So now the taxpayers get to pay a settlement for a decision made by an overreaching mayor who directly opposed the results of a comprehensive recruitment process and refused to discuss the decision in a public session of council. Oh yeah, Don REALLY has Orillians best interests in mind (/s) .How about the mayor who used his strong mayoral powers to be responsible for the settlement that will be reached rather than the town?
@NoMoreHow will this change stop the downward spiral or make it any better than if Trevor Lee was CAO? Mayor McIsaac just wasted the city's money with this change. All the money spent throughout the hiring process is now moot because of a sweeping change made 1 week before the start date.
I can't see any way Don can justify that this sudden change in CAO was done in good faith or for the betterment of Orillia. It wasted all time and money spent in the hiring process, left an empty position in the Deputy CAO chair, opened the city up to "Confidential resolution negotiations", and he has refused to provide clear reasoning when asked directly by councilors and now hangs up on journalists when he proudly declared to call his cell phone if you have issues with stuff like this.
"Mr. Lee’s experience and leadership will help guide the corporation as we continue to advance council’s strategic priorities and deliver services that enhance the quality of life for our residents." - Mayor Don McIsaac quoted in OrilliaMatters a little over 3 weeks ago on March 21st.Why the sudden change...?
"What if you have councillors who've never hired anyone before ... what if councillors rejected a ranking system because they are biased against the more qualified candidate."- I'd ask how the ranking system was developed, and for evidence or justification for the belief of bias against a "more qualified candidate"."What if there was a racial animus introduced by one councillor ... and the city would be guaranteed a trip to the Human Rights Tribunal?"- I'd once again ask for evidence of the comments that were racially animus. The comments would have likely been made in closed chambers, and there should be a record of what was said.- I'd also ask why, if the Mayor hypothetically felt a council member introduced racial animosity, no action was taken at the time - surely such actions would go against the policies and procedures required/expected of Council.It's hypothetical only for protecting yourself from accusatory statements.
Paying $1,2000,000 to reacquire the property with no plans for how it will be used and will require investment to repair/renovate, doesn't seem like the most fiscally responsible choice...
Every single response he has given has been a non-answer and it's getting very old to hear about a "critical point" for our city's future and the "safety, security, and well-being" of Orillians.And now the Mayor isn't even responding! He hung up on reporters last week, and now the City's manager of communications is responding on his behalf - quite the change from the Mayor who was telling people to call him directly if we don't like his decisions.
The mayor has not answered if the Deputy CAO role will remain empty, we had a deputy CAO alongside the CAO before the previous CAO left - we can't assume that the Deputy CAO role is staying empty.The city is also going into confidential negotiations and there is likely going to be financial compensation. For a top-level position with a salary of $267,000 I highly doubt the settlement will be lower than the $175k we're supposedly "saving"
If they can successfully argue/prove that firing the CAO was not done in good faith that (should) overturn the mayor's immunity and allow direct action to be taken against the Mayor by the city.Hopefully, the Councilors inquire about the Good-Faith requirements under the contract for the CAO and Good-Faith requirements under the mayoral powers.
I'm hopeful that the councilors will inquire about the Immunity awarded by the strong mayoral powers, specifically the requirement of an action being done in "Good-Faith". With a contract overturned and a lack of transparency behind the decision, I don't see how the Mayor can justify this was done in "Good-Faith" or maintain immunity from this decision.
Hi Duncan!I'm still waiting for you to explain the "math lesson" for how these actions are going to save the city money...Since you said there is a math lesson in all this, right now I'm seeing:Subtract the money spent on the hiring processSubtract the money for onboarding a new deputy CAOSubtract the money that will be spent on confidential negotiationsWhere are the savings?
"Given the availability of five visitor parking units, this matter should not create a problem for the neighbourhood" is almost laughable if it weren't so sad to hear coming from the Senior Planner. Pushing for an increase in density while reducing the necessary number of parking spots seems a bit counterintuitive. It's a pretty big assumption to bet that every person/family/renter getting a unit will only have 1 vehicle. Every new proposal seems to be getting lower with the ratio of units to parking spots... Underground parking has been a thing for developments like this for a reason
So why did we buy the train station back if there were never plans for its use discussed before the purchase? Just because the purchase price was the same as the previous sale price doesn't mean it's cost-neutral. I imagine it's costing a pretty penny to secure and clean the space to make it even usable and then maintain the heritage property going forward. The irony of discussing a $210 capital shortfall over 10 years while needlessly spending money to acquire properties is palpable.Talk about putting the million-dollar cart before the horse
Thank you to all the hydro, telecom, arborist, and other workers who carried on despite the terrible conditions.Thank you to all the councilors and city staff for the volunteer work done to support Orillians throughout this. Thank you to Mayor McIsaac for recognizing the urgency of this situation and returning from your vacation to work likely countless hours ensuring Orillia was supported throughout this ordeal (we gotta recognize the good despite the CAO challenges)
Comparing OMAH reps to a four-year-old child who demands more cookies, after he warned them about an adversarial approach.... "Kissing your Sister" Don seems to have a way with words.
The Orillia club has 1400 permit-holding members. OFSC Permit Fee looks like it's $214/permit. So, 1400 members paying $214 per permit is $299,600 (at minimum) paid from Orillia Club members, and there is no money available to assist with cleanup?I can see why the club feels like they've been left behind.
100% R. Baxter!! Which has me shocked that the city would reacquire this property after citing various reasons why they were selling it in 2019. None of the concerns, from what I can tell, brought up during the 2019 sale were addressed by the new private owners, so we essentially just paid a cool million to acquire a money pit with no plans for how to recoup. Somethin stinks...
Someone with more knowledge/experience, please correct me if I'm wrong but... I thought hotmix should be avoided in wet conditions that are more than light rain. That photo looks like it was patched in a running stream of water.Not trying to disrespect the hard workers out in these conditions doing the work. More curious if this repair would be considered temporary due to the conditions and would be redone once the weather is fairer?
From the 2019 sale: "The City of Orillia investigated potential uses for the site, such as a municipal transit hub; however, several factors such as easements over the property, the heritage designation, the lack of direct access to a signalized intersection which has the effect of impeding turning movements for buses entering and leaving the site, and a lack of alternative access points to the site, revealed the site was not well suited for a transit hub."I can't see them changing their mind about a transit hub suddenly.