Something Is Rotten In The State Of Lantzville

Shakespeare said it slightly differently but I think the phrase applies nicely to our town these days.  To quote Wiktionary, the phrase “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” means:

1. Something is not right, rife with errors from top to bottom, leading to suspicion of motive.    If the administration knew about the problems and chose not to prevent them, then clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Allow me to outline the details I have discovered over the past month.

Regarding a water agreement:

• Did you know that the CAO of Lantzville had a draft water agreement from Nanaimo in 2011. 
• A draft agreement which would have supplied water to 651 homes in Lower Lantzville.  This would have freed up the Harby Road well field to supply homes in Upper Lantzville at Lantzville’s discretion 
• In February 2012, the City of Nanaimo resolves to not conclude a final agreement on water supply to Lantzville due to uncertainties surrounding the City’s water needs.  At this time Nanaimo had not received a reply from Lantzville regarding the draft agreement it had provided. 
• It appears Council was not notified of the existence of this 2011 draft agreement until June 2013.  A material piece of information that could have drastically changed the nature of water supply to Lantzville – and it is not revealed to Council for one and a half years

To develop the plot:

In the minutes of the March 24, 2014 Council meeting, members of Council asked “if the 2011 draft water agreement came before Council.”   Staff “advised the 2011 draft was received at an in camera meeting of Council.”  This confirms the existence of a draft water agreement in 2011. 

I questioned a Councillor regarding the draft agreement and when they received notice of it.  They acknowledged that they were not aware of the 2011 draft water agreement until June 2013.

I questioned Council on this timing during the September 29^th, 2014 Council meeting.   One Councillor stated that they were notified of the agreement before June 2013.  We now have one Councillor stating they didn’t know till June 2013, another stating prior to June 2013.  Either, one of the Councillors is misrepresenting the facts, or information is distributed on different timelines to different Councillors.  Neither option is acceptable.

Having firmly established that such an agreement existed, the debate is the timing.  The answer lies in the in-camera minutes which we, the public, are not privy to.  I strongly believe this draft agreement was received at the June 23^rd, 2013 in-camera meeting and I would welcome Council or the District to prove otherwise by releasing the in-camera minutes.

To make matters more perverse, during the June 23, 2013 regular Council meeting, Council passed a motion that “affirms the direction of staff the past two years”.     

Let me walk through this with some fictional role playing.

The Stage: The District Office

The Date: June 23^rd

The Lighting: On full, because it’s very hard to read that small print otherwise

----------------------------------------------------

CAO to council:  You know, I had this draft water agreement back in 2011 that I did not tell you all about. 

Council:  [Insert expletive].  Really, a draft agreement back in 2011.   [Insert expletive].  What do we do now.

Brainstorming session …..

Some member of Council:  I know, we could pass a motion that says we are on board with everything you have done the past two years.  It’ll just be like we back dated an approval.

Another member of Council:  Can we do that?

Some member of Council:  Sure.       

Council to CAO:  No worries - our motion will affirm the direction of staff the past two years. Problem averted.

  -----------------------------------------------------

Back to being serious.

During the meeting when the existence of this draft agreement is finally declared, is Council disturbed or troubled?  Clearly not.  They pass a motion which basically says “that’s ok staff, we agree with you, you’re doing a good job”.  Rather than placating the situation, Council should have served those they represent and asked for a letter of resignation.

* Why did staff not inform Council it had the 2011 draft agreement when it was received from Nanaimo.

* This draft agreement could have drastically changed the nature of water supply to Lantzville.

* This draft agreement, if accepted,  would have had far different outcomes to the existing residents of Lantzville when compared to the agreement that is now in place.

For further reference, I sent a question to staff regarding the communication mechanism between staff and Council.  I received a detailed reply from Major de Jong in which he stated “It is my view that communication is well structured and all of Council is well informed”.

If communication is indeed well structured and all of Council is well informed, Council should have been notified of the 2011 draft water agreement when it was received from the City of Nanaimo, not one and a half years later.

This sequence of events is just wrong - ethically, morally, philosophically, and so forth.

Or maybe I just have trust issues.