From
the Desk of Al Nelman
Presentation to WUC Board – 6th December 2011
2012 Budget – MSA/Enwin Utilities Ltd
Good Morning Mr. Chairman & Board Members,
A very obvious dismissive attitude to my past appearances here is exemplified by the contents of a duplicated letter sent to me and to Mr. Alex Foley, signed by the Chairman of this commission, dated 25th August 2011. That letter uses accusatory language suggesting unwarranted action as if I am just a nuisance with nothing of substance to say. I am insulted by the inference. In particular you have accused me of stating that I have alleged that this commission has never approved the MSA. That is not correct and I challenge you to produce any presentation or communication of mine containing such an allegation. However, I do have every right to re-visit any subject that I feel is not in my best interest as a consumer of basic services, water and hydro. That also applies to members of this board. In the main, my comments are directed to my opinion of the protocols and processes of municipal governance in this city.
The MSA and its inclusion in the 2012 budget without a public discussion on the surprising 50% increase since 2007 indicates that this board is comfortable with the status quo and the resultant profit laden utility costs. Despite the promise by you Mr. chairman to meet with the Enwin executive to discuss the inclusion of a questionable proportion of new software costs, you have either failed to do so or you deem it unnecessary to make the details public.
The question of OEB oversight, in my opinion remains tantalizingly obscure and will continue to be something to be addressed in the future.
I have no intention of irritating you further Mr. chairman and board members but I wish to close with my assurance that my presentations are not in any way influenced by any other members of the public who appear here from time to time. I therefore do not expect a duplicated letter that does not exclusively address my remarks. I have supplied a copy of my 28th July presentation and hope that you will re-visit the contents and in particular paragraph number four.
I make no apologies for my comments here today and thank you for your time.
Al Nelman
Resident Ward 8
Presentation to WUC Board 28th July 2011
Budget Item 10E
Good Morning Mr. Chairman & Board members,
I must tell you that my appearance here today is made with a great deal of reluctance. However, as this board has been reconstituted with a new Chairman and several new members I make this, the third presentation on the subject of the MSA in the hope that you will understand my reservations and act accordingly.
This Commission is now without any executives and administrative staff on payroll, who serve you and the general public exclusively. Again I repeat that the administrative staff at all levels cannot adequately serve two masters.
The budget that you will be discussing contains the MSA that has been costed by the employees of Enwin Utilities Ltd a company that guards its operating costs with an unprecedented vigour. As things stand, the MSA cost of $12.1 million is close to a 20% increase over 2010. How Enwin splits the costs between the WUC and Enwin Energy Ltd. has not been the subject of a public discussion by the audit and finance committee. I believe that Enwin has no revenue sources other than the MSA's with the WUC and Enwin Energy limited. I realize that this is an assumption but it can be confirmed or otherwise if they will release details of the revenue that is the result of any business other than from Hydro and Water.
I want to stress that a Commission that is not totally self controlled and allows costs to be initiated by an outside body involving the addition of a profit element to the cost of water, cannot properly represent the general public.
The unsustainable 3% rate increase presented to council last year was not initiated by the previous WUC board but was in conflict with a negative vote by that board. The result has been a total breakdown of adequate funding for this commission to develop and operate a proper business plan. When dealing with the production and distribution of clean drinking water at a rate that ensures long term reliability at the best possible price to the consumer it is essential that you must have full control at all times. The shenanigans involving that infamous 3% rate increase should never be repeated and that also applies to Enwin's purchase of a $15 million software package with little or no input from the previous Board for which you are now being asked to bear close to half the cost. Apart from anything else, the alarming increase in the cost of the MSA that is contained in the budget needs to be audited and discussed separately in public.
With my remarks in mind I hope that you will defer acceptance of the budget until you have studied the MSA document and vetted its content.
Thank you for your time.
Al Nelman
Resident Ward 8
Presentation to City Council - 6th September 2011
Post Construction Review of WFCU Centre Project
Good Evening Mayor Francis and Members of Council,
Why am I here this evening. Putting it quite simply it is my right to be here and to make known to this council my reaction to yet another flawed internal audit process.
The title of the report that describes the contents as a REVIEW is enough for me to wonder what happened to the AUDIT that was being prepared by the city's audit department. Why, when an Auditor General was finally in house did we, the taxpayers, have to spend $140 thousand dollars to once again retain KPMG? How much of this review is the work of the internal auditors? Was any extra audit work done by KPMG? How much of the city's lead auditor's draft was changed, if any?
Claiming time restraints seems to be an excuse for actions that are acceptable to both the administration and members of this council but nevertheless should never occur. In particular the whole concept of what is now the WFCU was inadequately planned from the outset and it appears there has been an attempt to avoid disclosure of the true cost of the project. The question of transparency was blatant enough as to draw comment from KPMG.
I have to ask why so many items seem to be so complicated. Land acquisition and cost, Mchugh Street, naming rights and estimated sale prices of the three sites that were replaced and over budget on fit-up costs all seem to need some further explanation. Strict adherence to the purchasing by-law also comes into question. It is clear that considerable work by city employees was not only omitted from the published cost but the records are not available to accurately rectify that omission. How has this practice affected published costs of the many recent projects? What part did the initial pressure from and payment to, if any, did the Spitfire Hockey Cub play in the cost and design of the arena?
The project is now completed and still many questions remain that need your examination. Dislocation of local centers and inordinate subsidy costs. Costs that are now borne by the vast majority of taxpayers who will never receive any benefit from this costly complex. You must address the question of catering to special interest groups to the financial detriment of the citizen majority.
It is for you to dot all the eyes and cross all the tees and insist that the administration learn the valuable lesson that full transparency is absolutely required when spending millions of tax dollars on projects like the WFCU. The result of tonight's discussion can well affect the many new costly projects now under construction or in the planning stage. You might consider a lesson that I learned in my youth, less haste more speed.
In closing, this review document will probably never be read by the majority of the general public. I would like to remind you all that there was the promise of regular ward meetings. That would be the ideal place for you to explain its content. You might even further explain to your electorate why they had to spend $140,000 on this review.
Presentation to WUC Board 28th July 2011
Budget Item 10E
Good Morning Mr. Chairman & Board members,
I must tell you that my appearance here today is made with a great deal of reluctance. However, as this board has been reconstituted with a new Chairman and several new members I make this, the third presentation on the subject of the MSA in the hope that you will understand my reservations and act accordingly.
This Commission is now without any executives and administrative staff on payroll, who serve you and the general public exclusively. Again I repeat that the administrative staff at all levels cannot adequately serve two masters.
The budget that you will be discussing contains the MSA that has been costed by the employees of Enwin Utilities Ltd a company that guards its operating costs with an unprecedented vigour. As things stand, the MSA cost of $12.1 million is close to a 20% increase over 2010. How Enwin splits the costs between the WUC and Enwin Energy Ltd. has not been the subject of a public discussion by the audit and finance committee. I believe that Enwin has no revenue sources other than the MSA's with the WUC and Enwin Energy limited. I realize that this is an assumption but it can be confirmed or otherwise if they will release details of the revenue that is the result of any business other than from Hydro and Water.
I want to stress that a Commission that is not totally self controlled and allows costs to be initiated by an outside body involving the addition of a profit element to the cost of Water, cannot properly represent the general public.
The unsustainable 3% rate increase presented to council last year was not initiated by the previous WUC board but was in conflict with a negative vote by that board. The result has been a total breakdown of adequate funding for this commission to develop and operate a proper business plan. When dealing with the production and distribution of clean drinking water at a rate that ensures long term reliability at the best possible price to the consumer it is essential that you must have full control at all times. The shenanigans involving that infamous 3% rate increase should never be repeated and that also applies to Enwin's purchase of a $15 million software package with little or no input from the previous Board for which you are now being asked to bear close to half the cost. Apart from anything else, the alarming increase in the cost of the MSA that is contained in the budget needs to be audited and discussed separately in public.
With my remarks in mind I hope that you will defer acceptance of the budget until you have studied the MSA document and vetted its content.
Thank you for your time.
Al Nelman
Resident Ward 8
Presentation to The WUC Audit and Finance Committee
15th July 2011
Good Morning Everyone,
I am addressing the planning that this committee will be undertaking during the coming months.
In the intervening months since last I appeared before this committee and the full board there has been quite an upheaval in the make up of both entities. Without questioning the qualifications of the new members I feel obliged to note the absence of Ms Plunkett and Mr. Sandala whose knowledge and experience will be missed by those of us that have been active in the Commissions affairs.
The last time I was here I complained about the MSA that exists between the Commission and it's hired management contractor, Enwin Utilities Ltd. I believe that a thorough review of the MSA should be a priority of this committee. It is my opinion that the crossover management positions that exist raise the question as to the independence of the WUC when the question of potable water is the subject of discussion and a proper business plan needs to be in place.
I was appalled when the water rates were last discussed. At a special meeting called by the WUC board they were presented with a report that contained not only the 5% increase to which they had agreed but a 3% unsustainable alternative plan that they had not requested. A vote was taken and the 3% plan was defeated. Instructions were issued after a majority vote that they wanted the report to council to contain just the 5%. Increase. In any event they were ignored and the presentation to council that night contained the 3% unsustainable alternative. It is my opinion that a situation exists that removes the decision process out of the hands of an independent WUC Commission and into the hands of the management contractor and that is one step too far for this taxpaying citizen.
Enwin Utilities limited has steadfastly refused to allow any taxpaying citizen of this city access to information regarding details of their operations, The Audit and finance committee as it starts this new 4-year period, should have a public discussion on the merits of the $12 million dollars that Enwin is literally imposing as the new level of their charges.
I conclude my remarks with the request for a full discussion to decide if the independence of the WUC Commission has been breached thus removing full control of water delivery by the elected and appointed representatives of this city.
Letter to Windsor Star
Dear Sir,
Re Editorial 13th June 2011
For too long the many major columnists attached to your newspaper have shown a total lack of objectivity when writing on the subject of municipal affairs. They dispense what they think of, as unassailable words of wisdom while carrying on a crusade to attack members of the public who dare to disagree with their subjective opinions. They are cheer- leaders for the several risky commercial undertakings that are slated to consume millions of tax dollars without real financial diligence but without any words of caution. Their columns appear to be nothing but the distribution of court circulars
Those activist members of the public, who are able and do, give of their time to articulate their point of view and in some important cases opposition to the activities of City Council are regularly labeled and attacked as whiners and naysayers in the columns of the pundits.
Today's editorial coming on the day that council is poised to push forward with the Aquatic Center project is, to say the least, interesting. It can be easily interpreted as the seal of approval and support for good punditry and a final effort to diminish the opinions and activities of public minded individuals with the use of the description naysayers.
There are forty registered delegations for this evening's public meeting at city hall. Are those in opposition all whiners and naysayers? Are they all not entitled to voice an opinion on the future of their neighbourhoods? Are they not entitled to learn the source of all the funds required for this project? Are they not entitled to demand transparency and honesty from their elected representatives?
It appears to this old curmudgeon that investigative reporting is no longer part of The Windsor Star's activities.
Al Nelman
Open Letter to Councilor Bill Marra - 21st April 2011
On Monday evening 18th April 2011at a public council meeting I exercised my democratic right to address council on the subject of the newly appointed Auditor General.
After I had left the delegation chair but was still in the audience you decided to castigate me for what you described as my constant habit of complaining and criticising the work of council. I am both surprised and angry that you decided to make your remarks after I left the table and gave me no opportunity to give you the reply that is contained in this letter.
I believe that in any one year, council meets in public over forty times. In any one of those years I may attend as a delegate perhaps ten times. That leaves thirty meetings where I am happy to leave the city's business in council's hands. I choose my topics carefully and mostly I deal with major changes or substantial expenditures where I want to have my thoughts and concerns heard as part of the public forum. Just to jog your memory I appeared before council in support of the projected "La Bella Strada" makeover of Erie Street. The remarks that I do make are mine and mine alone and have nothing to do with anything brought before you by any other delegate.
Looking back over the past twenty-five years I have always endeavored to be factual, respectful and precise in my presentations. I have never made any personal comments about individual members of council and I have observed the decorum that is expected in a public meeting. I expect to receive the same consideration from members of council.
My main concern last Monday evening was to ascertain the intended protocol to be used when each audit is complete and presented publicly. That question remains unanswered. I declined to comment on the appointment itself.
On the few occasions that I decide to appear before council it follows that I may have some negative observations to place before you. If I conclude that a concerned citizen's input is not needed, then as usual I will not attend.
Council cannot hold itself immune from considered criticism and should be willing to listen respectfully to all presentations, properly brought before you. Apart from the soon to be twenty public meetings a year, citizens will have very limited opportunities to comment on council business. Those of us who choose to come before council are afforded just five minutes to discuss their concerns. I understand that this rule is necessary and suggest that this is the time to institute ward meetings and town hall meetings on a regular basis.
In conclusion, I believe that your attack on me was completely unjustified and I want to make my attitude very clear. If and when I have anything to say to council I will be before you no matter how uncomfortable it is for you to listen to me. That is the basis of our democracy
Al Nelman
Citizen Ward 8
Presentation to City Council – 18th April 2011
Appointment of an Auditor General
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
My appearance here is to try and identify who will be best served by the appointment of an Auditor General. Mention has been made that out-sourcing has been considered. With the appointment of the Auditor General this is unnecessary and probably too costly.
I have watched this position bandied about ever since the audit of the 400 CHS building was completed. The title was bestowed on an unused office without an occupant and used to frustrate the general public who wanted to see the Dunbar Report. I assume that document is still lying on an unused desk gathering dust. Is the mandate for the new position going to be used once again as a tool in the frustration of the general public to ascertain the true facts when the flood of mega projects are under way? How will this affect the long overdue audit of the WFCU?
I am concerned because the word transparency seems to have been eliminated from this body's vocabulary, so I am bound to ask why the new appointee is to report directly to this council without mention of any direct responsibility to the taxpayers? At what point will the taxpayer become privy to the result of an audit? With greatest respect, will it be after an audit report has been presented to council most probably in camera where they have the opportunity to discuss and amend? How can the public be sure that they will have a complete original unaltered document?
As I've pointed out before, I believe that an executive can only serve one master. In this case the master is the taxpayer whose dollars are paying for whatever scheme is the subject of an audit undertaken by the Auditor General. We had this discussion when the 400 CHS audit was released. Without the final audit document being released in it's entirety to all the players simultaneously there can be no peace of mind for those who are most concerned that we are being well served by the bureaucracy.
I believe sincerely and as a matter of proper governance that the Auditor General must be autonomous answering directly to an audit committee that is composed of a majority of members of the public and a significant minority of city councilors. When they are satisfied that the audit document is complete then it must be released to all the stakeholders simultaneously. No repeat of the Dunbar travesty.
Presentation to Windsor Utilities Commission
24th March 2011
Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Board Members, Ladies & Gentlemen
I am here to support the motion requesting a meeting of delegates of both parties to discuss the MSA between The WUC & Enwin Utilities LTD.
I suggest to you that the meeting that has been requested be open to the public and that delegations be heard.
If the motion is supported then it occurs to me that the MSA Budget expense item should be removed from the budget document that is to be discussed here this morning. Perhaps in order to prevent any unnecessary delays the amount for the MSA should be amended to the current year's total. The amount that includes an increase of two million dollars will obviously be invalid and subject to amendment after the meeting being requested this morning.
I have much to say about the MSA and the meeting as called for would be the ideal time for me to address the subject of the MSA and its negative effect on the rights of the general public respecting the elevated cost and third party management of their utilities. I respectfully request that opportunity.
To that end I'm not prepared to make that submission today as I fully expect this board to support the motion and set a date for its implementation.
Thank You
Note: The passage highlighted in Red was omitted as any discussion on the budget was deferred until a new board has been appointed.
Presentation to City Council – 7th March 2011
$300,000 gift to Windsor Symphony
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
I realise that my appearance here on the 11th of January and my remarks dealing with the $300,000 annual gift to the Windsor Symphony Organisation fell on deaf ears.
Quite frankly, and speaking strictly as a tax paying citizen I'm sick and tired of a portion of my taxes being funneled into coffers of an independent insolvent business presently $600k in debt. I'm equally tired of being accused of being a naysayer and whiner because, in this case I'm being labeled as an uncultured individual who doesn't understand what a great contribution to this city is being made by the Symphony Orchestra. I can assure you that if the Orchestra leaves tomorrow this city will continue to function without the vast majority of the population being either aware or concerned.
The Windsor Symphony is just a small portion of show business that unfortunately is unsustainable in this city. I remember the last council donated $15000 to explore the possible use of the Armories building into an orchestra hall at a cost of some $40,000,000. An incredible folly that if implemented would finish up being yet another yoke around the necks of taxpayers, cultured or uncultured.
It is my contention that you do not have a mandate from the majority of taxpayers to make gifts of their tax dollars to insolvent businesses even under the guise of culture. There exists in Windsor, a symphony orchestra that is a collection of retired professionals, some members of the Windsor university music faculty and gifted amateurs who give very enjoyable concerts and need only a very small fee from the concertgoers.
Today with the trying circumstances that prevail in this community I could find myself agreeing to disperse the $300,000 to the many food banks into which some unfortunate folks are being forced just to put sufficient food on the table for their family. No unsupported symphony orchestra deserves a dime let alone an annual gift of this size.
Stop with the culture nonsense and get real and discontinue your pre-occupation with the many special interest groups that line up year after year for a gift of our tax dollars. Stick to the basics that are needed and make them a top priority.
Thank you for your time.
Presentation to City Council – 28th February 2011
Lease renewals – WFCU
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
I will be quite brief.
I have spent considerable time trying to wrap my mind around the report that is under discussion.
The contents are set out in such a fashion as to make it very difficult to make sense of the various options that are presented. For example, I have come to the conclusion that the tenant of the three facilities has been enjoying some measure of taxpayer subsidization since the leases began. The description assigned to this subsidy is, and I quote a "Flow Through" to the expenses of the Parks and Recreation Department. That must have the result of higher taxes for the taxpayer. I wonder if that subsidy is to be increased.
There remains the question as to the status of the Windsor Spitfire Hockey Club that is a private Company that is leasing the main arena in addition to the three minor facilities that are being discussed. How can the city justify the designation of a Municipal service to this organization? It is stated in this report that even if the city can have a tax- free designation as an MCF, any space leased to a non- municipal body is subject to taxes. I note that the legal questions are to be examined. Why has this not been done before tonight's vote?
I find the report to be badly constructed and there are too many options presented. I believe that with the signatures of six executives that there should have been just one clearly stated recommendation and it would be the one most advantageous to the taxpayers.
Despite having my fair share of normal common sense I certainly have great difficulty in properly analyzing the contents of this report. If I have any recommendation to council I would reluctantly point to Option two but that is with a great deal of unhappiness.
It would appear that the only reason for the change is to properly avoid paying taxes to the Province and increase the revenue flow to the city. That should be your main concern.
Thank you for your time.
Presentation to WUC Board Meeting - 3rd June 2010
Good Morning Chairman Lewenza , Board Members and All Present,
At the outset of my remarks I support the CfO's recommendation for the commission to participate in the City's Shared services review. That leads me to the third party managed services that already exist.
Once again I find it necessary to draw your attention to what I feel is the most unsatisfactory management dilemma that continues to haunt the WUC. Purchasing services from a third party without issuing an RFP is fraught with danger. I know that when I brought this subject before you at a previous meeting, assurances were given that the MSA was beneficial to this organization. I disputed it then and have no reason to change my mind. It is well to remind everyone that this board is directly responsible to the taxpayers. I must make it clear that I respect all of the professionals with whom I have had contact here in the WUC. However, they are employed by a management company, Enwin, which acts primarily in its own self interest. You are all very well aware that despite this board's willingness to provide interested taxpayers with a copy of the MSA, Enwin refused. This forced us to pay for a claim under the FOI. Why the negative attitude by Enwin? It is this attitude that causes me and others to be distrustful of the management quagmire that exists. We have no access to Enwin's costings for the services it supplies. The competence of their management is under wraps unobtainable by the public. For example it recently appointed a new highly paid executive whose salary and expenses form part of the basis for their charges. Would this board have made a similar appointment if it ran its own affairs? Why do taxpayers have to bear that burden? We have been told that while expenses connected with Enwin Energy Ltd have significantly decreased, the expenses of the WUC have increased. Detailed explanations are not forthcoming leaving the taxpayers to wonder why this is happening.
It is totally unacceptable that a profit element has been introduced in the make up of utility charges. The fact that a dividend is declared and paid to the City is just a backdoor way of imposing extra taxation. I appeal to this board to make Enwin produce its books for public scrutiny. Our utility rates are too high just by reason of the profit element in the MSA. Let me be clear, I do not accept the costings that Enwin attaches to the items in the MSA. I believe that a properly staffed WUC could operate far more efficiently. The WUC is in a financial bind and every effort has to be made to mitigate the upcoming increased water rates. Enwin's operations are shrouded in mystery. They hide behind the "We're a private for profit company. The problem is that their only source of income is obtained from the citizens of Windsor. In the name of fairness this state of affairs must cease. Yes, seeking to reduce service costs is to be applauded but the exercise should encompass every avenue and the MSA with Enwin should be revisited.
Al Nelman
Presentation to City council 3rd May 2010
Multi Cultural Master Plan
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
My approach is, what is Essential against what is not when tax dollars are involved.
Where in heavens name are we, Windsor or Toronto? Do I have to remind you that this City has problems? Many good folk are experiencing extreme difficulties. To them, every penny counts but this council finds lots of time and serious money to devote to the so-called essential cultural organizations that not only cannot sustain themselves but believe that the hard pressed taxpayers of this city should dip into their pockets to do so.
How many times must I remind you about real priorities?
What is suggested in the report before us is, the institutionalization of a number of special interest groups under the guise of the cultural well being of the citizens of Windsor. In the face of the trumpeted re-organisation of city hall this appears to be just a continuation of empire building.
I for one, and I’m certainly not alone, do not want you to be the guardians of my cultural well being. We resent this expansion of an already bloated bureaucracy to support the organizations that are listed. How many senior highly paid managers have been called on to spend costly time on this project? Put it this way, how many real good paying jobs will all this nonsense produce? How many sidewalks, roads, or sewers could benefit by the proposed and planned annual increased expenditure of $770,000 plus undisclosed management costs? This is not chump change. It is your duty to listen to the majority and apply due financial diligence.
You cannot manufacture culture. Enough of this pie-in-the-sky culture speak. The facts are that the citizens of this city have shown by their actions a steadfast lack of support, even during boom times, for these special interest groups. Looking back to the Hospital levy I believe this to be just another blatant act of coercion and that is being polite.
It is not for you to act as if the majority of citizens are in need of culture being rammed down their throats and forcing them to pay for something they absolutely do not support.
Thank you.
Presentation to City Council – 8th March 2010
Report on Enwin RFP – RFP # 2010-001
Good Evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
I and any member of the general public have the right to participate in these public meetings and expect that departmental reports addressed to The Mayor and Members of City Council appear on the agenda.
By sheer luck, the report being discussed this evening was found tucked away in Communications. It means finding an item that needs to be debated publicly, will require a thorough search through every section of civic corner just to make sure that something has not been hidden away. The attempt to slide this through without public debate is totally unacceptable. It just exemplifies the lack of transparency that exists and is just one more reason that I find myself in a constant adversarial atmosphere when appearing here.
Turning to the actual report and its content, it indicates that without Council’s prior consent or public debate a decision was made to act as a commercial entity, offering the department’s services to a private limited company. It has issued a proposal in response to Enwin Utilities Ltd’s RFP #2010 – 001. How was this action authorized? This is without precedent and the fact that the company in question is Enwin Utilities Limited raises a red flag. The unholy alliance that exists between this City’s government and Enwin has gone far enough.
My only conclusion is that this whole thing has been concocted behind closed doors. To those of you sitting as board members of Enwin, why rush this through without consulting Council as a whole? What is your explanation for an apparent attempt to literally hide it from the other members of council and public scrutiny?
I would like to know how many companies received the RFP and how many have made proposals? The time element seems to be very limited, reminding me of this City’s infamous RFP for the Western Super Anchor site which was also issued with a two week time limit probably designed to preclude bids from a large number of qualified companies. This whole situation is preposterous.
City’s administration is not there to sell its services commercially Never mind the so called synergies. If the department has time on its hands perhaps the best way to save tax dollars is to reduce its size. My suggestion to you is to withdraw the proposal and get on with running the exclusive affairs of this City.
Thank you
Presentation to City Council-18th January 2010
Audit 400CHS
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council
You are being asked to approve the completed Audit Report of the 400 CHS Building. I cannot see any reason for you deny that request. I have read it and commend its authors for a truly professional job. Its revelations are alarming.
The 400 CHS Building began with a misrepresentation to the general public that it was necessary and would be expense neutral. I can only describe the undertaking as a story of bumbling chaos. It reveals a complete lack of planning, oversight, management and expertise that led to a shocking $5 million overrun of the $27 million that was the original expenditure authorized by Council. You may want to argue about that but that is my conclusion.
The most important aspect of this unfortunate debacle is that one city council after another has just ignored their basic responsibilities and wandered far from their mandate. For too many years I have made representations urging the council of the day to remain within its mandate, make a list of real priorities and to refrain from committing tax dollars to risky commercial undertakings. Each time I have been totally ignored. The design/build fiasco of 400CHS emphasizes the wisdom of my advice. None of you are entitled to play business tycoon with taxpayer’s dollars.
However, in the short time available I have decided not to direct my remarks to any particular item but to ask a couple of questions that are at the core of the problems exposed in the Audit Report.
I want to query the chain of command that exists here in city hall. Part of the horror story contained in the audit report is the fact of a strained relationship between the CAO, the lead auditor and the audit committee. I asked the audit committee if and when did they report the situation to you Mayor Francis. I never received a satisfactory reply. So, I address the same question to you here this evening. When did you become aware that the CAO was being uncooperative with the Auditor and the audit committee and what did you do about it? I also asked another question at an audit committee meeting. Who was responsible for holding eleven boxes of information from the auditors and had they been disciplined. Again, no answer. The delay in producing those documents incurred substantial expense to the taxpayers and has the appearance of malfeasance which my dictionary defines as “Misconduct in an official capacity” This question deals with accountability at all levels and cries out for an answer.
In the present desperate economic times members of council are expected to walk hand in hand with their fellow citizens whom they represent. That means we all have to watch every cent and make it count. True diligence. You seem to have learned nothing from the sorry tale revealed in the audit document. So once again, I urge you to compile a list of real priorities, stay within your true mandate and stop using tax dollars in risky commercial enterprises. Leave business, development and major contracting to the private sector.
Thank you for my time.
Al Nelman
Presentation to Audit Committee – 13th January 2010
Audit 400 CHS Building
Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Ladies & Gentlemen,
As far as the more technical components of the report I am more than satisfied that all bases have been extremely well covered. I am particularly pleased with the legal review submitted by Mr. Roman of the firm of Miller Thomson. He explained to those of us who attended the council meeting and expressed interest that he had attempted to make his review readable by those who were not used to legalese. He succeeded admirably and I congratulate him. I would also like to thank Angela Berry and her staff for a hell of a job well done. Being an Old Curmudgeon it wouldn’t be me if I didn’t have a question for this committee who I acknowledge have a super difficult job in acting as watchdogs for the community.
I still have difficulty in accepting the status of the original Dunbar document. It sits in an office without an occupant and echoing the old film score I quote “The Auditor general is in the altogether” and that’s a happy circumstance because he remains invisible.
I draw your attention to the report submitted by KPMG Section 2.1 (2) Findings. I wonder why the strained relationships between this committee and the CAO were so sacrosanct that despite myself and other members of the public asking for an explanation for the unreasonable delay in the completion of the audit, you felt obliged to remain silent. I asked you who was responsible for the hoarding of eleven boxes of relevant documents and if anyone was being held responsible. Again, you remained silent.
I have to point out that you are the public’s last best hope when it comes to the question of how well our tax dollars are spent. My question is this: Was the Mayor informed of the very unsatisfactory state of affairs involving the CAO? If so, did you ask the Mayor to resolve the problem? It bothers me to think that such a state of affairs was not rectified immediately it became known. The result of inaction resulted in a very heavy cost to the taxpayers. It appears that we had a serious lack of meaningful oversight over all departments directly concerned with the construction of 400 CHS.
There are other concerns of accountability that will need to be taken up with City Council.
I close with my thanks to all concerned for the final make-up and contents of the completed audit of 400CHS
Thank you
Letter to the Editor - 30th September 2009
FOR COUNCILLORS ONLY
The motion introduced by Councillor Dilkens on the 28th 0f September was successful in removing the process of in-camera meetings being called with little or no advance information being made available to participants. However, it completely ignored the use of the excessive number of in-camera meetings that serve to deny information to the general public.
Council has a distinct duty to be as transparent as possible and they should make every effort to ensure openness and full disclosure. There are, of course, certain exceptions but they are usually just a minor part of council’s deliberations and can easily be dealt with while the balance of the discussion moves back into public session.
Council has the responsibility to not only to inform the general public but also to listen to their thoughts and suggestions on every aspect of public business. This means public debate rather than back room discussions. After election councillors do not immediately become the “Brains of Canada”. They should welcome the input from those who are interested and use the expertise that exists in the electorate at large. Fewer councillors and more members of the public on boards and commissions seems a better way to go.
The problem of secrecy can easily be overcome if councillors remember that they are our elected representatives to serve, not to rule or to represent any other entity of their political choice. They owe the general public their best efforts to carry out their duties with due diligence and transparency.
The transparency of governance is a basic requirement in order for democracy to thrive. It is well to remember that information is our friend.
I expect to see a new motion from any councillor to debate, in public, excessive use of in-camera meetings.
Al Nelman
Presentation to City council – 14th September 2009
Windsor Canada Utilities Ltd. – Shareholder Considerations
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council
This is a difficult presentation because this is the first public debate into the affairs of Windsor Canada Utilities Ltd. (WCUL) and in particular Enwin Utilities Ltd. It only arises because of the suggestion that a portion of WCUL should be sold to a private investor. I believe that to sell any part of WCUL to the private sector is to continue to maintain a profit element in the price of our utilities.
Since January 1st 2000 the WCUL group of companies has operated in almost total secrecy. The published Annual Reports are just a consolidation that simply hides the truth, revealing nothing of consequence. This council, ensuring that the secrecy was maintained has supported the policy of arms length status. It is incumbent upon you to exercise due diligence at all times and keep taxpayers properly informed but in this case you have failed us miserably.
From day one the group has blazed a trail of costly failure and I understand has been the subject of a Provincial audit. If true, why was that audit necessary? Mayor Francis, in a recent statement you tell us that the company is now profitable. Tell us, what is it doing to earn those profits. For example, what percentage of those profits result from close to ten million dollars that Enwin charges WUC for contracted administrative services. What percentage of the price of hydro is profit?
In the report before us, the dividend paid to the City is masking the fact that those dividends are really a back door method of taxation. On page three of the report we are told that the City has benefited from the dividends received. I maintain that to label those payments as dividends is nothing but a sick joke. The same paragraph also tells us the real truth. Let me quote; “These annual dividends have been included within the operating budget estimates of the City thereby reducing the amount required to be levied via property taxes”.
That is a total sell-out of the residents and businesses in this city. It begs the question as to why there is an element of profit in the price of hydro? It also begs a second question as to the necessity of Enwin remaining in existence at all. It has not lived up to the reason for its formation. The WCUL group was to be a viable, profitable commercial entity that would utilize the $158,141,000 of taxpayer assets transferred to it, as a vehicle to achieve commercial profits. Over the years, those assets have not produced the contribution that was intended.
You should not continue to use the WCUL group of companies to hide the true level of taxation as indicated in the Quotation I have mentioned. The so-called dividends are just an instance of indirect taxation hiding the true level of realty taxes needed to support the unconscionable high price of city services.
At this point I maintain that the history of this disastrous venture into commercial activity just emphasizes the futility of city councils wandering far from their mandate. I also want to make it abundantly clear that the price of our utilities, both hydro & water should be devoid of the PROFIT ELEMENT as is not the case today. They should be delivered at cost.
Finally, I ask you to do the right thing by winding up the WCUL group of companies and returning full control to the Windsor Utilities Commission. It’s time to clean the slate. It is time for taxpayers to be listened to regarding the handling of their assets. Represented not ruled.
I close with a comment to Councillor Jones. Grumpy trumps insulting every time.
Thank you
Al Nelman
Statement to City Council – 8th September 2009
YQG – Feasibility Study
Good Evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
I wish to make this my official protest regarding item No.3 on this evening’s agenda. The report has been presented here this evening is 117 pages long. It was released to the public last Friday the start of the Labour Day Holiday Weekend. The timing is outrageous.
It takes time to obtain and study such a document. Any rush to judgment here this evening before members of the public are able to participate will be a complete abdication of this Council’s responsibility to it’s constituents.
Once again, a very risky commercial gamble involving millions of tax dollars is being considered.
Not one dime of expenditure should be authorized at this time. Properly, council must officially receive the report this evening and schedule a detailed plan of action for discussion at a normally scheduled public meeting.
Once again, I quote my Mother whose wisdom knew no bounds “Less haste more speed” as in my opinion, you are stepping far beyond your mandate.
Caution applies in this instance.
Thank you
Presentation to WUC Board of Directors- 20th August 2009
Good Morning Chairman Lewenza, Board Members, Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am a little disappointed with the list of copied recipients of today’s agenda package. As Mr.Sandala’s carefully researched reply to both my & Mr. Foley’s presentations has been reproduced verbatim as Appendix “A”. Common courtesy would dictate that we should have been on that list.
I am here this morning just to make it clear that at no time was I hinting that the MSA was not producing significant savings. However, Mr. Sandala states that an evaluation by KPMG reveals 109 areas of cost savings. I am curious about such an exhaustive number and respectfully request that a copy of that KPMG report be made available to the general public. Such a long list must include who is responsible for stocking the pop machine.
Levity apart, my thrust was and still is, that the interplay between Enwin, a legally constituted commercial for profit company & The WUC an arm of municipal government appears to me to be troublesome. For the record, in my 20th June presentation I quoted from a report to Windsor City Council dated May 6th 2009 headed Windsor Canada Utilities Ltd – Shareholder Considerations. It contains the following statement referring to Dividends paid by Enwin to The City of Windsor;
“These annual dividends have been included within the operating budget estimates of the City thereby REDUCING THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE LEVIED VIA PROPERTY TAXES”
That statement begs the question as to how the inferred profit in Enwin is obtained. How much of that profit is bolstered by income from the MSA with this body. Mr. Sandala did not make reference to that aspect of my presentation and that is understandable. It will be debated elsewhere.
Please allow me a little more of your time, as I feel compelled to do a little venting.
For the past 25 years I’ve been making presentations to successive city councils, Boards of education and lately Sub Committees and Boards such as this one. I must admit that I’m getting tired, not because of a loss of enthusiasm but because of the way I and others are being received. I resent the unhealthy rush to demean our efforts that really constitute the basis of a healthy democracy. After all is said and done, we taxpayers pay the piper and we have a duty to ourselves to call the tune. Perhaps I’m actually becoming a genuine old curmudgeon but I have every intention to continue to initiate and participate in public debate, come hell or high water.
Thank you for your time .
Al Nelman
Presentation to WUC Board – 25th June 2009
Good morning Chairman Lewenza, Board members, Ladies & Gentlemen
Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you today. Without beating about the bush my appearance here and my assistance in making those five ward presentations can be summed up in one word. Information. I believe that information is my best friend and that notion applies to the population at large. It is that thought that is the theme of this presentation.
I have long maintained that the unholy alliance of the WUC and Enwin is an abomination that has been mired in some deception and much secrecy.
Why was Enwin appointed to take over the main administrative functions of this body? The service they supply is now costing taxpayers close to ten million dollars. That extraordinary expense cries out for in house staffing or competitive arms length bids.
There appears to be an overlap in the management of both bodies. This state of affairs raises questions of undue influence by senior management of Enwin, a private for profit Company and WUC a department of the City of Windsor. The General Manager of WUC holds a senior position in Enwin. This cross- pollination raises serious questions.
Why has the practice of electing WUC board members been scrapped in favour of closed-door appointments? This has certainly removed a considerable measure of control from the electorate.
All these queries have raised the question of motive. You may raise your eyebrows at that comment but I make it because I believe that this questionable association of the WUC and Enwin has led to a method of reducing Realty taxes by increasing the cost of Utilities. Quoting from a recent administration report dated 6th May 2009, headed
“Windsor Canada Utilities Ltd- Shareholder Considerations”
Page 3 Final sentence of Paragraph 3 reads,
“These annual dividends have been included within the operating budget estimates of the City thereby reducing the amount required to be levied via property taxes”.
This leads me to wonder what element of profit is involved in the price of utilities charged to the public.
I believe that an open debate on the future structure of both Enwin and the WUC is an absolute necessity. The proposal to sell WCUL to the highest bidder begs the question as to whether Enwin Utilities Ltd is to be included removing entirely the public control of the price of utilities.
Joan Rivers has it right. Let’s talk
Al Nelman
AGW Request for Loan &Long
term Funding - April 6, 2009
Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
I really dislike coming here to constantly complain that Council
has failed to set a realistic list of priorities. I hate doing this,
as I’d rather come here to contribute to your debates with
just a personal point of view. The subject of the report before you,
is a plea for close to a million dollars to support what I reluctantly
describe as another failed special interest group. I believe that
our Art Gallery is something that the citizens of this city should
support. However, apart from a dedicated few, the Gallery has been
unable, year after year, to garner sufficient private financial support
and paying customers through the door to operate independently. I’m
one of many hard pressed taxpayers who finds it difficult enough
to pay my taxes and I object to this council dictating to me where
my disposable income should be spent. Yes, my financial support for
The Art gallery should be my decision not yours. I hear the assertion
that if the Art Gallery closes that the cultural heart of this city
will be decimated. That’s nonsense! I also hear that tax dollars
are needed as the gallery is catering to the schools. That too fails
the financial test as the Provincial Government funds schools. Children
can well be exposed to art in the classroom. If they want field trips
to the art world, I have to point out that the Detroit Institute
of Art is a superior alternative and very accessible. As far as I’m
concerned the cry “It’s for the children” is wearing
very thin. Again, you must concentrate your minds on the dire straits
that we are in. Tax dollars are a very precious commodity and each
and every one of those dollars must be used on basic services and
nothing else. I drove here along roads that are becoming nothing
more than cart tracks. Take the million dollars and fix the roads.
Do not encourage any more special interest groups to constantly fail
and feel that they can rely on a regular infusion of tax dollars
for their continuing existence. Stay within your mandate, exercise
your required due diligence and set some basic priorities.
Thank you for your time.
Al Nelman
Windsor Tunnel Commission - 9th March 2009
Good afternoon everyone,
I'm looking for answers to some of the items contained in the report before
us. Simply because the list of Legal Services is just that, a list of totals,
I have been forced to make assumptions that will either be corrected or will
deserve to be addressed. I'm seeking confirmation that these expenses were
both necessary and beneficial to all of the citizens of this city.
Under the heading Detroit Matters. I have used a conversion rate
of 1.25 to arrive at a total of $420,158.07. Add the 2007 costs,
why was this matter pursued at such a cost in 2008 when it was apparent
that the required $75 million financing for the purchase of a management
concession was not forthcoming? We now know that the acting mayor
of Detroit has upped the ante to $100 million US dollars. He obviously
thinks he has a chicken that can be easily plucked.
With the obvious instability of the Detroit City council a justification
of this costly exercise is needed. I must add that many discussions
have led me to believe that the general public is outraged.
Now, the section headed “FOI Matters”. Please confirm that the
first item of $43,483.36 is the cost of your defense against a freedom of information
claim by concerned citizens. If you do confirm it, then it is clear that a
citizen’s legitimate request for information was not only denied but
the legal cost of that denial was made with those same citizen's TAX DOLLARS?
How you have the gall to do this is beyond my comprehension. This has to be
the ultimate injustice. An insult!
The next two items, paid to Mr.Sutts and Mr. Bennett are described as payment
for DWT Arbitration. The total is $121,067.01. I have to assume that these
payments are connected with the transfer of staff to a non-functioning corporation.
If I'm incorrect please explain the nature of this item.
Now I come to the payment of $49,223.49 for asset transfer to that same non-functiong
corporation. If the transfer has been completed why are we sitting here today?
If not, will there be a refund of these two payments?
I recall that last June or July you told Mr. Chaif and me that the
deal was dead.
If the non- functioning corporation is still without substance and the pursuit
of the management concession is over then this has been a colossal waste of
time and tax dollars. Please comment.
We’ve heard all of the so-called reasons for the pursuit of this ridiculous
transaction. Mr. Maroun might buy the Detroit half of the tunnel and build
a wall to shut it down. You want to safeguard the passage of Windsorites working
in the USA. You may not like to hear this but what goes on in the USA is totally
out of your control. Is this the transparency that you trumpeted when you became
mayor of this city? I cannot begin to express the depth of my anger as you
and members of council play fast and loose with taxpayer assets. Stop this
disgraceful commercialisation of municipal governance and take care of the
many priorities that exist on this side of the border.
I was under the impression that we were living in a democratic society. I now
believe that in this city that old-fashioned idea is wrong.
Thank you for your time
Al Nelman Al Nelman
Presentation
to City Council – 2nd March 2009
Good Evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council,
I have been described as a naysayer, dissident, whiner and a host
of other
names. Let me tell you who I really am. I’m an 84-year-old
retired Business Man, WW2 Veteran, Senior Citizen, and Taxpayer.
Surprisingly to some I am a real fan of classical music and if you
doubt my word I invite you to my home to see my classical music collection.
Some people believe that I have a duty to donate
some of my already excessive tax dollars towards propping up a
business organisation
that has admitted that it cannot exist without a gift of my money.
I say to them either get the paying public through your doors or
close. I have to live on my income they must do the same. Don’t
tell me that you can justify using my tax dollars to prop up a financially
failed Professional Symphony Orchestra.
I am also told that unless they receive this money
that much of this city’s cultural base will disappear. What nonsense! If
some folk want to go to the Windsor Symphony Orchestra’s concerts
they should be prepared to pay the price. I have attended a performance
of the Windsor Community Orchestra, a group of gifted musicians old & young
under the auspices of the Windsor University’s Faculty of Music
who did not receive one tax dollar to perform. This is a very well
worthwhile alternative that should be explored.
You cannot continue to cater, as in the past to the many special
interest groups that seem to believe that they are entitled to tax
dollars. They are not so entitled. If they want to continue to exist
they must be prepared to be self- supporting.
This city is in a financial crisis and all of these types of give-aways
must stop. Every single tax dollar should be used only for absolutely
essential purposes. When you were elected you agreed to spend tax
dollars wisely as if they were coming out of your own pocket. To
support any part of the request before you would be a slap in the
face to every one of the large number of citizens who have already
told you they are against it. I’m pleased to note that at least
one member of this council has already chosen to support the taxpayers
of this city.
Think of the folk who have lost or are in danger of losing their
jobs, senior citizens living on rapidly diminishing fixed incomes
and last but certainly not least the surviving business owners, all
of these groups struggling to survive.
No compelling reason exists for you to do anything but refuse this
request. Do you need to be reminded that you are spending taxpayer’s
money? It’s not monopoly money, it is not your money, it’s
our money.
This is a no brainer, and you should act accordingly.
Thank you for your time
Al Nelman
Open
Letter to the Mayor & City Council
February 3, 2009
After reading the Windsor Star this morning I can no longer remain
silent on the current update of the Tunnel deal as reported. It is
very difficult for this taxpayer to remain either polite or coherent,
as I feel humiliated by the obvious contempt that elected members
of council have for those that elected them.
The utterly ridiculous initiative to buy the right to operate the
Detroit half of the Windsor /Detroit tunnel must be discussed in
open forum with citizen input. Until today it is has been painfully
obvious that the majority of citizens have been under the impression
that the original price of $75 million was to buy the assets of the
Detroit half of the Tunnel. The secrecy that has accompanied the
negotiations has kept citizens completely in the dark. Who will be
on the hook for the funds that are to be put at risk has yet to be
revealed.
The cat is now
out of the bag as we are told that the Detroit Mayor & Council
have made it quite plain that their price of $100 million US. will
only pay for the operating rights to their half of the tunnel and
NO ASSETS WILL BE INCLUDED. They are treating us as a commercial
operator who must pay them up front for the tunnel “concession”.
This is insulting and also begs the question as to who will be responsible
for buying out Alinda the present entity whose contract with the
City of Detroit does not expire until 2020. The open-ended retention
of Mr. Sutts as the City’s negotiator has resulted in total
secrecy and legal fees of over $1.5 million with no end in sight.
Those fees have, so far, produced absolutely nothing that can in
any way be described as a benefit to Windsor’s citizens.
This whole tunnel idea is counter to proper municipal governance
and normal business practice so it is time to give a full public
explanation as to what is driving you all to continue with this farce?
Using Mr. Maroun as an excuse for this costly exercise is totally
unacceptable.
The state of the infrastructure in this city is deplorable. Ancient
malfunctioning sewers and watermains together with roads reminiscent
of rural cart tracks should be absolute priorities.
You are diverting millions of precious tax dollars from their proper use without
a satisfactory explanation and you should remedy this by immediately withdrawing
from any further negotiations to operate the Detroit half of the tunnel. The
price is NOT right!!!!!
Al Nelman
Presentation
to Audit
Committee - December 2, 2008
Good Afternoon
Chairman Zalev & Committee Members, Ladies & Gentlemen
I will be as brief as possible. Despite all of the pressure both
from the public and even from the Windsor Star, transparency is still
an absentee from this arm of Municipal Government. Referring to the
audit of 400 CHS I want to draw attention to the eleven boxes of
documents that were hidden from the internal audit department for
some two years. On top of that incredible situation I was more than
shocked at your last meeting when it was disclosed that even more
documents have lately come to light. This is totally unacceptable
to this taxpayer and no doubt to the general public. What in the
hell is going on? How can a department decide that they would not
cooperate with the auditors without being subjected to a full and
public investigation? My question to you is, how are you handling
this disgraceful state of affairs. Have you interviewed those responsible
for this debacle and what, if anything is being done to make the
necessary changes to management and staff who are involved in this
travesty? Have you made any recommendations to the Mayor or the CAO
regarding these shocking revelations? These questions need answers
now! Not in two years but here and now!
With an apology to Mr Carter I return to The Dunbar Audit Report
which languishes in lonely majesty on an empty desk in an empty office.
According to this committee that renders the document sacrosanct.
Out of reach from the main stakeholders, the citizens of Windsor.
This is despite the fact that it has been handled and perused by
many bodies outside this committee. Once again I request that the
Dunbar Audit Report be released immediately.
Thank you for your time.
Al Nelman
Presentation
to City Council - December
1, 2008
Good
Evening Mayor Francis & Members
of council,
I dislike my appearances here because I find them generally unpleasant
and an exercise in futility. However, when I do come here it is
because I see a need to add the voice of a taxpayer to the discussion
on a report from administration that adversely affects this city’s
taxpayers.
In this case, I want to protest the idea that in this time of financial
turmoil it is in order to stick it to the taxpayer by reducing the
payment of realty taxes from six installments to four. This idea
appears to make a case just for the convenience of the administration
at the expense of those who are paying the freight. I was under the
impression that this council set policy so I ask you if this recommendation
emanates from this body.
While I understand that there is a ten payment alternative available,
it requires the taxpayer to sign a bank authorization. For security
reasons some taxpayers prefer to retain complete control of their
finances so just issue two sets of five monthly demands to every
taxpayer, as that will ease the burden for all, penalize no one and
simplify collection. I note that comparisons with other municipalities
have been used to justify this recommendation. We don’t have
to act like sheep and follow blindly. This city is the hardest hit
community in Ontario so just do what is good for Windsor’s
taxpayers.
The idea that the city will benefit substantially makes no sense.
It is admitted that it will result in a total benefit at best of
$350,000, a miniscule percentage of the total tax revenue. This alone
points the way to the necessity for a review of the way that this
city handles its budget needs. Taking into account the uncertainty
of the times, there is a compelling case to leave well enough alone.
For this council to spend time even discussing a recommendation that
places an extra financial burden on taxpayers is ridiculous. That
such a proposition has been allowed to see the light of day in these
very difficult times is absurd. Show the citizens of Windsor that
you do indeed, represent their best interests and dismiss this folly
out of hand.
Thank you.
Al Nelman
Good
Morning Chairman Zalev & Committee Members Ladies & Gentlemen
- November 7, 2008
I really am firmly
convinced that this committee has no intention of releasing any
meaningful report on the overruns that have plagued the construction
price of this building. I do not see or hear anything emanating
from this committee that that can be called true representation
of the citizens of this city. You have adopted an adversarial stance
that gives me the feeling that I am disturbing the tortoise like
approach to serious problems that is the hallmark of this city’s
governance. You seem to treat these presentations as a time consuming
nuisance rather than serious questions from concerned citizens
who take the trouble to put in an appearance at these meetings.
The fact that you have transferred the Dunbar document to what
you call the Auditor General’s Office is most unfortunate.
An Auditor General does not exist in this city. The suppression
of the Dunbar document is just another insult to the citizens of
Windsor. You are foolish to believe that people like me are your
enemy. What we resent is your attitude of condescension. Once again
I ask you to release a meaningful report on 400 CHS without further
delay. I personally will not be going away soon and I will continue
to try to engender some feeling of real urgency in your handling
of this problem. I also want to remind you that there should be
seven members of this committee and the lame excuse that City council
has not felt obliged to appoint them is not acceptable.
I ask you once again to release the Dunbar document.
In closing, have you been able to find out how the eleven boxes were held back
from the audit department, who was responsible and what action has been taken
in this respect.
Thank you for your time.
Al Nelman
Presentation
to Audit committee – October 10, 2008
Good Morning
Mr. Chairman, Committee members, Ladies & Gentlemen,
There can be
no doubt that this committee together with City Administration
have circled the wagons and will continue to suppress not only
the now infamous Dunbar audit report but any details that will
shed light on the question of the planning, costing and resultant
overruns for the 400CHS building. Two years have passed and the
citizens of Windsor have yet to know what, where and how this state
of affairs exists.
Now, it seems that it would be appropriate for me to ask and you to answer
the following;
Your Charter calls for for seven permanent members. At all the meetings I have
attended just four or five have been in attendance. Why have the required total
of seven not been appointed? This leads to a second question as to the number
of members needed for a quorum to impart legitimacy to these proceedings.
It is becoming obvious that the citizens of Windsor are not being represented
in the true sense of that word. Despite the paper-thin use of attorney/client
privilege, the suppression of a public document is unjustified.
So, once again
I ask you to allow us to join the many others who have seen and
discussed the Dunbar document.
This whole 400CHS affair is intolerable. Instead of dealing with it expeditiously
you have become part of the problem of non-accountability that pervades this
city’s governance.
Thank you for
your time
Al Nelman
400 CHS -Presentation
to City Council – 30th June 2008
Good Evening Mayor Francis & Members
of Council
Before I begin my timed presentation please accept my heartfelt
thanks to you Mayor Francis and those members of Council concerned,
for your messages and kind thoughts. This is indeed a very difficult
time for me but my Joan was explicit in her desire for me to get
on with my life and her wish is my command. This begins my attempt
to soldier on.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.
We taxpayers now have the shocking news that 400 CHS was 22% over
budget. A six million dollar overrun. Why has it taken from December
2006 till now for this information to be made public? For any member
of administration to believe that there is a right to withhold sensitive
audit reports not only from Council but taxpayers too, is intolerable.
There is a constant pattern of mismanagement that accompanies any
major undertaking by Administration & sanctioned by Councils
past & present. It is apparent to me that this is yet another
case of incompetence that successive councils cannot find the stomach
to deal with properly, making them complicit in the secrecy that
keeps the facts from those of us who pay the bills.
Who designed this building and who signed off on design and cost
before a spade went into the ground? Was an RFP issued and how was
it structured? Such a large discrepancy in cost cannot be easily
explained. Councillor Hatfield who was not here when this boondoggle
was conceived & executed is quoted as saying that as Council
okayed all the changes and additional costs that we taxpayers should
be content. Nothing can be further from the truth. I well remember
being told that the Building was necessary to house the Social Services
department that was scattered around the city. The public were led
to believe that the cost would be entirely offset by senior governments
renting the bulk of the accommodation thus making it a win-win situation
for the taxpayers of Windsor. This was, of course, total poppycock
another English term for rubbish.
The 5 minute rule is not conducive to listing all the questions that
arise so I will get to the point. Who is directing the activities
of this city? I ask this question because Mr. Dunbar’s audit
of 400 CHS was completed and submitted to Mr. Skorobohahz in December
2006. The audit was carried out because Councillor Valentinis who
obviously knew that costs were out of control demanded it. Questions
arising; are taxpayers being asked to believe that the CAO has the
power to withhold public documents from public scrutiny without having
the consent from at least one member of this body? If so, who is
representing taxpayers? Are we also being asked to believe that this
council had not been appraised of or even discussed the contents
of the Dunbar document at any time since it reached the desk of the
CAO in December 2006? How can the CAO justify retaining the Dunbar
report until July 2007? How can council be satisfied to wait a year
before receiving a full report from the CAO in June 2008. All this
without releasing the original Dunbar report. Now KPMG has been retained
at an extra cost to audit the audit. How many amended audits are
required before you feel that this scandal has been groomed enough
to avoid taking proper action against those responsible for this
debacle. In my business experience, heads would have rolled long
before tonight.
You are abdicating your elected status as taxpayers representatives
by not demanding a much higher standard of competence from the administration
and insisting that incompetence at all levels will not be tolerated.
This state of affairs
is nothing new in this city. I’ve made
too many presentations on this topic far too many times going back
to the City Market, The Western Super Anchor Site, Candarel, The
Capitol Theatre, The Armouries and this latest 400 CHS disgrace.
Your responsibility is
to set real priorities and aggressively apply due diligence when
you spend taxpayers’ dollars. Many taxpayers
feel that they are not being adequately represented. That is why
you are there. We taxpayers expect you to live up to your responsibilities.
Nothing less is acceptable.
Thank you.
Open
letter to Mayor Francis
It is now a little
over four years since you were elected as Mayor of this city. Despite
much fan fare and your promise of a new era, what has followed
is a record of confrontation and secrecy that clearly indicates
a profound disrespect for the citizens who elected you.
Your lack of
leadership has resulted in a bickering, dysfunctional and self-
serving City Council that plays follow my leader to the detriment
of taxpayers at large. Largely due to your example, taxpayers’ initiatives
to obtain information to which they are properly entitled have
been thwarted.
You have used
procedural Bylaws to disenfranchise taxpayers wishing to make presentations
at public council meetings. You have conducted far too much public
business behind closed doors. You have spent millions of tax dollars
on legal and consulting fees while failing to co-operate with those
who could help us through these very troubling times. You have
lost control of the Border file by initiating a vendetta against
the Ambassador Bridge Company. As an unintended consequence, West
End Citizens are being badly treated while suffering unnecessary
interference in their daily lives. You continue to fight totally
inappropriate battles with all levels of government and our neighbours
in Essex County. You have operated under a cloak of secrecy that
is exemplified by your refusal to allow concerned citizens the
benefit of a forensic audit of both the publicly owned Enwin Group
and the WUC.
The most glaring
failure to act as a reliable steward of taxpayers’ dollars
was the pre-election unplanned and non-budgeted Arena. This $65
million plus boondoggle raises far too many unanswered questions
for comfort. For example:
(1)The size of any lump sum paid to the Windsor Spitfire Organization.
(2)The details of their arena rental agreement with the city.
(3)The inexplicable land deal that positioned the arena in the questionable
location that it now occupies.
(4)The dollar value attributable to the publicly owned highly desirable river
front property that was swapped as part of the land acquisition.
You have used
confidentiality clauses, to hide information that is rightfully
in the public domain. Typical examples being;
(1)The Candarel scandal that continues to haunt us when The Keg tenancy is
a closed book to the public and certainly to the local restauranteurs who pay
market rent and high taxes only to see you initiate and support unfair competition.
(2)The cheap rental sub-leases for space in the two floors for which the City
is obligated to pay $24 per foot. Another slap in the face for tax paying owners
of rental properties suffering high vacancy rates. Necessity can be claimed
for these sub-market rentals but secrecy should not be part of these transactions.
You have initiated
secret meetings with Detroit’s Mayor that involve undisclosed
and no doubt substantial legal fees while you are attempting to
take control of Detroit’s half of the Tunnel. The cost that
you have not denied is an unbelievable $75 million tax dollars.
There have not been any ongoing public reports or meetings to discuss
the current status of this fiscal madness. The reasons given to
taxpayers are;
(1) To prevent the Bridge Company taking over the tunnel just to build a wall
to close it down. This is preposterous nonsense.
(2) The need to avoid liability in the case of terrorist activities or any
other major disaster. I do not believe that any insurance company will offer
cover for war or terrorist activity.
(3) The new private company Holdco that you have incorporated is yet another
device that you are using to avoid proper reporting to the hard- pressed taxpayers
of Windsor.
(4) You have placed the Windsor Airport under the umbrella of a second private
company over which you maintain personal control. This again denies the citizens
of Windsor any meaningful information respecting the present status and future
of the Windsor Airport and its valuable lands.
You mistakenly
seem to feel that your position as Mayor entitles you to dispose
of taxpayers’ assets without maintaining their tax producing
potential. The decision to donate the Cleary Auditorium to St.
Clair College under the guise of downtown revitalisation is an
example. The Armouries Building has not been put on sale but just
stands there year after year, a non-tax producing entity. Already,
a “Not for Profit” organization is salivating around
that building as they asked for and received financial support
from a far too generous council. Not to be forgotten is the Riverfront
property used in the arena land swap.
Looking at the
way you have handled The Enwin Group, Candarel, WUC, The Detroit
Tunnel, The Capitol Theatre and The Border File, is to see a dangerous
precedent of circumventing the public’s right to fully participate
in the management of their assets and the tax dollars involved.
It also reveals an attitude that points to a lack of understanding
of the words “Elected Representative”.
You have not
set real priorities and have failed to grasp the necessity of spending
every available dollar in re-building infrastructure. Neither do
you feel the need to reduce the very high cost of city services
that coupled with lower taxes would be the magnet to encourage
new businesses to invest in this city. You have failed to pass
the test of Fiscal prudence, transparency and leadership in municipal
affairs. All the above leads to one very obvious conclusion and
that is you should not remain as leader of this City.
What is needed
is an experienced steady hand on the tiller to steer us through
the economic storm that is impacting us all. It is time for you
to consider the future of this city and resign.
Al Nelman
March 24, 2008
Presentation
to City Council -Good Evening Mayor Francis & Members of
Council
The very limited
public input into budget deliberations exemplifies council’s
minimal respect for Windsor’s taxpayers. Too little time
to study it makes a five minute critique of the 2008 budget impossible.
This is a frustrated taxpayer’s overview.
This spendthrift
council continues to tax, spend and conceal as is confirmed by
an additional 1% capital levy and a new 1% Community Strategic
Plan levy. These levies are a deceitful way to amass huge cash
reserves while avoiding the words “tax increase”. Your
refusal to appoint an adequate number of public board members,
coupled with a reckless 10% reduction in funding to the already
hard-pressed Windsor Public Library is a slap in the face to the
thousands of its regular users and calls for an independent investigation.
How many of the departments in city hall were forced to reduce
their budgets by 10%. None! The general public will certainly understand
that by eliminating those two new additional levies and reinstating
the Library’s necessary funding, they could be enjoying a
tax decrease coupled with a full library service.
This is not the
time to increase taxation without explaining the need in plain
English. Come clean and tell us what you have in mind for the considerable
cash accumulation that will result from this & previous budgets.
You have already squirreled away more than adequate cash reserves
from the incorrectly named Debt Reduction fund that in reality
is a surplus cash accumulation fund. An honest explanation is due
to taxpayers as to why you went to such lengths to hide the real
purpose of that fund.
No doubt it was designed to partly pay up front for the Spitfire Palace, The
New City hall Annex, the overpriced & unnecessary Bus Station and the ridiculously
overpriced downtown street-scaping. All could be classed as unjustifiable extravagances.
Why do you insist on paying cash. Just to maintain credit rating? Most large
necessary capital projects can, quite properly be funded with debentures.
Explain to all
the retirees on fixed incomes, the jobless and business owners
why, at this time, they have to suffer increased taxes inevitably
leading to hardship and negative job creation. This budget contains
no enhancements to already over priced essential services and no
real priority in increasing infrastructure replacement. The scandal
of the $65 million dollar arena highlights this council’s
mis-management of tax dollars.
For too many
years taxpayers have paid for services that have not been delivered.
Adding insult to injury, successive councils have found no problem
imposing levies and surcharges to pay again for those undelivered
services. Where has all that money gone? The latest deceit is a
hike to our hydro rates and a transfer of a $4 million so called
dividend from Enwin to the City’s general fund. Why not a
credit to the individuals who pay the bills and create the profit.
Better yet reduce the delivery charge for hydro. Despite your spokesman’s
denial, it is a glaring case of double taxation.
Deliberations
began with the administration being instructed to reduce expenses
by 10% across the board but that call has been ignored. This budget
trumpets the failure or unwillingness of council to control a bloated
and defiant administration and is an economic black eye for this
community. The public interest would be far better served if you
set real priorities and exercised fiscal prudence. Remember that
the combination of high taxes and utilities coupled with a crumbling
infrastructure drive away potential new businesses.
A lack of leadership
and this budget are a testament to the need for citizens to have
the power to recall their elected representatives in such blatant
cases of poor representation.
Thank you,
Al Nelman - 26th February 2008
Presentation
to City Council - Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of
Council
The area involved
in the existing By-law is, although of historical interest, in
reality, just a portion of the West End of this city. It deserves
no more extraordinary treatment than the other towns and townships
that comprise the historic mosaic now known as The City of Windsor.
During the many years that I’ve lived in this city I cannot
recall any significant attempt by municipal government to upgrade
the area designated as Olde Sandwich Towne. Only individual property
owners have attempted to do so.
It is your ill-advised opposition to the Bridge Company that is the root cause
for the infamous By-law 19-2007. Very slow or even deliberate inaction has
done nothing to enhance the lives of the citizens affected. Ask the property
owners who have attempted to enhance their property and have been denied.
It has been in the hands of the administration for a year, but all that has
happened is the formation of a steering committee without a place for a representative
of one of the area’s largest taxpayers. That committee has managed a
last minute, December 2007 appointment of a consultant, adding nothing but
extra taxpayer expense. Knowing there was a one-year time limit why was the
consultant not appointed in the first three months of 2007? I am not persuaded
that the timing was not planned.
Now a member of council has put forward the ridiculous proposition that some
or all of the area involved be designated as a Heritage district. This is a
ploy that will not succeed and will further negate all property owner’s
legal rights. I have to tell you what I hear from the circle of taxpayers in
which I move. It is a general understanding that Report # 13249 z/8581 is just
an example of this council’s attempt to continue an obstructionist policy
that makes no friends and is entirely without merit.
This whole Sandwich
Town exercise has the appearance of being nothing more than a foolish
attempt to delay the construction of a new and vastly superior
replacement for the aging Ambassador Bridge without the need for
any government financing. This is something I and many taxpayers
can really applaud.
All the high sounding references to the history of the area have, so far, been
just empty talk. For one year, nothing of substance has been achieved while
causing maximum inconvenience to all property owners in that area. As our representatives
you have a responsibility not to deliberately obstruct any taxpayer without
proper cause. This council has adopted a position that is to say the least,
unworthy of a public body.
The Bridge Company being one of the largest taxpayers in the city deserves
to be part of the dialogue and as long as it is not admitted to the party,
all the lofty rhetoric amounts to just piffle. Piffle, loosely translated means
Bovine Manure.
This contentious
By-law serves no useful purpose and is certainly not in the best
long-term interest of the citizens of this city. It should not
be renewed.
Thank you,
Al Nelman - 25th February 2008
THE
FRANCIS FOLLIES – NEW SEASON
The 2007 season
of the Follies ended with a finale that included the systematic
exclusion of citizens from any worthwhile debate and a budget that
could only have been produced by the mirth makers in city hall.
The loudest laugh in the 2007 version was the $70 million dollar arena that
left the 96% of non-user citizens rolling in the aisle. They thought it was
just hilarious as their hard-earned dollars were shoveled into the voracious
arena jaws. They roared with uncontrollable laughter when water rates were
hiked 86%.
The real highlight of the 2007 show was the rare appearance on stage of the
show’s producer, who delighted the crowd with his clowning act using
only a white board and crayon. It was a magical presentation that only our
Ed could pull off.
January 2008
kicks off the new and improved city hall show. The show is not
for the squeamish as it continues to follow the original comedy/horror
theme. The story line remains, with the excitement of secret meetings,
making enemies, higher and higher legal fees coupled with overpriced
services and consultants. All retained for your entertainment.
Rumours have
it that the show is hampered by the size of the stage and could
be improved by a smaller cast of players.
To this end, Chartwell, a new and expensive star has been added to the cast
to anchor the latest version of the follies. Contracted to remain with the
show for 30 months, Chartwell will assist in choreographing all the show’s
routines while reducing the escalating production costs. It is a hope that
the changes will make the production even more appealing to the hall’s
paying customers.
Meanwhile, patrons
were remembering the 2006 version of the show when the Public Library
was undergoing a similar revamping by the super Star, KPMG, who
left the cast after failing to find improvements to the library
scene. At that time the whole show was supposed to have been subjected
to a rewrite but nothing ever came of it. Whether the addition
of a new star will succeed in bringing a better and less costly
version of this extravaganza is not certain. However, the present
Principals and Cast can breathe a sigh of relief, as they will
not face layoffs similar to those being planned for the Cast members
in the Library scene.
Well, the show goes on. We can only wish them success with the age-old show
biz greeting, Break a leg!
Al Nelman
Windsor
Public Library - Funding Cut
I served on the
Windsor Public Library Board for Two and a half years till 2007.
I am appalled at the obvious bias of the Mayor and Council. During
my term, the Board was constantly under pressure to find operational
synergies between the administration of the city and the Library.
It was suggested that, in fact, the Library should become a department
managed by a city appointee. I must admit that at first I agreed
that such a change would yield significant savings in costs. After
my first year as a board member I was unequivocal in my opposition
to that proposition. It became clear to me that changing the status
of the library would not yield any real savings. Unfortunately,
The Mayor and City Council have decided that if the Library will
not agree to be managed from city hall then they will employ bully
tactics to try and accomplish their goal. This is really the reason
for the ridiculous reduction of $800. 000 in the Library’s
funding. Further, they insist that there be no cuts in service.
This is entirely unrealistic and they know it. They also know that
under the Provincial Public libraries Act they do not have the
authority to tell the board how to operate nor can the city appoint
the Library’s senior management.
The Library is
an autonomous entity that operates under the Ontario Public Libraries
Act. The city’s role is twofold. First, it has the responsibility
to appoint suitable members of the public to the board with a MINORITY
of city councilors making up the total. Secondly, they supply the
largest portion of the funding required with a supplement from
the Provincial Government. The Act stipulates that once the board
has been appointed, it is the board that will be responsible for
the Library’s day to day operations. It is the board’s
responsibility to ensure that the citizens of Windsor receive the
best and most economical service possible. To this end, the Library
submits its proposed budget to the City’s budget committee
each year. The Library’s CEO appears before the committee
and has to justify his budget and does so with supporting documents.
The committee has to make a judgement as to whether the budget
is well founded.
During my term,
the city remained insistent that there were serious inefficiencies
in the Library’s administration. The board was the subject
of adverse publicity with the scuttlebut being that not only were
we remiss in our duties but there were unspecified financial irregularities.
A joint committee was formed to discover and implement the so-called
synergies yet the rumours continued. However, after two years it
was the city that, without consultation with the library board
abruptly disbanded the committee because the magic synergies were
never found. However, the volunteer board members were still being
subjected to malicious innuendo. At this point, the Library board
agreed to an Operational Audit by a professional third party. The
accounting firm, KPMG was appointed, and in October of 2006 the
audit took place. The result was entirely positive and the Board
and management received a clean bill of health and the whispering
was finally silenced.
During 2007,
the board has been reduced from seven to five members. Of that
five, two are city councillors, a new setup that favours the City
and its never-ending quest to diminish the Library Board’s
autonomy.
The $800,000
reduction in the Windsor Public Library’s budget is absolutely
unconscionable and can only result in reduced services to the public.
Any suggestion to the contrary is utter nonsense. The initial call
for a 10% cut in all departments was just smoke and mirrors. I
want to see the result of that request, department by department.
I havn’t yet seen the cuts to non-essential bodies such as
the $450,000 for the Art Gallery and $300,000 for the Windsor Symphony.
Why are the millions of tax dollars being spent on streetscaping
downtown, taking precedence over the funding of The Windsor Public
Library. Let us compare the number of regular patrons who visit
the Library as compared to both the Art Gallery and the Symphony.
Which of these services is essential to the majority of this city’s
population?
Its about time
City Council recognises the need to draw up a list of real priorities
that conform to their true mandate. Too many members of the public
are suffering from layoffs and permanent job loss. Seniors on modest
fixed incomes are finding it difficult to remain solvent and stay
in their homes. Increased taxes, 86% increase in water charges,
increased hydro charges are playing havoc with the lives of a large
numbers of citizens. I refuse to believe that the fat in the city’s
administration at all levels has been cut to the bone while the
Management Empire in city hall has just grown and grown under this
Mayor.
Why is it that
only the Library has been sorted out in this fashion? Where are
the 10% cuts in all departments? The loyal and highly skilled personnel
in the library and the taxpaying public deserve better treatment.
This city is
rudderless and adrift in a raging sea of economic change. In my
opinion, what is needed is a Government appointed trustee to take
control and steer it to safety.
Al Nelman
20th December 2007
Crumbs
from the Council Chamber
When the Boxing
Day edition of the Windsor Star was delivered to my home one headline
was so startling that only a supreme effort prevented a regurgitation
disaster. However, I feel no pangs for decrying crumbs from the
Councillors’ table. These are the same people who imposed
a massive increase in the cost of utilities, higher Realty Taxes
coupled to various levies (Taxes). They now have the nerve to pontificate
on their “grand gesture” of forgoing a $560.00 planned
annual cost of living increase. Naturally, they do not publicise
their huge Fee increases for sitting on boards and commissions.
This crude method of quietly increasing their total compensation
needs to be subjected to a public enquiry. The present level of
Councillor remuneration begs the question, what ever happened to
PUBLIC SERVICE?
Who recommended
the planned cost of living increase in the first place? It appears
to be the Council Support Services Committee. Questions arising
are the identity of committee members, who appoints them, do they
receive financial compensation and what exactly is the committee’s
function? These are important questions, as it must be assumed
that they deal not only with councillors’ salary scales but
also those of the senior administration executives. Have the growing
number of individuals who receive salaries in excess of $100,000
been asked to forgo any planned cost of living increases? Will
an official request be made to all unionised city staff to do the
same? If not, why not?
Since the budget
deliberations have become more contentious, Council has been asking
what service cuts will the citizens accept in order to avoid tax
increases. The real issue is not to cut but to reduce the cost
of services that are far too high, when compared to the private
sector.
Grand gesture!
Bah Humbug!
Al Nelman
27th December 2007
Self
Serving Culture
When are the
special interest groups in this city finally going to get the message?
Many citizens are now jobless, property values are plummeting,
infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating, tax increases and excessive
service costs are causing hardship to a large segment of the population.
When everyone is being adversely affected by the downturn in our
base automotive industry, the culture vultures are circling.
It is the height
of self-serving ignorance when the Conductor of the Windsor Symphony
Orchestra comes calling at city hall with a request for $60,000.
A contribution towards a feasibility study to convert the Armories
building into what he claims will be a world class concert hall.
He obviously
aced the exam in popular culture studies, “Insensitivity
101”. Those who so enthusiastically support his “Vision” should
pull out their own cheque books and stop trying to open ours.
His request comes
as City Council is labouring over a crucial budget dealing with
drastically reduced revenues, a circumstance of no consequence
to this gentleman. He wants this blue-collar city to spend tens
of millions of tax dollars to go into direct competition with the
world class symphony just across the Detroit river.
He does not acknowledge
that without the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars he now receives,
he would have to fold his tent and move on. Let’s be real
and send this culture vulture a message. We can’t afford
you now, so if you feel that your organisation is worthy of better
things, I urge you to seek funding from the private sector. Failing
success there, I suggest that you “Go west young man” and
participate in the booming oil economy.
The majority
of Windsorites have far more important things to worry about.
Al Nelman,
11th December 2007
Whose fault is it?
In recent days
the Mayor has been telling us how wonderful it is to live in the
great City of Windsor and to look
on the bright side
of things. We, the citizens are not doing enough to tell the world
that this is the place to be. Hip! Hip! Hooray! I can’t understand
why we should be so negative. After all, what’s not to like?
When we have a new overpriced $70,000,000+ arena that will serve
only a minority interest group and significantly increase the cost
of services to the general public.
When we are jolted with an 86% increase in water rates.
When we ruin our cars as we drive over third world roads.
When we have the second highest per capita cost of police service
in Canada.
When all the important issues that impact us are discussed in secret.
When our Mayor wastes hard earned tax dollars for expensive legal
fights and high priced consultants achieving nothing.
When we can claim to be one of the highest taxed communities in Ontario.
When we are bracing for yet another increase in taxes and levies.
When city councillors pad their incomes with totally unjustifiable
increases in fees for sitting on boards and commissions.
When the mayor ensures that concerned members of the public are excluded
from making presentations at public council meetings.
When the mayor deliberately uses his office to frustrate the citizen’s
request for a forensic audit of the WUC.
When many citizens are losing their jobs while city council baulks
at the necessary shrinkage in this city’s bureaucracy.
When the gift of an important downtown taxpayer asset-The Cleary
Auditorium- to St Clair College has not revitalised downtown.
When millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on an unnecessary downtown
bus depot that is proving more nuisance than its worth.
When this city’s automotive base is shrinking, requiring an
unlikely serious reduction in taxes to persuade new business to locate
here.
When the only local newspaper’s leading columnist derides and
insults the motives of concerned citizens by describing them as whiners.
I’ve come
to the conclusion that I can be forgiven if I borrow a few words
from the King of Spain and respectfully
request both
the Mayor and the locally vaunted columnist to PLEASE SHUT UP!
Al Nelman
November
11th
As a veteran
of WW2, I attended the Cenotaph ceremony last Sunday 11th November
2007. I was very impressed by the number of citizens who braved
a damp chilly morning to come out to remember those who made the
supreme sacrifice in the cause of freedom and justice for all.
As I stood there with my comrades, I and I’m sure, all of
us were overwhelmed with thoughts of our experiences in those times
of danger, hardships and tragedy. I listened to members of the
three levels of government as they thanked us for our service and
promised to ensure that veterans of all wars would never be forgotten.
It was then
that I couldn’t help thinking about the present difficulties
that face this city. The word “Service” kept coming
to mind and how local politicians seem unable to comprehend its
meaning. Concerned citizens who have been inspired to help their
fellows, not for personal gain but as a conscientious act of service,
have been thrust aside and ignored by the very people they trusted
and elected to be their true representatives.
Abe Lincoln’s
closing to his Gettysburg Address comes to mind and I quote: “That
government of the people for the people by the people shall not
perish from this earth”. I have come to the conclusion that
we are being deprived of the freedoms that were bought in blood
on battlefields worldwide.
I ask that politicians of all stripes to look inwards and think
of these words that I reluctantly write today. I particularly ask
our municipal representatives
to give up the adversarial posture that they have adopted towards those who
trusted and elected them. I demand that the freedom to “SERVE” and
participate in municipal affairs be restored to the citizens of Windsor.
Al Nelman,
Windsor, Ontario, Royal Air Force 1942/47
A City
In Turmoil - November 4, 2007
With the city’s
revenue in steep decline, and an unrealistic over ambitious Mayor,
the citizens of Windsor have been told to pay up and shut up. The
Mayor believes that he can literally dictate to us without bothering
to listen to our concerns. His clever political manoeuvre that
circumvented the full forensic audit of the finances and business
practices of both the WUC and the Enwin Group of companies is a
disgrace. It begs the question, what is it that evokes such a determination
to keep it from public scrutiny? City councillors with the exception
of Councillor Halberstadt, are no longer representing their constituents
while supporting the Mayor without reservation. We are living in
a virtual dictatorship.
The massive 86% increase in water charges should have been enough to trigger
the detailed enquiry that is being requested by concerned citizens. The Mayor
obviously feels that the whitewash that he has so cleverly orchestrated will
be enough to silence all opposition. He is foolish to think so and he can expect
a growing opposition from citizens who will not be pushed aside!! The new organisation,
WEACT, (Windsor Association of Concerned Citizens) is the catalyst that will
make sure that pressure will continue to be applied to the non-performing city
council until they give us the diligence and transparency that is presently absent
from their governance.
Remembering that the word “Levy” is just another name for “Tax”,
the increased revenues resulting from such levies serve to cover up the mismanagement
of this city’s financial affairs. No effort has been made to balance existing
revenues with real priority expenditures, just keep spending and increase taxes.
Thus we are being saddled with an unplanned arena complex, serving at best 4%
of the population that will cost in excess of $70,000,000 while we are told that
there are insufficient funds to maintain roads, water lines and sewers.
The cost of continuing to maintain the non-performing Windsor Airport is yet
another example of gross financial mismanagement. It should be closed until there
is a clear case that there is enough revenue for it to be self-supporting. Taxpayers
should not be subjected to higher taxes to maintain a losing commercial entity.
Now is the time for the citizens of this city to join together with the members
of the WEACT organisation to apply the utmost pressure on the Mayor and council
to listen to us and react accordingly.
Al Nelman
|