You Can't Fight City Hall

I am starting to develop a complex to be honest.

I wanted to have a coffee with a fellow in town who had sent me a fascinating comment on a BLOG I had written. He refused initially to meet. He was afraid to be seen with me in public since it might get back to City Hall he said and could impact his business negatively. To be direct, I could not believe what I had just heard. We did meet finally several weeks later and in public too.

I guess I am too naive after all. Sure I criticize the Mayor and Council, where deserved, but I thought that my message would be seen as a positive one as well. I try to give a helpful solution to a problem that is reasonable and practical even if not popular and that might even help them get re-elected. Surely as public figures, their skins are not that thin.

What prompted this remark? I wanted to make a Presentation to the Council Operating Budget Committee on the OMERS matter since I believe that I have a better alternative than continually pouring money into OMERS. After all, the City issued a press release which stated:

• "Our City Council is doing its utmost to minimize the effect of increasing costs on the local taxpayer while maintaining effective services,” said Mayor Eddie Francis, “and here is a draft bill that public employers weren’t consulted on that could hike local taxes by as much as 2.1 per cent without the Government of Ontario understanding the real consequences."
  

I had phoned a person at Administration to ask how I could appear and was told that Councillors would be asked. I emailed and faxed the Committee Chair, Councillor Brister, what I should do and he sent my request to Administration for review. Catch-22?

Imagine then my thoughts when one of the Councillors wrote to me about a different way to appear and concluded: "I can make a motion that you be heard... although I cannot guarantee that Council will vote to do so. You are no doubt aware Ed that you are not a favoured person among Councillors. I don't mind you at all no matter what you say about Council, but that's just me."

And then I got a response from Administration (not the Committee Chair) that blew me away!

I thought I would provide a copy of the exchange of emails between myself and the City for your edification:

• Nov 24--my email to Councillor Brister
  
• I trust that you received my fax which I sent yesterday formally requesting that I appear in front of your Committee with respect to OMERS. The tax hike mentioned below makes this even more critical.
  
  Windsor Star--City raps pension proposal
  
  The average Windsor homeowner would see a $40 tax hike next year to cover increased pension benefits for city employees under proposed changes to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), Mayor Eddie Francis warned Wednesday.
  
  November 24--Councillor Brister's reply
  
  Thanks for the e-mail. Public consultation has been included in as an important part of the .MZBB process. As such, I have forwarded your e-mail to Administration for review.
  
  November 24---my reply to Councillor Brister
  
  Thanks for your note.
  
  I do not know what .MZBB means I am sorry
  
  I was told by Administration and by one of your Colleagues to contact you about appearing. That is why I sent the fax. Looks like it is a Catch-22 right now.
  
  November 24--email from Onorio Colucci, the Acting Treasurer
  
  Thank you for your email which Councilor Brister forwarded to my attention. Firstly MZBB represents modified zero based budgeting.
  
  With respect to your request to appear before the Operating Budget Committee, two dates were set by City Council for public consultation, one on June 21st and the second the week of January 23rd, prior to council's budget deliberations. In order to ensure that the process is fair to everyone, and in compliance with Council's direction to administration and the Operating Budget Committee, your presentation should be made at the Council meeting the week of January 23rd. Having said that, please feel free to forward a written submission to my attention and I will certainly make it available to the Committee. I should also add that the issue of the rising costs of the OMERS plan has been taken very seriously by both administration and Council. In fact the CAO made a presentation to the Standing Committee on the OMERS bill this week outlining the very serious concerns that this municipality has with the proposed legislation.
  
  November 27---my email to the Acting Treasurer
  
  I read the press release on the City's website and saw the following:
  
  "Our City Council is doing its utmost to minimize the effect of increasing costs on the local taxpayer while maintaining effective services,” said Mayor Eddie Francis, “and here is a draft bill that public employers weren’t consulted on that could hike local taxes by as much as 2.1 per cent without the Government of Ontario understanding the real consequences."
  
  I also had read that the per household increase on the tax bill was about $40, a considerable amount considering that City employees would also have to pay out an equivalent amount in total as their contribution.
  
  As you may recall, in June, at the Budget meeting, I made Council aware that I was working on a proposal with a major Canadian Financial Institution that I thought would eliminate the uncertainty around the OMERS approach and would be advantageous in a number of ways for both the City and its employees. I took some comfort that my concept would be taken seriously since Councillor Valentinis had the courtesy to say that my idea was the only Presentation that was going to save the City money!
  
  It is rather disturbing to read now from your email that there is little interest in hearing what I have to say until the end of January, clearly at a time when the budget process for next year has been completed. It must mean that Council has already decided that it can do nothing other than ask taxpayers and employees to pay out more money in increased taxes and contributions. That, in my respectful opinion, is hardly "doing its utmost to minimize the effect of increasing costs on the local taxpayer."
  
  I assume as well that if I am to present at Council along with other concerned citizens, then I am limited to 5 minutes under the City's Procedural By-law. To be fair, a matter that is so technically complicated legally and financially cannot be presented properly in such a short period of time. Both I and a representative of the Financial Institution would need considerably longer just to introduce the topic given the radically different approach we are suggesting.
  
  As far as putting it in writing as you suggested so that it can be passed on to Councillors, it hardly makes sense to do that as well given all the questions which may arise and which would require an answer to make the proposal understandable. Moreover, consideration would need to be given as to how it could be implemented and what action steps were required since it is not a simple answer.
  
  Accordingly, I would appreciate if you would ask Committee members if they would be prepared to allow my colleague and I the opportunity to present to the Committee while it is still in deliberations for the next fiscal year.

What will the end result be? I don't know frankly. If Windsor is not interested in saving its taxpayers and its employees money, then I am sure that there are others who are.

If I am reading to much into this ie be quiet and less negative if you want to get anywhere at City Hall, then I am just reacting to what I have been told by third parties above and by what I have read.

If anyone thinks that being "unpopular" with the powers that be will shut me up, then remember what I wrote in a recent BLOG about retirees!