By Pepper Parr
November 8th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
A reader sent in the following: It was in regard to the Heritage Advisory Committee and the recommendations it makes.
Sad to see the usual suspects piling on in this case.
As a person who has served on a number of voluntary community boards, I can only ask: would you not expect and welcome people with an interest in art to be on an art gallery board?
Or people with attachment to gathering artifacts to join a museum board? I could go on.
All governments depend on usually unpaid citizen groups to perform such roles, since the alternative is inexpert and uncommitted paid staff.
So it’s a win-win, as long as conflict of interest principles are well defined and managed, which seems to be the case here. Searches for absolute purity after the fact by self-appointed nitpickers will only discourage others from sharing their expertise.
The piling on is part of the way some people choose to express themselves. It happens.
Here is where I think the problem exists. It is my firm view that when people choose to serve they are there to serve the public not themselves.
And that, in my opinion is what has happened.
The people who serve on a heritage committee are advocates for protecting as much heritage as possible.
The people who are passionate about heritage tend to share a mind set: Alan Harrington is fierce when it comes to fighting for the preservation of our history. Rick Wilson brought to light a more complete story about the Burlington Races, a name used to tell part of the War of 1812 story. His efforts resulted in a plaque being erected, and hopefully in the fullness of time, a plaque being corrected.
It would be difficult for these two men, for whom I have the greatest of respect, to not recommend a grant for a house that is a superb example of what the city wants to ensure isn’t replaced by some ugly monster house.
What the Heritage Advisory Committee does not have is a clear set of guidelines or rules that prevent self serving.
The practice in Burlington is to have a member of Council sitting on each Advisory Committee: one would hope that Councillor would have a deeper understanding of what good governance is all about and explain it to the Committee members.
This is what you don’t want happening at any level of city business.
The thing you don’t want is a situation where there is a lot of wink, wink; nod, nod taking place when decisions are being made. That is not the case with the Barker recommendations.
That kind of behaviour is the first step to the slippery slope that lets corruption take place.
It is not about “absolute purity after the fact by self-appointed nitpickers.” It is about consistent good governance.
It is not enough to be on the right side of the rules; it is the spirit of the rules that matters.
It is clear to me that the rules need some tightening up. What perplexes me is that Council chose to let it pass. Staff advised the city that a previous grant had been given – that should have raised a red flag.
I recall a discussion taking place at Council when James Ridge was the City Manager and they were discussing what a Council member could accept in the way of a gift or a benefit. Ridge at the time said all you had to do was document everything: if someone else paid for your coffee, note it. At the time we had a member of council who saw someone one else paying for a golf game or a ticket to an event as quite acceptable. It wasn’t and it isn’t.
The rules need to be tightened.
Related news story:
An example of what strong advocacy can do.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
This matter is definitely looking Iike a vendetta.
David Barker says in his piece the Gazzette published in response to its initial article, an owner of a heritage designated property is under the terms of the grant program allowed to be granted one heritage grant each year, to partially offset the incurred cost of eligible conservation work.
So just what red flag does the Gazette think was raised and should have been noticed by Council? What was approved that is outside the rules.
As I understand it all Advisory committees have to adhere to the same conflict of interest rules as does Council and its standing committee’s.
A while ago Councilor Kerns’ judgement was questiond because she did not recuse herself from a matter that related to a property in the same general geographic area as her home. It was suggested her property might appreciate in value if the application for the other property was successful. The criticism of Councilor Kerns was over the top as is the criticism of David Barker
If the Gazette really thinks something underhanded has gone on, then report the matter to the City’s Integrity Commissioner &/or the police.
Editor’s note: We have not said anything “underhanded” took place. We are saying that the Advisory committee did not have a clear set of rules and we have said that this is something that should be put before the Integrity Commissioner – and if the chatter on this can come to a close I can get on with preparing that document.
This is most certainly not a police matter.