Dear Editor:
Once again, I find myself in a position where I must respond to, in this instant, a newsletter that has been circulated to residents of Russell Binscarth Municipality.
To my dismay, this newsletter is filled with misinformation, and inaccurate and false statements. It begins by making a statement about rumors within the municipality. For the mayor’s edification these are not rumors but are facts that the mayor and her CAO have been unwilling to answer or explain. I am assuming that the author of this document is the mayor since the pronoun “my” is used at the beginning of the newsletter.
More than one councilor noted that they knew nothing of the content of the newsletter until the document arrived in their mailboxes. The public meeting referred to in the first statement was in fact chaired by myself and provided an opportunity for Ms. Napier, to explain her position as it related to her firm’s intellectual property being pirated and distributed under a false pretence. The intent was to once and for all put an end to an issue that has stained the reputation of this municipality and by extension our communities! This was not a closed door meeting! Sadly, the only member(s) from council in attendance were councilor Estha Baseley and former councilor Marg Fraser. Ms. Napier’s presentation was not confrontational but she provided the evidence that in fact supported her claim. Council members had the opportunity along with their CAO to attend, to listen to her presentation and provide an explanation as to their CAO’s erroneous claim regarding the document.
To end all of this, an apology by council to Ms. Napier could have concluded the matter. Instead the mayor has chosen to keep this issue alive in the news letter by continuing to hopelessly defend actions of the CAO in this matter. I must also address the “in camera” issue because the author of the newsletter links this to a former structure of council management and claims that this lacked transparency. In camera sessions have never been part of the regular agenda of council meetings. This is a process that should be rarely used by any council. Its intent is to deal with an issue that requires a private discussion by councilors. In such a situation, a motion to meet “in camera” would be called for with a recorded vote. Following the “in camera” meeting, the issue would be brought back into the general session of the council meeting. The item could be tabled for discussion at a subsequent meeting, or it would be dealt with in the normal course of the same meeting.
Read the full letter in this week's Banner!
