Council Preview
Big Township Council meeting tonight. I suspect Councillor Richter's motion on changes to the Township's procurement policy will cause the most heated debate. I plan to second the motion, and hope to convince Council to refer it to our discussion on the Township's procurement policy next month (the procurement policy governs how the Township spends money and enters into contracts).
The motion will be a bit sticky because of Councillor Richter's preamble, which attacks the McLeod Grandstand project. The previous Council approved a budget, which our Council added to last month. Councillor Richter calls it an overrun; Mayor Alberts calls it a service improvement, as most of the extra money goes into things not originally contemplated in the original plan. I suspect there will be a lot of debate over who is right. Truth, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm hoping everyone can dial down the spin and heat over the preamble, and look at the policy implications of what the motion suggests. They are pretty good ideas (firm-fixed prices, sharing costs on overruns, independent cost surveyors) and should be included in our dialogue on the Procurement Policy.
Councillor Long also offers an interesting notice of motion, which would force business owners to put items that could be used as drug paraphernalia out of sight of children. This is in repsonse to complaints about rose tubes, pipes and other items. Apparently, we cannot forbid these businesses from selling these items, so Councillor Long is suggesting we treat them as we do cigarettes or pronography. I look forward to supporting his motion.
The motion will be a bit sticky because of Councillor Richter's preamble, which attacks the McLeod Grandstand project. The previous Council approved a budget, which our Council added to last month. Councillor Richter calls it an overrun; Mayor Alberts calls it a service improvement, as most of the extra money goes into things not originally contemplated in the original plan. I suspect there will be a lot of debate over who is right. Truth, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm hoping everyone can dial down the spin and heat over the preamble, and look at the policy implications of what the motion suggests. They are pretty good ideas (firm-fixed prices, sharing costs on overruns, independent cost surveyors) and should be included in our dialogue on the Procurement Policy.
Councillor Long also offers an interesting notice of motion, which would force business owners to put items that could be used as drug paraphernalia out of sight of children. This is in repsonse to complaints about rose tubes, pipes and other items. Apparently, we cannot forbid these businesses from selling these items, so Councillor Long is suggesting we treat them as we do cigarettes or pronography. I look forward to supporting his motion.