Graphic that appeared on the town’s website inviting people to participate in strategic plan sessions & surveys
Members of Tantramar Council and senior town staff will be sifting through hundreds of ideas, suggestions and criticisms when they meet behind closed doors this month to draft a five-year strategic plan for the newly amalgamated municipality.
The ideas were compiled by the consultancy firm Strategic Steps Inc. based on responses from the 82 people who attended three public drop-in sessions, 144 who filled out an online survey and responses from 25 unidentified “stakeholders” including members of groups such as the Greater Dorchester Moving Forward Co-operative, the Climate Change Advisory Committee, people with an interest in economic development and participants from Mount Allison University.
Consultant Craig Pollett told CHMA reporter Erica Butler last month that during their closed-door “workshops,” members of council will have a chance to identify several key things they want town managers to pursue in setting a general direction for Tantramar.
“It gives the council a way to say to their administrative team, ‘This is where we want to end up, this is where we want to go.'” Pollett explained. “‘So, four years from now, we should have these 20 things accomplished.'”
The ideas, suggestions and criticisms are contained in a 12-page, “What We Heard” report posted on the town’s website.
It outlines for example, people’s thoughts about what improves their quality of life and what detracts from it:
The report shows a strong public interest in improving transportation including establishing inter-municipal bus services and creating bicycle lanes.
Under the heading “Sustainability,” it identifies the four leading issues as: renewable energy, local food production, biodiversity/conservation and climate-proofing municipal infrastructure.
Municipal services
The report says health, water, fire and policing were considered the most important municipal services:
Communications
The report says that residents identified communications as one of the municipality’s main shortcomings.
“Residents generally do not feel informed about the work of the municipality, with 41.5% indicating a lack of information and, only 28.6% saying they felt somewhat informed. 29% felt neutral, while nearly nobody felt totally informed (2%).”
Municipal Infrastructure
The report says water and sewer facilities scored highest with trails and parks in second place.
Sackville’s Visitor Information Centre was highly regarded with roads, sidewalks and public transportation scoring much lower, especially in Dorchester.
The report says most respondents did not identify the availability of housing as a “major barrier” to living in Tantramar, but points out about 85% of them were homeowners. It says that 13.3% named housing as “the most significant barrier” to living here, a number roughly equal to the renters who responded indicating “a need for rental options in the community.”
Improving Tantramar
To read the full “What We Heard” document, click here.
Note: On August 26, Mayor Black responded to my e-mail asking that the council sessions to draft the strategic plan be open to the public partly because I wanted to cover them and partly because they do not meet the criteria for holding closed meetings under Section 68 of New Brunswick’s local governance act (LGA). Here’s his reply:
I think the critical piece to consider is the Strategic Planning sessions are not subject to LGA provisions since they are not a meeting of council and no decisions are being made. We appreciate the interest in the perspectives of elected officials, and a ‘What we heard’ document will be prepared for the public after these sessions.
On August 26th, I filed a complaint with New Brunswick’s Ombud asking for a ruling on whether council’s closed-door meetings are legal under the local governance act.
thank you Bruce Wark for filing a complaint. i think that it would be the responsibility of a Tantramar Town Council member to also know the rules and object if the Mayor has gotten them wrong about closed sessions.
Black’s response, “I think the critical piece to consider is the Strategic Planning sessions are not subject to LGA provisions since they are not a meeting of council and no decisions are being made,” is a claim that a “session” is not a meeting. A “session” is not defined or mentioned in the LGA, so effectively doesn’t exist in any legal sense. It’s just something Black invented. Meetings are mentioned in the LGA:
67 Subject to subsection 68(1),
(a) all regular and special meetings of a council shall be open to the public, and
(b) all meetings of a committee of council shall be open to the public.
The “Strategic Planning sessions” sound like either a special meeting or a committee meeting, in either of which case they must be open to the public (with the exception of certain meetings involving privacy and other confidential matters). If councillors are meeting for any reason, then it is a “meeting” as far as the Act is concerned.
The Act specifies that decisions may only be made at meetings. It doesn’t state that to be considered a “meeting” decisions must be taken, as Black seems to be implying. Inventing a new type of council gathering beyond the Act doesn’t have any clear purpose other than avoiding public oversight.
Yes, thank you Bruce for filing the complaint. It will be interesting to see what the Office of the Ombud has to say about it, considering their record so far.
Marilyn, one would think that our Town Councillors would and should object to questionable actions of the mayor during closed sessions. However, I recently received a response from the Local Governance Commission re an official complaint I lodged with them regarding Mayor Black’s violation of the Procedural by-law and Code of Conduct by-law pertaining to the election of the Deputy Mayor, as witnessed in the video of the first council meeting of the new entity of Tantramar held on Jan 10, 2023. His voting against holding the election in that meeting, which was required by the procedural by-law, was in effect election interference, which should be considered a very serious violation.
In their response, the Local Governance Commission included copies of the voting records of Town Councillors in two separate ‘in camera’ council meetings regarding my official complaint that I lodged with the town. The first vote pertained to whether there was merit to my complaint. In this vote, Mayor Black voted that there was ‘no merit’. However, the majority voted that there was merit so the complaint went to the next step. The second vote at a following meeting pertained to what actions should be taken – either legal, investigative, or no action. In this vote Mayor Black and the majority of Councillors voted ‘no action’. The only Councillors who voted for investigative action were Councillors Hicks and Phinney (Councillor Wiggins-Colwell was absent).
What these records show is that Mayor Black was allowed to vote on what actions to take regarding an official complaint that had been lodged against him. In my view, this was a blatant conflict of interest on the Mayor’s part, yet apparently none of the Councillors thought that this was a problem. This brings back memories of former CAO Burke controlling the release of information from an investigation into firefighter complaints when one of the complaints made was against himself.
The Local Governance Commission in its ruling made no mention of this apparent conflict of interest, and ruled that since Mayor Black had acknowledged his violation of both by-laws , there was no further action to be taken. It would be interesting to know if Councillors Phinney or Wiggins-Colwell were given the same opportunity to simply apologize for their perceived violations of the Code of Conduct by-law, instead of being officially reprimanded (with the loss of pay and benefits in one case). One would think that in the interest of fairness and accountability, our Town Councillors should all be held to the same standards, but that apparently is not the case.
Considering the rulings of the Office of the Ombud in recent years regarding freedom of information requests, and the ruling of the Local Governance Commission regarding violations of municipal Code of Conduct by-laws, it appears that these provincial government entities are useless in regards to ensuring transparency and accountability in our municipal governments.
Well said Les. It’s a shame that so many complaints have to be filed with the Ombud over information that should unquestionably be available to the public. It is disappointing to see how the Mayor continues to misinterpret the Local Governance Act in a way that favors their own positions. They have violated the basics of local governance which amounted to election interference (Deputy Mayor Election), conficts of interest and favoritism (Code of Conduct Complaints). The lack of transparency and openness continues to be appalling.
Re: high property taxes in Tantramar… are you aware that there is a house currently on the market in Sackville (on a small acreage) with stated property taxes of just over $10,000??? That works out to an extra $800/month over and above mortgage payments for a potential buyer… and that amount will never decrease. That’s obscene…