Posted by Phil Andrews
Given city council's two motions of support passed for City of Guelph CAO Ann Pappert last year and what seemingly gave rise to them, being in on a closed city council meeting on Feb.4 would probably be interesting.
At that time council is to review the compensation for its CAO and the CAO's "2013 performance objectives."
It's a closed meeting because the subject of the meeting surrounds an identifiable individual. Psst: it's Ann Pappert.
Also, at the meeting, according to an agenda released by the city, is a "settlement update" related to the city's official plan amendment to create a Natural Heritage Strategy for the city. In the city's words the move was done: "to establish a sustainable greenspace network throughout the City."
The official plan amendment was then the subject of an OMB appeal.Several parties are involved in the OMB case.
Please tell me you are going to get much deeper into this one.
Posted by: geo | January 25, 2013 at 04:44 PM
Council's motions of support run counter to their fiduciary responsibility, imho, and should not have happened. It's basically writing blank cheques of authority to the person in question, especially given their position.
It's harder to take someone to task for what they're doing if you've established that what they're doing is acceptable. I think those motions, about a specific person in a key position of authority, can also put a chill on whistle-blowing or feedback from others, which is not in the best interests of taxpayers.
Motions of support are best expressed through continued employment -- to do otherwise escalates a commitment to a staff person and it raises questions about background politics.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | January 25, 2013 at 08:37 PM