Parks and recreation advisory committee chairman Ron Elliott wants to know why his committee was dropped off this year’s Christmas list for the annual town party.
Mayor David Anderson said Elliott was at council to discuss the guest list to the town’s 2008 Christmas party
Elliott said he was told at a recent meeting that its members had been eliminated from the guest list.
“I have several questions.”
First off, Elliott wanted to know when the decision was made.
Anderson said council actually made the decision in September 2007. One of the reasons behind that, Anderson said, is there are a lot of committees. Further, in the past, the Christmas parties had generally been for the fire department and staff.
One of the things which came out of council’s decision in 2007 was an appreciation night that was held earlier this year. “A lot of volunteers came to that,” Anderson said.
He estimated over 100 people attended and there were a number of positive comments.
“It was a nice way of thanking people.”
He said that was “so everyone could take part. It was our way to say thank you. It is something we intend to carry on. As you know, volunteers make up our municipality.”
As for the committee members being at the Christmas party it opens the door to other volunteer groups.
Elliott wanted to pin down who made the decision or who proposed the motion.
Anderson said the matter was discussed in closed session and moved and carried within regular council.
Regardless of who brought the motion to the table, Anderson said it was supported by council.
Elliott then asked why it was discussed in closed session to begin with.
Clerk Barb Wilson said the issue fell into the area of property (and use thereof).
As Elliott asked for an explanation, Wilson said property falls under a huge umbrella of issues. She said it is the municipality’s right to host a party, and as such, falls under that jurisdiction.
Elliott disagreed, and said he does not believe something like the party should have been held in closed session. He thought it would be more fair to have brought up who made the motions and if council was unanimous.
Elliott also questioned the criteria behind the group’s elimination from the event. He said he had been a member of the committee for the past 10 years and attended the town party each year. In those 10 years committee members were invited to every town party. “There never was an issue before.”
He wanted to know if there was a complaint lodged.
Anderson said it was more that if that committee was invited, it would open it up to all. “But [the committee] has always been invited,” said Elliott.
Anderson realized that.
“I still don’t think its right,” Elliott said.
He asked how the firefighters are different from other community groups.
“Volunteer firefighters are a whole different category, than all the other groups” Anderson stated. He pointed to the training and the time put in to serve the community.
Elliott said his belief is his group is committee of council and asked how many other committees fall in that category.
Anderson’s first estimated there are at least two extended committees of council.
Wilson asked for clarification as to what Elliott considered a committee of council.
Elliott suggested they were buffers to council where minutes and motions are presented for consideration.
Wilson said that covers numerous committees including economic development, and environmental management.
Elliott asked if there was representation from outside of council.
Wilson again cited economic development. She said the municipality must give notice for those meetings, because they are open to the public.
Elliott still did not understand his committee’s removal from the guest list. He supposed each individual group could hold its own private party. He still questioned why it was dealt with in-camera.
Anderson said there was a reason at the time, though he had not researched into it. He again stated one main reason was because of the number of volunteers in the municipality, and if Elliott’s committee was invited, then everyone should be.
Elliott believed the precedent had already been set by inviting its members to previous parties. “To be honest with you, it’s all principal here. If I missed the town party, that’s fine. I’m here because I believe it was the wrong thing to do. All of a sudden you’re saying they’re no longer invited to something they’ve always been invited to.” He asked if the plan now is to start eliminating others by picking and choosing.
Again, Anderson explained council’s reasoning.
Elliott again asked who brought the issue to council.
Wilson said that since discussion was in-camera that cannot be revealed.
“It was in closed session and you know as well as everybody here, that you cannot let that information out.”
At the same time, Anderson said councillors realized the need to recognize its volunteers.
Elliott still maintained the matter should have been dealt with in public. When he considered the criteria of what should be discussed in closed session and what shouldn’t – this did not fall into any of them.
He complimented council on its logo and motto. However he said it comes across as “Where your family belongs … and we’re not part of that family.”
Anderson went back to the concept of the appreciation night. He said it was well attended.
Elliott said that “I appreciated the appreciation night, but it doesn’t satisfy … I believe there was a wrong here. I think this is a poor poor attitude towards some strong volunteers.”
He was further upset the director of recreation had to tell members they are not invited “You can’t tell me the truth, or the whole truth because it was in-camera.”
He believes the decision was personal and that group members were being ostracized
When asked about the other committees not invited, Elliott contended those individuals had never attended or been on the guest list.
He said that his committee members are appointed. He believed the least that should have been done was to have a letter sent to them to explain the rationale.
