Cheap at half the price!

$200,000 plus for the privilege of changing Chiefs of police. Read here for the details of the settlement. However he, Gary Clement, is not to blame, Two successive Police Service Boards, One chaired by Arnold McCurdy and one chaired by Allan Robinson got us into these messes. The first one hired John Kay, a disaster and spendthrift and the other hired his replacement, none too well obviously. The second board, in the hiring process actually had two Chiefs on board at the same time because they, the hiring committee, lusted after Clement and hired a fellow and then chased Clement all the way to Ottawa, at the same time. Well, we paid and in the end a settlement to clean up the mess was the only way out.

The good that came out of this was that the PSB finally hired the guy they should have hired a decade earlier - Paul Sweet. Let's end the pretense and take away the 'acting' in "Acting Chief of Police" and get back into proper community policing at a reasonable cost. It can be done now that we have swept away the messes.

Why we need strong statements from whomever

The way the policing debate is unfolding is disturbing. The topic of the county report is tentatively scheduled to be discussed by the Council's executive committee on June 16. Presumably a public meeting will take place before that and then Council will vote the week after June 16.

But is that enough public consultation? I think not. There are a few outstanding questions that have to be clear in the public' mind before a decision can be made. Primarily how much will we save or will it cost us? The County says severances, for example, will only be about $10,000. But how do you get 15 dispatchers into 5 keyboarding jobs, without severance? How do you compensate the senior officers for rebadging and reranking without a pension liability and loss of future wages? And more importantly how do we guarantee the existing level of service when other municipalities policed by the OPP are facing officer shortages. And, how do we enshrine the promised rebates in a contract when the OPP is willing to abrogate existing OPP contracts in other municipalities - just ask the Mayor of Norfolk what he thinks about a 14% increase to his police budgets because the OPP has taken away a rebate programme.

Add in the concerns of Councillor Frost who says, amongst other things, that the report is not factual in places (remember this was a huge criticism of all of Mr Watkins previous reports - he makes stuff up) and we need a public meeting to determine the actual cost. You cannot expect thoughtful people who look at these things to accept statements from politicians, especially those on the present Cobourg Council, who have a huge credibility gap to overcome today in all of their dealings with the public.

So it is incumbent on the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board to deliver their opinion on the matter, and then we, the public, should have an opinion and then a vote must be taken. Time is running out - get on with it.

Two men Taser each other in parking dispute

Couldn't resist this one, just imagine the sceneTwo men Taser each other in parking dispute

This comment is so important it must be the subject of a new post

I received this comment and felt that it was so illuminating it needed more exposure.

The OPP report which Ben kindly provided a link to indicated that Cobourg would get savings of at least $1.1 million over current costs in the first year of an OPP contract, and savings averaging $1.8 million per year in subsequent years.

Even though I am personally in favour of retaining the Cobourg Police it appears that neither the current council nor the triple majority will save it for us. Therefore I suggest that we should make a loud noise to ensure that these $1.1 to $1.8 million savings are enshrined a reduction of Cobourg municipal taxes to take effect as soon as the OPP contract is signed. If we do not insist on this the council will keep the money for more municipally inspired circuses that they arrive at by visioning"....Ugh

But are the savings really $1.1 million? We know that the screening income, which will be ignored by the OPP, has been estimated at $500,000 and now reports are surfacing, in Simcoe County, that the promised rebates are not forthcoming. See here for details. So the cost difference may not be anywhere near the reports glowing projections. Let's have a cost per household projection and then we can judge whether or not we want to pay the difference.

But the important point of posting the comment was to strengthen the suggestion that Council be held to reduce taxes by the savings achieved. Or else this bunch of sleepy old men led by a Mussolini will fritter it away on a seniors centre.

Today is the day to start the campaign - again

Today the Police Services Board will meet, as usual. However today they will be the masters of their own destinies. With the County Policing report in the public domain the Cobourg PSB is mandated, by its presence, to respond in a forceful manner. A precedent has been set: the Kenora PSB has issued a statement to the citizenry, that although the Kenora City Council has voted to go to the OPP the KPSB has said they will not disband. A state of civil anarchy prevails and now OCCOPS has to decide.

The supporters of the local tradition and service are waiting for a strong statement that refutes the actuals costs of OPP policing and a fuzzy report. Just because Bill Pyatt and OPP consultant Jack Watkins write a report, that report may not be factual. Their last reports have not been! Actual savings must be laid out including the revenues from screening that the County report ignores. Costs per household must be calculated so that homeowners will know, on paper, just how much they will save.

But remember we have seen this before. When the sewer costs moved from the tax rolls to user pay we were promised a tax cut - it never came! We need costs and we need to make judgments, that can only happen if we have the facts before us, the County report does not give us them.

The final report is now online

The final policing report, the one the Councils will have to deal with, is now online at the County website. But if you want to see it right now click here. The report was hashed out in a very peculiar way. The committee met in one room and signed off on the meeting notes. No resolutions were made at this meeting and therefore no votes were taken. Amazing how such a process could produce a report that nobody wanted to put their names to. All of the actions recommended are in these "Notes of meeting" here. As you read it you will feel the atmosphere. Mr Bill Pyatt read a prepared statement of principles and the members of the committee were asked to comment on the items as the report was read. What a bunch of trained seals, and these people are our leaders. I wonder if they had to raise their hands to leave the room!

A few quick notes

1. The inexorable Policing Debate: This is due for the next step - the local discussion. It will be interesting to see just how seriously this action is dealt with, outside of the community of Port Hope. In Cobourg I fear that because the "noisy chattering classes, a la the condo dwellers" simply don't care about the local police service, but spend energy and lifetimes of debate about a stupid piece of concrete, the issue is a non-starter in Cobourg. On Wednesday the County will release the report and post it on their website. What needs to be noted, in Cobourg, is how the Cobourg reps voted. When will we realise that Peter Delanty put the boots to the historic Police service?


2. The US Democratic Primary: What I think is immaterial to the end result, all I know is that a Black Man will have a huge struggle to win the Presidency. Clinton makes a strong argument when she points out that "americans" will not support an unknown black man who talks up a good storm.
3. The weather: Today looks like a good day, projected to be at least 22 degrees!
   

Here come the Lady Bountifuls

Definition from the TheFreedictionary here; Lady Bountiful: a woman who enjoys showing people how rich and kind she is by giving things to poor people.

This image comes to mind when discussing the Province's reaction to local expressions of poverty study. A local experience bears this out. About a year ago the local legal clinic and a group of agencies started to study local poverty and solutions to it. A committee was formed and with funding from the County work began. So imagine the excitement among low income groups when Minister Deb Mathews announced she was bring the Provincial study group to Northumberland and discuss local issues. That elation was to last about two days when on Friday the poverty study group learnt that only invitees would be at the closed door meeting. It soon became apparent, by the wizardry of email that this was going to be the modus operandi of the Province - swoop into a community, listen to handpicked invitees and then go onto the next one. It will be repeated 13 times. And in each of the 13 communities the people with most to gain will be conspicuous by there involuntary absence.

This deliberate effort to cut out low income groups came to the attention of the Toronto Star and it wrote an editorial pointing out the obvious - low income groups have to be in the discussion of poverty here.

So back to the Lady Bountiful image. The Province now intends to fix poverty but wants to do it without consultation with low income people. This process is quite clearly an example of "we know best"

In the local situation a happening ocurred on Friday when one low income person phoned a member of the Provincial panel, who also happens to be our MPP, Lou Rinaldi. The conversation with the low income person was recalled: "To add insult to injury, he made mention of there being a very active antipoverty group in Northumberland, led by "what's her name upstairs". I said I was a member of that group and he said he knew and that since we had been in his office to speak with him, we were being heard. I supplied him with "what's her name upstairs" name and he said that he thought that she may have been invited"

So even in this riding Lady Bountiful lives, for if Lou had been listening and paying attention to the low income groups, he might have remembered the name of the Chair of the group. He has met with her many times, pity he still doesn't know who she is. Funny how every poorbasher can remember the name but not Lou.

Stay tuned to the situation, especially when the low income groups start to point out policy flaws. But then the Province will be able to claim that the not only are the poor poor, but ungrateful too.

More evidence of sidelining

For those who think that Council is open and inclusive look at the snippet of Council business below.

Delegations:
Bob Marr, Local Architectural Advisory Committee Chair regarding the proposed Heritage Colour Palette. (memo and reports attached)
Action Recommended: That the background reports as contained in a memo from Councillor Mutton be received for information purposes.

Basically it means that someone called Bob Marr will speak to Council, in his capacity as the LACAC chair, about Heritage Colours. As well a package of information written by Councillor Mutton will be added to the presentation. Whover made up the Agenda's recommendations has decided that Council will sit, mutely, and listen to Bob Marr drone on about paint and then Council will say , "Thanks Bob" and move on the next item. But wait a minute what about the work and effort expended by a Councillor to inform her colleagues about the merits of paint? Well that is filed. So much for input for all!

I have a suggestion - next time Councillor "Fat Bastard" MacDonald, or Councillor "Sleepy" MacCaughey raises an opinion for discussion by Council, Councillor Mutton should make a motion to "receive for information".

We have seen this act before

Councillor Mutton is feeling picked on and belittled as well watching her 'patch' whittles away. Now if this is true why is that? I'll bet that she cannot say what she feels is the real reason - the fact that she is a woman and the power brokers are men. We, official council watchers can and will say, she is being taken lightly because she is a woman, and you know what we have seen this before. Cobourg Council has had very few women on it as a rule, Usually one a term. Most of them have been the objects of derision. Sue Geurts, her first terms anyway, Johanna Loken, all of her terms and do you really think Gail DeVeau was a heavyweight? And going back even further was Lenah Fisher a power broker. The only successful woman, one who became Mayor - Joan Chalovich was an established force before she came on Council with the Rotary Club's support. Of course the only really successful woman councillor was Polly Edwards and who was going to mess with the Conservative party at that time. But to be fair Edwards and Chalovich were mature women compared to Mutton and Loken. Which councillor would dare fool with women their moms age?

A quick word of advice to Miriam - learn Roberts rules - nobody else on Council knows them and you should learn the difference between a point of order and a point of privilege.