Editor’s Note: I’m trying out my system of choosing items from the CBRM council agenda and doing some preliminary research on Tuesday afternoon, then watching the meeting and updating the article accordingly.
Item 6.2 (a) on last night’s CBRM council agenda was “business arising” from a January 17 in camera meeting, because the council’s first public meeting of 2023 was actually its third meeting of the year:
Memorandum of Understanding—CBRM and Doucet Developments for Sydney Waterfront
CAO Marie Walsh was to speak to this item, for which no additional information was provided in the agenda. Again, I’m writing on Tuesday, pre-meeting, so all I can note is that according to the schedule Doucet presented when he appeared before council on November 8, that MOU was supposed to have been approved in 14 days, locked down by November 25. Doucet intended to spend the period between November 28 and January 18 schmoozing politicians and lobbyists—he had Build Nova Scotia, MPs and MLAs, Mayor and Councilors and “potential partners” all penciled in:
That the MOU is on the agenda tonight (and that there’s no information attached to it) suggests the negotiations did not go as smoothly as Doucet expected. That’s my Tuesday afternoon take, now let’s see…
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
The MOU is in place and Walsh was big enough to offer a few details “for the public,” as she put it, namely:
- Doucet will pay market price for the land he buys but he will not buy all the land because the CBRM will carve out some of it for public and waterfront space. Which portions Doucet will buy and which the CBRM will keep was not information she felt the public needed to know. The price will be negotiated with Doucet after he’s completed his due diligence. CBRM Councilor Eldon MacDonald told the CBC’s Tom Ayers the land had previously been valued at between $3 million and $4 million.
- Doucet is getting a year to do his due diligence and market research, then four months to do his permitting and three months after that, the project is to be “shovel ready.” So, if everything goes according to Doucet’s plan (which is already off schedule) he’ll put a shovel in the ground on our waterfront in 19 months’ time. What he’ll be building (or where, exactly) is anybody’s guess—his presentation to council was very loosey-goosey about how many buildings he’ll build, how tall those buildings will be, which end of the property he’ll develop first, etc.
Council called for the question and approved the MOU without any discussion, because that’s the kind of council we have.
Evaluating the CAO
Item 6.1 (a) on last night’s CBRM council agenda was “business arising” from a January 10 in camera meeting:
Appointment of CAO Performance Review Committee
Mayor Amanda McDougall, whom I must apparently now refer to as Mayor Amanda M. McDougall-Merrill, will speak to this item. (I understand the wish to add her double-barreled married name, but why the initial? Is there another Mayor Amanda McDougall-Merrill whose mail she’s been getting? I sometimes use “Mary P Campbell” it’s true, but that’s because my name is “Mary Campbell” and I live in Cape Breton.)
All the agenda has to say about this item is:
Meeting to Establish Process—CAO Performance Review
It was agreed that a Committee be established to oversee the CAO Performance Review, consisting of the Mayor and four Councillors. Further, the Mayor will poll all members of Council to determine interest in serving on that Committee and those names will be referred to the Council meeting scheduled for January 17, 2023 for appointment.
Why was that decided during an in camera meeting? Council called it a “personnel” matter and used Section 22(2)(c) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to justify discussing it behind closed doors, but it sounds to me like an administrative matter–council has decided to institute a CAO performance review process and will establish a committee to oversee it. Why could that not be discussed publicly?
I am also curious to know why this is being instituted now. I asked Krista Higdon, spokesperson for the department of municipal affairs, if the province mandated such reviews and she replied by email:
CAO performance evaluations are not mandated though the Municipal Government Act, but the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing encourages councils to implement such an evaluation. The performance review process ensures that the CAO and council are aligned in terms of priorities and expectations, and also helps to drive conversations about the development and training needs of the CAO.
Higdon also provided a link to the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators’ (CAMA) “toolkit” for CAO performance evaluation.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED:
Having watched council debate this item, I remain more convinced than ever that there was no justification for holding the initial discussions in camera—hearing District 6 Councilor Glenn Paruch worry that he would break the in camera rules by publicly referencing the size of committee they’d settled on behind closed made this all too farcically clear.
Mayor McDougall-Merrill was away on personal leave last night so it was up to Deputy Mayor James Edwards, who chaired the meeting, to present this motion.
It emerged that six councilors, including Edwards, wanted to join the mayor on the performance review committee and council had decided during their secret session that they would choose four by vote during last night’s meeting. But things went off the rails immediately with District 7 Councilor Steve Parsons (who apparently missed the in camera) suggesting they should just allow all six councilors to sit on the committee. Then concerns were raised about having both the mayor and the deputy mayor on the committee (the municipal clerk said this was not an issue).
If I followed events correctly (and I’m not sure I did) they first voted on Parsons’ proposal, which was defeated. Then two councilors removed themselves from contention and they approved a committee consisting of four councilors—Gordon MacDonald, Earlene MacMullin, Glenn Paruch and Lorne Green—and the mayor. I was watching the meeting online and the votes, for some reason, are no longer being shown, so all I know is that one motion was defeated and one was passed, I don’t know by how much. I also don’t know when this committee will meet or what criteria it will use to evaluate the CAO because none of this was discussed publicly.
Because that’s the kind of council we have.
