| Scanned copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections: My comments are at the end, click on the highlited text to go to specific comments, which will have numbers in brackets eg. {1} City of Mississauga Office of the City Clerk ATTN: Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee Donald Barber. RE: [#33] The changing of UFMAC's official minutes. Dear UFMAC Members, please receive this letter: - June 24, 1996. [#33] At the May 13/96 meeting the minutes of the Apr 10/96 meeting were changed to include "Councillor Corbasson requested clarification that committee members endorse the staff proposal for the planting plan which will be brought forward to the public. All members indicated their agreement." The members of the public present at this meeting listening to every word and taking careful notes all wrote in asking to have this "endorsement" explained as we don't recall it. Especially given the fact Councillor Corbasson, at the May 13 meeting repeatedly stated she was adamant there be "endorsement". In spite of the fact at the May 13 meeting the Chair stated he doesn't recall a formal vote. In my opinion the change really reads, Councillor Corbasson took over control of UFMAC from the Chairman, without permission, instructed the committee to vote on an issue without wording a motion, the exact wording is still unknown, without seconder, asked for an endorsement, for the purpose of reporting to the public for their support, which UFMAC doesn't have the authority to given and which the Councillor later acknowledges as well. Then, by means unknown members indicated their agreement. The Councillor say they raised their hands, the Chairman, secretary (it was not in the minutes) and members of the public, all don't recall this events. And what about the members of public watching UFMAC very carefully noting every word, is the City saying we are too stupid to know how committees work or are we just lying? Also it can be said, the Councillor was adamant UFMAC, approve the Cities one plan no alternative, no budget, field of flowers instead of forest (deforestation), very soviet style public process. If ever I was looking for a defining moment as to where the heart of UFMAC laid, for the residents or for the City, this is it. I can understand the Cities great need to used the names and reputations of UFMAC members to fly their plans by the public but this committee must stand up to the City or UFMAC and its members could very well have no reputations left. UFMAC are not the decision makers for City plans and therefore should not let the City use UFMAC to hid behind an "endorsement" when all UFMAC can do is advise or assist. The intent of the City was to gain resident support to their plan by reporting UFMAC endorsement, knowing most people will not investigate further if they see expert endorsement,in effect driving people from the public process. The City has no problem in taking a hard line with residents, UFMAC should do the same to keep their reputations intact. Example, the deputy Clerk telling me no, to my right to make presentations during the process, open to the public, but allowing City staff to report on almost the very same issue! Well why can't UFMAC say no the City staff when it wants to change the official record to save face? Even if the Councillor did get agreement as she tells it, IT DIDN'T OCCUR BY OFFICIAL COMMITTEE PROCEDURES {IT WAS OUT OF ORDER}, IT WASN'T UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR, THEREFORE IT IS ILLEGAL AND MOST BE DISALLOWED! Please find enclosed: Sincerely Yours - Donald Barber Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top [ Comments by Don B. - {1}. ] |
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated The • |