CAO Ann Pappert is expected to bring to council Monday night a report on how to move forward with the city's absenteeism on the board of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health.
You'll recall council voted in September to pull its three members from the board amid an ongoing dispute about "governance issues."
With the provincial Health Minister writing recently to ask what the city intends to do about the missing members -- and reminding the mayor about the city's legal obligation to be at the table -- it will be interesting to see the discussion tomorrow night.
I understand the matter is to be discussed in-camera first because of the legal implications, but hopefully debate about how to proceed will take place during the public session.
We're speaking to some councillors this weekend to get their sense of what should happen next and will have that in the paper tomorrow.
I'd appoint one representative for openers and task that rep with getting copies of all internal and in camera Minutes, Reports, and Official What-Nots.... with responsibility to report back to City Council and Staff prior to any further action on appointing additional reps.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | January 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Thanks…...
Your blog is very informative, there is very good information
pramiracetam
Posted by: martin croe | January 30, 2012 at 05:51 AM
Edward, you are advocating a strategic approach to getting City representation back on the board, rather than just sending them all back right away.
What exactly would be the benefit of doing that?
What is to be gained by continuing this game of staying away from the table? Does that not signal more unwillingness to work together with the County for the sake of the people of Guelph.
Posted by: D C | January 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM
:-) there are many more issues between the city and the county... it is long since past the time for a cohesive and all-inclusive strategy.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | January 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM
The Mayor and council should just man-up
(woman - up)which ever you prefer and get
back to the table.
No problems can or will be solved by sitting
on the side lines.
At least with reps sitting around the table
the citizens of Guelph will have a say in what
happens.Even if they get out voted they will
still have a say.
For the mayor and council this is what it
means to live in n a democratic society.
So get over your egos and get back in the game.
Posted by: frosty | January 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM
The City has a say whether they're at the table or not.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | January 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM
The City shouldn't have a say whether they're at the table or not as they represent taxpayers. The culture of stonewalling helps no one.
The Province should step in on this one.
Posted by: ernie | January 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Edward, as you already noted, the City benefits by receiving documents if they send a representative.
But how does the City (or more importantly, us, as taxpayers) benefit from (partially) staying away?
What is accomplished in that? If it is to send a message, has that not already been achieved?
Posted by: D C | January 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM
The other issue is I believe the Health Protection and Promotion Act requires a certain number of designates based on population, so sending one still would not satisfy the city's legal obligation.
Posted by: Scott Tracey | January 30, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Councillors Kovach and Laidlaw would make sense to me, at this point.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | January 30, 2012 at 04:31 PM
The city is legally obligated to go back. No amount of discussion will change that. One of our reps should be Karen Farbridge and upon her return her first order of business should be to explain the city's actions to the health board and then she should apologize.
Posted by: geo | January 30, 2012 at 04:56 PM
I don't contend that the city can duck going back. I was just pointing out that the city, like the rest of us, has more than one way to "have a say".
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | January 30, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Ed:
Having a "Newfie Shower" is not the best way for the City to "have a say" and that is what the Gang of Eight has done.
Craig:
Laidlaw was previously a Rep and made the motion to lease the land from the University for the new Health building. Does that not strike you as curious or worse? When the Mayor said "tools down" she went along blindly. Of course where does Laidlaw get her salary? Brownie points anyone?
The Mayor has to be one of the City Reps, and I will relish watching her eat crow, and Kovach is OK as a pick, but the third rep has to come from the ranks of the "Frustrated Five".
Your pick of Laidlaw disappoints me, I thought you paid more attention.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | January 30, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Yuck "Serious Cynic"! I have no idea what a "Newfie Shower" is other than some really tasteless so-called joke.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | January 30, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Edward you got it. Guess it's much like your half baked idea. We ate crow because of Farbrdige and Laidlaw and now is the time to embrace the board and get involved. You want to sit back and play games. Guess what...it is a half baked game of ego's. It doesn't feed the population that the board serves. It only feeds ego's of those we in the end, don't care about because the health board serves, us the tax payer. Or would you rather serve yours and their ego's over the needs of the people. Man you are a piece of work.
Posted by: Jim | January 30, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Serious, I am familiar with the history. And I would say that history is broadly known, which certainly distinguishes the "then" from the "now". Presumably, with the judgement in mind, any reps would be acting according to the direction of council, and if there is any wisdom in what I suggested above by way of the appointment to the board, I will leave it for time to reveal. Or not.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | January 30, 2012 at 09:29 PM
I do agree with your thoughts on the subject
at hand.
Posted by: Cpr For Health Professional | January 17, 2013 at 09:37 AM