Elaborations On A Theme
I re-read my last two blogs. A couple of things need to be clarified.
1. The Strategic Plan can be read in full on the Town's website.
2. When I wrote about the hydro building issue, I did not make it clear that although we have instruments in place to guide our decisions and staff to advise us – staff tend only to offer advice when asked, except of course, if the law prohibits the contemplated action.
The Economic Development Officer was not asked to comment on the disposition of the Hydro building from his perspective.
The Parks Manager was not asked to comment on the suitability of the building for his purposes.
I did ask for a report from the Chief Financial Officer. It was presented after council voted to keep the building for municipal purposes.
The property is architect-designed, in excellent condition and in a preferential showcase location for any business. It is not useful for a Parks Yard which definitely does not require visibility and according to the capital forecast does not require more space for another three years.
No estimates were sought for costs to adapt the building to a totally different function.
Haphazard decisions play havoc with planning forecasts, which is not to say there 's no room to change but it surely ought to be based on logic.
In 2005, when the contract was awarded to build the new recreation centre, council rejected the option of building a gymnasium which would have provided youth facilities at a cost of $1.1 million.
It may be true that most people are not interested in the particulars of a council decision - I wonder though - what staff think.
While a council can be changed on a regular basis, even to a dramatic extent, it's the administration that provides continuity.
We live in a highly competitive market for municipal professionals. When a department head leaves, we lose institutional memory. It is not replaced by hiring another body. Everything can’t be recorded in documents. The department takes months to recover and still, some things may be lost forever.
In the last term, Aurora lost three department heads: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Building Officer... catastrophic for any municipality.
A director has a personal stake in a town department. The team is chosen and trained to accomplish the best outcome. If the best outcome is regularly disallowed...what then? Despite best efforts, a municipality can acquire a toxic reputation.
When Aurora was small, retailers and industries were close. People were in daily contact. The town had a small administration, all local residents. There were no illusions about who was managing day-to-day operations.
Everyone understood council's main function was to provide an overview and represent the community at large. The administration and council were aware that the people were aware who was responsible for what. If somebody screwed up, everybody knew about it.
The Town Office was in the downtown core. The clerk and treasurer were within steps of the sidewalk. People came in to pay taxes. They chatted. They went to the Post Office to stand in line and pick up their mail. They chatted there too.
Stories probably acquired some elaboration as they moved along the pipeline. They had no need of a public forum or the privilege to delegate to inform everyone from the Mayor down and across the street to the newspaper editor. They wrote letters to the editor...some more than others. There was free exchange of information.
I recall occasions, when the Mayor and the Editor, "Bobbie and Dickie", would start a rumour for the express purpose of determining how long it would take to return and what form it would have when it arrived back. It was a harmless exercise in humour that spoke volumes about the community spirit in Aurora.
1. The Strategic Plan can be read in full on the Town's website.
2. When I wrote about the hydro building issue, I did not make it clear that although we have instruments in place to guide our decisions and staff to advise us – staff tend only to offer advice when asked, except of course, if the law prohibits the contemplated action.
The Economic Development Officer was not asked to comment on the disposition of the Hydro building from his perspective.
The Parks Manager was not asked to comment on the suitability of the building for his purposes.
I did ask for a report from the Chief Financial Officer. It was presented after council voted to keep the building for municipal purposes.
The property is architect-designed, in excellent condition and in a preferential showcase location for any business. It is not useful for a Parks Yard which definitely does not require visibility and according to the capital forecast does not require more space for another three years.
No estimates were sought for costs to adapt the building to a totally different function.
Haphazard decisions play havoc with planning forecasts, which is not to say there 's no room to change but it surely ought to be based on logic.
In 2005, when the contract was awarded to build the new recreation centre, council rejected the option of building a gymnasium which would have provided youth facilities at a cost of $1.1 million.
It may be true that most people are not interested in the particulars of a council decision - I wonder though - what staff think.
While a council can be changed on a regular basis, even to a dramatic extent, it's the administration that provides continuity.
We live in a highly competitive market for municipal professionals. When a department head leaves, we lose institutional memory. It is not replaced by hiring another body. Everything can’t be recorded in documents. The department takes months to recover and still, some things may be lost forever.
In the last term, Aurora lost three department heads: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Building Officer... catastrophic for any municipality.
A director has a personal stake in a town department. The team is chosen and trained to accomplish the best outcome. If the best outcome is regularly disallowed...what then? Despite best efforts, a municipality can acquire a toxic reputation.
When Aurora was small, retailers and industries were close. People were in daily contact. The town had a small administration, all local residents. There were no illusions about who was managing day-to-day operations.
Everyone understood council's main function was to provide an overview and represent the community at large. The administration and council were aware that the people were aware who was responsible for what. If somebody screwed up, everybody knew about it.
The Town Office was in the downtown core. The clerk and treasurer were within steps of the sidewalk. People came in to pay taxes. They chatted. They went to the Post Office to stand in line and pick up their mail. They chatted there too.
Stories probably acquired some elaboration as they moved along the pipeline. They had no need of a public forum or the privilege to delegate to inform everyone from the Mayor down and across the street to the newspaper editor. They wrote letters to the editor...some more than others. There was free exchange of information.
I recall occasions, when the Mayor and the Editor, "Bobbie and Dickie", would start a rumour for the express purpose of determining how long it would take to return and what form it would have when it arrived back. It was a harmless exercise in humour that spoke volumes about the community spirit in Aurora.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment