that a fair agreement had been reached to complete construction of George Radford Memorial ball diamond after months of destructive bickering. Now, it seems the matter could be put to rest. So we thought. Council won praise from this paper and others for the solution it proposed, even though the same solution could easily have been worked out with no controversy at all way back on January 16 when council had met with the Blyth Industrial Slow-pitch Tournament Committee (which was carrying out the work), Huron Pioneer Threshers and George Radford Construction (one of the contractors involved). Still it was better late than never when council proposed a solution that would complete the project with little cost to the taxpayer. At the meeting council agreed by motion to lift the stop work order and verbally agreed to rescind a letter that requested the ball group and Radford’s each make further donations and that Radford’s complete the project at no cost to the taxpayer. The latter, however, was not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. When, before it completed its portion of the project, Radford Construction asked for confirmation in writing of the two decisions, it finally received the notice the stop work order had been lifted on April 16. But the village refused to confirm it was retracting its letter issued following the January 16 meeting because this wasn’t recorded in the minutes. Councillors agreed this decision had been made, even got upset with representatives from Radford’s saying the letter wasn’t needed because everybody agreed the letter was being taken back. Why did it have to be in writing? But it was council that has insisted from the beginning that only those things in writing matter. Despite the fact that minutes of the September 13 meeting of council clearly show council was informed of the details of the plans for increasing the scope of the ball park reconstruction project, council insisted at the confrontational January 16 meeting, that sole responsibility for the increase in the project lay with Radford Construction. When the Radford bill came in at about nearly $12,000 instead of the early estimate of $6,000, council discussed the situation at an unpublicized meeting on December 13. When word leaked out that council was criticizing Radford’s, the company asked for a meeting to defend itself, council agreed to a meeting with all parties involved on January 16. Some time prior to that meeting council, again at a closed meeting, voted to hire a lawyer. At the January 16 meeting the village’s lawyer did most of the talking for village council (Reeve Wasson was absent, declaring conflict of interest). He made it clear as the meeting began that he and council held Radford’s responsible for the cost overrun and that because it had originally had an estimate in writing for $6,000 it should live up to that estimate even if everybody knew the project had increased in scope. The lawyer and town clerk Helen Grubb also stated that money from both the Ministry of Recreational Tourism grant and the PRIDE grant couldn’t be used to complete the project. It was after that meeting council sent a letter (approved by its lawyer) that stated: “Council expect George Radford Construction Limited to honour their commitment ... at their expense. No further remuneration will be honoured by the Village of Blyth.’’ Later, in similar tough language the letter says the company is expected to give a further $1,750 to the project and the ball group, $1,000. Councillors have lately taken to calling this “a proposal’’ but the language used certainly doesn’t sound so tentative. During the next few weeks council held to its “get it in writing’’ motto. Everybody in the area knew Radford’s was refusing to go along with the “proposal’’ but council said it hadn’t had an official reply. Even as late as last week council was saying it had never had an official reply, although at the March 29 meeting Doug Scrimgeour from the company had clearly said the company would not donate more to the project. What was done in writing during that period was a letter from the Radford lawyer on March 12 objecting to what the company considered errors in the minutes of the January 16 meeting. In the minutes of the March 29 meeting council says this letter was dealt with earlier in the meeting (before the open portion began) but there is no mention of the letter’s receipt, or action taken on it, in the correspondence part of the minutes. At the same meeting the minutes state Mr. Scrimgeour asked that Radford’s be put on the agenda for the next meeting but this wasn’t done. The company has made several similar requests but the only time Radford’s had been on the agenda officially was the January 16 meeting although they were allowed to take part in the March 29 and April 26 meetings when they appeared without invitation. Another area clerk says that when a ratepayer asks to be put on an agenda at least 72 hours prior to a council meeting, it must be done. As the spring weather approached the company was anxious to get to work Finishing the ball park project but given the past situation was nervous about getting on with the project without confirmation in writing of what had been agreed to at the March 29 meeting. It seemed a simple enough formality for the village to write a letter stating confirming it was withdrawing the demand the work be done tor nothing and that $1,750 more be donated and get the whole thing finished with. But the village refused to send the letter, arguing that since the agreement wasn’t a formal motion, village staff wasn’t authorized to issue the letter. When Mr. Scrimgeour and others from his company attended Thursday’s meeting to formally ask for the letter he was refused and was read a lecture on vasting the time of council. How long does it take to write a letter? It seems clear that personalities are involved here. Even after the apparent agreement was reached at the March 29 meeting of council, councillors Dave Lee and Steven Sparling grumbled that they felt Radford’s was being handed a further $3,000 to complete the project that they shouldn’t be given (of the approximate $15,000 total bill the company has donated $8,000, several times more money than village taxpayers have invested in the project). Councillors, rather than showing leadership and trying to resolve the problem, seem intent instead on exacting revenge. Through the last few months there has been at least one councillor who has shown leadership. Councillor Ken Brown, following the stormy January 16 meeting refused to accept dubious advice from the village lawyer and staff and did research to find out what could and couldn’t be done with grants. He was in a large part responsible for the compromise of the March 29 meeting. He sought solutions rather than confrontation. Blyth taxpayers have a right to ask why their other elected representatives weren’t doing the same. Early bloomer Citizen P.O. Box 429, BLYTH, Ont. N0M 1H0 Phone 523-4792 P.O. Box 152, BRUSSELS, Ont. NOG 1H0 The Citizen is published weekly in Brussels, Ontario by North Huron Publishing Company Inc. Subscriptions are payable in advance at a rate of $19.00/yr. [$40.00 Foreign]. Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error, only that portion of the advertisment will be credited. Advertising Deadlines: Monday, 2 p.m. - Brussels; Monday, 4 p.m. - Blyth We are not responsible for unsolicited newscripts or photographs. Contents of The Citizen are © Copyright. Serving Brussels, Blyth, Auburn, Belgrave, Ethel, Londesborough, Walton and surrounding townships. Phone 887-9114 Editor & Publisher, Keith Roulston Advertising Manager, Dave Williams Production Manager, Jill Roulston Second Class Mail Registration No. 6968