|
From the Desk of Al Nelman Presentation to WUC Board – 6th December 2011 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 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. Al Nelman Presentation to WUC Board 28th July 2011 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. Al Nelman Presentation to City Council - 6th September 2011 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? 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? 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 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. 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. Presentation to The WUC Audit and Finance Committee Good Morning Everyone, I am addressing the planning that this committee will be undertaking during the coming months. 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, 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 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 Presentation to City Council – 18th April 2011 Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council, 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 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. 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. 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 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. Presentation to City Council – 28th February 2011 Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council, I will be quite brief. 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. 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 Good evening Mayor Francis & Members of Council, My approach is, what is Essential against what is not when tax dollars are involved. Thank you. Presentation to City Council – 8th March 2010 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. Presentation to City Council-18th January 2010 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. 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. Presentation to Audit Committee – 13th January 2010 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 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 Letter to the Editor - 30th September 2009 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. I expect to see a new motion from any councillor to debate, in public, excessive use of in-camera meetings. Presentation to City council – 14th September 2009 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. 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. Thank you Al Nelman Statement to City Council – 8th September 2009 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. 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; 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 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. 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. Al Nelman Windsor Tunnel Commission - 9th March 2009 Good afternoon everyone, 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. I recall that last June or July you told Mr. Chaif and me that the
deal was dead. Thank you for your time Al Nelman Al NelmanPresentation 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 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. 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. Al Nelman Open
Letter to the Mayor & City Council 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. 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! Al Nelman Presentation to City Council - December 1, 2008 Good
Evening Mayor Francis & Members
of council, 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. 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. So, once again
I ask you to allow us to join the many others who have seen and
discussed the Dunbar document. 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. 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. 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: You have used
confidentiality clauses, to hide information that is rightfully
in the public domain. Typical examples being; 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; 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 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. 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, 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. Al Nelman |
