April 22, 2024

To: CAO Chambers, Clerk Bunn (copies to Councillors)

Following the Council meeting of March 25, 2024, when the Council decided, “That Council receive Report CAO-202404 Prime Ministers Path: Options for Next steps; and further,

That Council directs staff to proceed with Option 1, as presented in Report CAO-2024-03.”,

I reviewed what was discussed and the implications of the presentation to the Council.

Last week I met with several Councillors and distributed a version of the attached to each. I indicated to them that I would, as a professional courtesy, also send it to you and the Clerk.  See the attachment below.

Timing

REPORT NO: CAO-2024-03 consists of 16 pages as printed. On page 7, in the ‘background/context’ section, option 1 is stated as “1) Maintain current direction and create a Working Group of Individuals and Communities in Wilmot following completion of the Strategic Plan development.”

Starting on page 8, the full descriptions of each option were presented, which would be the actual options that the Council voted on.

The wording, that the Council voted on was stated as, “Maintain Current Direction and Create a Working Group Comprised of a Balanced Representation of the Individuals and Communities within Wilmot Township.”

You will note, that the Council voted to proceed, without the need to act only “…following completion of the Strategic Plan Development.” The option #1 that the Council voted for did not necessitate waiting until a strategic plan was completed.

In the attachment below, I review the original rationale for, at the initiative of Councillor Wilkinson, the Council revisiting the entire process of how the previous Council made decisions about the Prime Ministers Path project.

It is commonly understood, I would suggest, among the citizens of Wilmot, and the Council, that the Prime Ministers Path project decision-making process used by the previous Council did not reflect the wishes of the citizenry. The evidence is in the significant majority mass of communications subsequently received from citizens about the process and the evidence that all three previous Councillors who presented themselves as candidates to return to office were defeated. A clean slate of Councillors was elected. The present Councillors have on frequent occasions in public indicated that the PMP project process was a significant issue and a priority that needs to be addressed with a “restart” of the entire decision-making process.

As described in my attachment, the strategic planning process and the PMP project process are different and separate issues. The one does not necessarily preclude the other. A strategic planning process is an,

“…internal” process designed to prevent a corporation, ‘team’ or other organization from “…wasting time, money, and effort on projects that are not going to take your business to where it wants to go.

The clarity that comes from a strategic plan sets you up for successful resource allocation…”

Miro 2023

[https://miro.com/blog/how-to-write-a-strategic-plan/utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PM%7CGOO%7CNB%7CCA%7CALLEN%7CPmax&utm_adgroup=&adgroupid=&utm_custom=20494043745&utm_content=&utm_term=&matchtye=&device=cgad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0uaXnNrThQMVFjytBh164QMEAAYASAAEgJSz_D_BwE&loc=1002171]

The Corporation of Wilmot has an existing strategic plan, which is frequently referred to as the rationale to confirm decision-making alignment. Wilmot Township’s strategic plan already has a “vision” statement, a “mission” statement (both are posted on the reception area wall at great purchase expense), etc.

As a citizen interested in efficiency, I would suggest that any revision of a strategic plan at the wish of a “new” Council, which was elected in 2022, should/would have been completed by mid-2023 at the latest. I would suggest that to inject a strategic planning process, to occupy Wilmot personnel at this late date in the Council’s term would be counter-indicative of the purposes of a strategic plan. It would be a waste of time, money, and effort, an inefficient allocation of resources, and a distraction from the priority issue to the citizens of Wilmot. As I bluntly state my opinion in the attachment, “The issue is the restart of the decision-making process of the PMP. It is NOT some administrative “busy-being-busy” strategic plan.”

I have opined that Wilmot citizens do not care 2¢, at this time, about vision statements, mission statements, or strategic plans that direct the work plans of staff. Staff can use its present strategic plan to get on with managing existing affairs as approved by the Council – stop signs, gravel, easements, minor variances, dump trucks, etc.

[As an aside opinion, I would suggest that the 770 acres issue will also work itself out without undue Council concern as it is becoming more common knowledge that Wilmot Council does not control or have much influence on this development but rather it is ultimately provincially driven, and after the land owners negotiate their acceptable price, it will die down as the gravel pits have. Thus, the PMP project holds priority concern.]

I believe citizens are ‘top-of-mind” concerned about how and when they get their say on their priority issue – the PMP project.  They want their say on the fundamental question at hand, “Why and how does Wilmot dispose of the statues, or why and how does Wilmot display the statues with an educational component?” The question is not only why and how to dispose of the project as the First Peoples Group might appear to prefer.

Therefore, I have suggested to the Councillors that the implementation of option #1 as passed by the Council does not require a strategic planning process first. I suggest that the strategic planning process is a distraction from the priority issue at hand and an untimely use of everyone’s time.

It is common practice, in community consultation processes, that there be a focused, short-time period of sharing values, beliefs, and foundational principles of social compatibility during a consultation meeting. Whatever the topic at hand, this often occurs as part of the process. Short and sweet. This is successful as it is focused, directed by a facilitator, compiled quickly and efficiently by the participants, recorded by the facilitators, and the meeting moves on. This values portion, if used, takes 10-15 minutes to reach a consensus among the participants, It does not require, for our purposes, the process described by you as CAO at the March 25th meeting. In the attachment, it is my conclusion that a strategic planning process first, is a red-herring, a distraction from the priority question among citizens, and potentially a deflection from the question in red above, dispose or display.

Change in Direction?

In your verbal presentation on March 25th, you made a point to focus on “…if Council chooses to move in a different direction, then…”. The implication was, that the Council has to follow exactly what the previous Council had directed and comply with all the contents of the First Peoples Group report.

I remind the CAO that most of the Council have already indicated that it has questions and doubts about the validity of the consultation process used by the First Peoples Group, and the decision-making process used by the previous Council, and the conclusions and recommendations by the First Peoples Group (“…to temporarily store the statues and discontinue any future expansion or investment in the Prime Ministers Path as it exists today.”).

I suggest that the present Council has already decided that it may go in a different direction if that is the recommendation of the citizens after a due process consultation process using a working group. The fact that it is revisiting the entire process of decision-making is evidence of that. I would suggest that the Council’s choice of option #1, was a process decision.

The process to be used would require a working group to recommend to the Council how a change in decision-making may occur, and how a new community consultation process (led by a working group and facilitators with advice from a consultant firm) might occur. That working group report would return to the Council for approval and future direction before consultations actually occur.

There was mention by some Councillors, with head nods by others (view the Youtube video) that this process must not become a top-down process. This must be a down-up processof input from citizens directing the Council of why, what, where and how to go. Properly conducted, the consultation meetings will provide specific strategies of why and how to dispose of, or why and how to display with an educational component the statues and PMP project. Then Council will pass that along to direct staff on how to manage it.

I suggest that the previous Council lost track of the fact that the Municipal decision-making process, from the staff at the bottom on up, is structured in the Ontario Municipal Act, with everyone accountable to the voters. The Council, led by the Corporation’s CEO, directs, monitors and supervises its hired staff. The CAO then manages/administers the implementation of that direction.

My attachment recommends to the Council that it should:

  • Direct staff to postpone any strategic planning process until after the completion of the community consultation process about the PMP project. (Maybe even wait until after the 2026 Council is elected and thus avoid distractions and inefficient use of staff time.)
  • Request a list of all consultants and ‘experts’ that staff have consulted in the process so far of writing an RFP to hire a consultant to advise on the PMP project process.
  • Take an active part (2 do a preliminary review of the staff’s proposed RFP, and then consult with the rest of the Council) in the writing of the RFP for the PMP project. All the Council will get any blame or credit, not its staff.
  • Create and widely distribute a comprehensive list of potential consultants, not restricted to a few who have already been consulted by staff and have had a role in making recommendations on how to write this RFP and its contents.
  • Assume a full role in the evaluation process after a designated Councillor has preliminarily reviewed the returned proposals. [This is one of those rare, emotional, highly charged issues that will determine the legacy of this Council and its staff. History needs to be constantly reviewed so as not to repeat the errors of the past. (Irony intended.)]

This attachment is intended to provide a step back in distance or perspective. It is intended to provide the context of the issue being before the Council. It is to remind the Council and its hired staff that the process of discovering an answer to the citizens’ question – dispose or display, why and how – is the focus. It’s not about some make-work strategic plan, visioning happens without an expensive, complex, Linton Consulting-led, project.

It’s about participatory democracy, in Wilmot, by Wilmot voters, for Wilmot citizens, and maybe as an example to others in Ontario.

Conclusions:

  • Postpone the Linton strategic planning process. Let them get on to some other project as they await their turn to get back here in Wilmot.
  • Get on with the PMP project. This is also grant-driven.
  • No top-down (including by a CAO or consultant) specified direction. The staff makes suggestions and manages implementation only.
  • The council must drive the direction.
  • It needs to be a bottom-up process, with lots of opportunities for all eligible Wilmot citizens to participate and see their input as part of the statistical record.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Wolfe

Baden

See attachment here>

Municipal act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25

PART VI
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

Municipal Organization and Administration

Role of council

224 It is the role of council,

(a) to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality;

(b) to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality;

(c) to determine which services the municipality provides;

(d) to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council;

(d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality;

(e) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; and

(f) to carry out the duties of council under this or any other Act.  2001, c. 25, s. 224; 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 99.

Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

Role of head of council

225 It is the role of the head of council,

(a) to act as chief executive officer of the municipality;

(b) to preside over council meetings so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively;

(c) to provide leadership to the council;

(c.1) without limiting clause (c), to provide information and recommendations to the council with respect to the role of council described in clauses 224 (d) and (d.1);

(d) to represent the municipality at official functions; and

(e) to carry out the duties of the head of council under this or any other Act.  2001, c. 25, s. 225; 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 100.

Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

Substitution

226 A municipality may, with the consent of the head of council, appoint a member of council to act in the place of the head of council on any body, other than on the council of another municipality, of which the head of council is a member by virtue of being head of council.  2001, c. 25, s. 226.

Head of council as chief executive officer

226.1 As chief executive officer of a municipality, the head of council shall,

(a) uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality;

(b) promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities;

(c) act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality, and promote the municipality locally, nationally and internationally; and

(d) participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.  2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 101.

Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

Municipal administration

227 It is the role of the officers and employees of the municipality,

(a) to implement council’s decisions and establish administrative practices and procedures to carry out council’s decisions;

(b) to undertake research and provide advice to council on the policies and programs of the municipality; and

(c) to carry out other duties required under this or any Act and other duties assigned by the municipality.  2001, c. 25, s. 227.

Clerk

228 (1) A municipality shall appoint a clerk whose duty it is,

(a) to record, without note or comment, all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings of the council;

(b) if required by any member present at a vote, to record the name and vote of every member voting on any matter or question;

(c) to keep the originals or copies of all by-laws and of all minutes of the proceedings of the council;

(d) to perform the other duties required under this Act or under any other Act; and

(e) to perform such other duties as are assigned by the municipality.  2001, c. 25, s. 228 (1).

Deputy clerks

(2) A municipality may appoint deputy clerks who have all the powers and duties of the clerk under this and any other Act.  2001, c. 25, s. 228 (2).

Not required to be an employee

(3) A clerk or deputy clerk is not required to be an employee of the municipality.  2001, c. 25, s. 228 (3).

Delegation

(4) The clerk may delegate in writing to any person, other than a member of council, any of the clerk’s powers and duties under this and any other Act.  2001, c. 25, s. 228 (4).

Clerk retains powers and duties

(5) The clerk may continue to exercise the delegated powers and duties, despite the delegation.  2001, c. 25, s. 228 (5).

Chief administrative officer

229 A municipality may appoint a chief administrative officer who shall be responsible for,

(a) exercising general control and management of the affairs of the municipality for the purpose of ensuring the efficient and effective operation of the municipality; and

(b) performing such other duties as are assigned by the municipality.  2001, c. 25, s. 229.

Therefore:

+ The CAO exists at the will of the Council. [Due process > termination]

+ The CAO acts at the will of the Council.

+ The CAO does what the Council tells them to do. [229 (b)]

+ The CAO manages staff to execute what the Council told the CAO to do. [224 (d)]

+ The Council is responsible for ensuring that the CAO & staff do as it directs. [224 (d.1)]

+ A CAO provides advice. A CAO may provide recommended actions. A CAO does not provide direction! The Council accepts, revises, or does not accept any advice from a CAO. The council sets its direction and then dictates directives to a CAO.

+ The mayor does not ask permission from the CAO to be active (with Councillors) in any activities that it has directed the CAO and staff to implement. [Ex. R.F.P. / press release contents / etc.]

The legislation is clear. The CAO in a Municipality is accountable to the Council.

Practice, in any specific situation, is less clear.

Over time, due to the ‘force of personality’ and factors such as past practice or customs, any CAO position may evolve to become one where any CAO may act ‘beyond their authority’. That is, a CAO may make decisions and take actions that are not compliant with the intent and direction of the Council. These decisions may include NOT doing something. An example may be a CAO not “implementing an educational component” in a project.

The Council is responsible to the voters for ensuring that its policies, practices and procedures are executed as per its will.

 

 

————————————————————————————————————

Excerpts from the March 25, 2024, Council Meeting: – a transcript as accurate as I could relate it. Confirm for yourself by viewing the Youtube video record starting at about the 3-hour point.

ITEM 13.2     CAO Report:

3:02:10          “Option 1 was to maintain the current direction and create a working group comprised of a balanced representation of individuals and communities in Wilmot and that was the recommendation that was contained within the First Peoples Group Report.   This option discussed how federal funding could be used to hire a consultant to develop terms of reference for the working group as well as advise on best practices for selecting such working groups and to provide advice to the working group in their work.

“Option #2 was to engage further on the Prime Ministers Path Project to assess community support for establishing the working group or to explore alternative approaches for citizen engagement and decision-making and this also involved hiring a consultant to do some additional engagement with the community, um, either to determine whether there’s support for continuing with the working group or to explore some alternative approaches for citizen engagement.”

3rd option …referendum

“So, staff recommended within that report that option 1 to establish the working group be maintained because this was the recommendation that was actually arrived at through community consultation. Um, the report included a suggested timelining and a recommended staging of that engagement following the Township’s strategic planning process. And the rationale for that timing was really to allow Council to work with the community to engage the community and to develop a vision for the community and the values that would help them to inform future decisions but also understand what’s important to the community without considering this project. Um and then once they know what that vision is then they can really have some good information to understand decision-making as we move forward as it relates to the Prime Ministers Path and how that aligns with those community vision and values.

“It also helps to stage the work appropriately as we are a small Municipality. We’re a small team so undertaking that strategic planning work allows us to focus on that and then once that is complete, then we can take on the additional work of engaging on the Prime Ministers Path project.

“If Council chooses to go in a different direction (?) then we do recommend that there be additional community consultation, um, to confirm the direction so that you’re receiving that feedback from the community about the approach.

“So following the discussion at Council, Council directed staff to report back on March 25th with some additional detail on what option 2 would entail before, uh, making a decision on which option you wanted to consider. Um, and so the report before you this evening, uh, provides you with an update of activities that staff have undertaken since February 26th when that report was presented and also discusses the issue and several requests for proposals to hire a consultant that would develop an engagement plan for the community which would ultimately assist you in making a decision on the Prime Ministers Path.

“If Council decides not to establish a working group as recommended by the First Peoples Group it’s recommended that the Casmari? Funding, so that the federal funding that we had been awarded, be used to hire a firm specializing in inclusive engagement to develop a community engagement plan that will lay out the methods by which the community will be engaged and over what timeline. In terms of the timeline for issuing that RFP, we do believe that this work should start immediately because we want to take advantage of that funding which does expire in June. Um, you know we will see if that can be extended to ensure that we are able to complete the work in time, but as of now, um, that does expire in June.

WHO?            “So, since that report was tabled we have started to meet with some experts in the field of community engagement as well as talking to other communities who are dealing with similar issues related to statues and that includes the City of Kitchener and through their learning they confirm that our recommendation to start with community visioning was a best practice approach. Additional meetings have been scheduled later this week. Miss Kell and I will be meeting with a couple of more consultants and experts as we continue to learn and gather information about best practices for inclusive community conversations. This research will really assist us in developing a request for proposals to hire a consultant to assist with these next steps and that doesn’t matter whether it’s through option 1 of creating a working or it’s option 2 considering an alternative approach.

                        “The learning that we are doing right now is very valuable in developing some knowledge and best practices on how to engage the community on these issues.

                        “Um, in terms of additional actions, we have hired our strategic planning consultant, so Linton Consulting has been awarded that work and they’ve started meeting with staff and Council and will be holding some community town halls and focus group sessions starting in April. And just as a reminder if Council does choose not to proceed with the working group this would be a reconsideration of the previous decision of Council and would require a 2/3rds vote of Council to overturn.

3:08:42          “So, with that, that summarizes the report and I would be happy to take any questions.”

Cressman     Option 2 = working group and hire the consultant > set parameters = distance from 1st PG > Council can step back.

CAO               “Just to affirm. The working group would be option 1. So that would create the working group and we could hire a consultant to help us to develop the terms of reference for that working group and they could um, work with the working group to help the working group to develop engagement plans.

                        “Option 2, if you decide not to proceed with the working group then that puts Council in the seat in determining with the consultant what engagement plan that you want to develop.

Martin             No concern about 1st PG, process how we will make a decision?

Wilkinson       Option 1 = working group, Council unable to determine future engagement process?

CAO               The consultant could actually work with the working group and Council to develop a mandate for what it is that Council is really tasking that working group to do. There would be reporting back on the findings as the engagement occurs, so that Council is aware of what the working group is doing but it does create that separation that you are essentially tasking the working group with developing an engagement plan and deciding and making recommendations as to how we move forward in terms of any activities related to this project. So they could be looking at things like learning opportunities for the community and that sort of thing and really developing a plan that would assist Council in making the decision at the end of the day. So that is what I believe the First Peoples Group envisioned but it was really, um, it was the recommendation to create the working group without a lot of detail or content or context of what that working group does. So I would suggest that we need some expertise to assist us in developing out the framework and the working plan for that working group so that, you know, Council’s giving some clear direction to them about what you’re asking them to do. That’s what we’d looking to engaging a consultant to do.

3:14:31          “If you decide not to move forward with a working group then I would suggest that you’re just engaging a consultant who has expertise in developing engagement plans. I’m having some really good conversations with experts in this field who have really good ideas about how to foster community conversations around these types of issues. Um, but you’d be the decision-maker, as Council, around those engagement plans. I think the difference is you’re tasking the working group to do that work in option #1, and in option #2 you’re taking it on yourself and working with a consultant to do that, um, directly.

Wilkinson       We could overturn Council’s previous > hybrid

CAO               I don’t think so. Working group or not. Hire a consultant to direct.

Delegations

Council

Wilkinson       Separate issue this from the Strategic Plan. It’s own path moving forward.

                        New decision-making framework.

                        Avoid top down > community discussion and consensus.

                        Funding 1st PG or others as well

CAO               It (funding) relates to diversity, equity and inclusion, So it allows us to hire a inclusive consultant as long as we’re doing an inclusive engagement. I believe that would fit within the funding stream.

I would also, through you mayor if you don’t mind, just want to provide some clarification for Council about exactly what the direction was from the Council of the day so that you can understand whether what you heard tonight from the delegates fit within that box and requires a change in direction because that said, because if you’re doing anything other than what was approved by the previous Council then that requires a reconsideration. So I’m just going to read that motion for you.

4:03:19          CAO Read the motion starting at “THAT staff be directed…

“So that is the current direction of Council. So I would suggest that that is option 1. That  is on the table, which is continuing with the current direction of Council. You’ve heard some suggestions this evening of what could be incorporated into the work of the working group as well as what could form part of an RFP. Um, that would deliver on that. So, I would suggest to you that a lot of what you heard tonight fits within that framework and doesn’t require a change in direction.

Cressman     “Balanced representation”?

CAO               “I think that’s where we really want to look to the expertise of the consultant who has led these types of engagements and set forward the terms of reference, and even bring forward best practices in how we select representation for these types of working groups. That’s certainly not something that we’ve done before so in my initial recommendation we did set out that that would be part of the work of the consultant to assist us through that process in developing how we actually go ahead and create this working group.

Mayor             “I suppose I have a question about the wording that currently stands for creating a working group. I am asking this not because this is the process I would want but I want the flexibility should somebody like a consultant come forward and suggest this. It says residents of Wilmot. I still very much believe it is a conversation of the residents of Wilmot, but when Mr Kipp was doing his presentation that this obviously is about a larger conversation > experts?

CAO               Up to the working group & Council. Consultant gove us advice = best practice.

Dunstall         It goes out to everybody = entire Township

CAO               “Yes and as we heard from many of the delegations tonight that part of that focus of the working group really should be how we develop those working plans with the community and the consultant we engage through this, um, it’s very important we get the right consultant that has a lot of knowledge in how to lead those conversations in the community. Certainly, I have heard from members of Council since I have here about, um, the wanting to have those, you know, smaller focus group type conversations with the community where people can feel safe in sharing diverse opinions, and, um, I very pleased to say that Mis Kell and I in some of the conversations in the past couple of weeks with consultants who have experience in this space. There are some really great ideas there that, um, that we can implement in terms of having that really meaningful community conversation where all perspectives are heard.

Martin             Process. Need a motion?

The CAO is telling the Council that the CAOs office’s intention is to hire a consultant to lead a STRATEGIC PLANNING process, that may or may not include the PMP project, when Linton has already been hired to do that. NOTE: The original reason for the July 5, 2021 motion, and Option #1 is to address DECISION-MAKING THAT LED TO THE PMP FIASCO.

Linton Consulting has been hired by the CAO to address strategic planning.

At 3:06:25 the CAO said that she’s now looking for a consultant to provide direction regarding a strategic planning process (vision/values) “without considering this project” .

 It is impossible to be writing and distributing an RFP for a project (strategic planning maybe leading to PMP later) that already has a contractor hired.

4:14:52          Mayor: “My question would be on the consulting. I know RFPs normally sit within your jurisdiction and awarding. I’m curious. I know I certainly would be interested in – because this is a politicized topic – so Council having at least input on who would be the top candidates and who it would be awarded to. Perhaps some of the wording in the RFP to ensure it encapsulates what we’re envisioning. Curious to see what that would look like without stepping on staff’s toes.”

CAO:              “Yes. I agree with you completely in this respect that Council will want input into this process and I will be happy to bring back the provisions of the RFP for Council to look at and I would also suggest that a member of Council be on the evaluation team as we’re awarding this to ensure that it’s aligned with Council’s vision on this.”

Observations & Conclusions:

 Directions   

The CAO mentions a couple of times, changing direction.

“Option 1 was to maintain the current direction and create a working group”

 “If Council chooses to go in a different direction (?) then we do recommend that there be additional community consultation, um, to confirm the direction so that you’re receiving that feedback from the community about the approach.

 “So that is the current direction of Council. So I would suggest that that is option 1. That is on the table, which is continuing with the current direction of Council. You’ve heard some suggestions this evening of what could be incorporated into the work of the working group as well as what could form part of an RFP. Um, that would deliver on that. So, I would suggest to you that a lot of what you heard tonight fits within that framework and doesn’t require a change in direction.”

  The CAO Report 2024-03 included the CAOs definition of what she believed Option #1 consisted of. She described 4 “aspects” that would be delegated to a consulting firm. Her description places a huge amount of power on the consultant to describe and define all the actions of the working group of representatives from Wilmot. (CAO 2024-03, page 4 of 8) It is possible to foresee that the working group could potentially become “go-fors” complying with, “This firm would take the lead in shaping the work and providing guidance on the following aspects.”

With this stipulation, it is hard to believe that this would not be another top-down process. The clause in the July 5th motion states that the role of the working group is, “…to discuss, develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps…” This means, to this English speaker, that it is the working group members, not the consultant nor CAO, that creates the plan for action to recommend to the Council for later implementation.

I would suggest that the Council will want to ensure that the RFP distributed for consultant applicants ensures that it is clear that this review of the decision-making process of the PMP project is driven by the working group, NOT by the CAOs office nor the consultant. To do otherwise would be another top-down imposition of the process onto citizens hidden behind a veneer of “citizen-driven” participation.

Timing           On page 7 of the CAO Report 2024-03, it describes Option #1.

“Maintain current direction and create a Working Group of Individuals and Communities in Wilmot following completion of the Strategic Plan development.”

Motion:

HOWEVER: The motion that was passed by the Council on March 25, 2024, defined Option #1 DIFFERENTLY!!!  It was passed with this wording:

“Maintain Current Direction and Create a Working Group Comprised of a Balanced Representation of the Individuals and Communities within Wilmot Township.”

NOTE: The motion passed makes no mention of, nor requires that the working group’s creation, nor that its activities be delayed until after the strategic plan.

The CAOs report to the Council on March 25th appears to assume that the strategic planning would go first. That is not what the Council directed.

THE CAOs ‘STAGING’ OF A STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS BEFORE THE RESTART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE PMP PROJECT IS IN REVERSE ORDER, I BELIEVE.

Background  Council tasked the CAO to bring a report to Council on March 25th, to address a potential option #2. This report was to address an option for a restart of the decision-making process regarding the PMP project. The 3 options had nothing to do with a strategic planning process.

However, this report ranged off-topic to include a strategic planning process. I believe that this comingling of different issues confused Councillors and viewers.

A strategic planning process is usually an “internal” administrative process. A consultant may work internally, with the officers and staff of a corporation, not its customers.  The CAO appears to have usurped the ‘public consultation’ process by inserting into it a strategic planning process (which should have been completed in mid-2023) ahead of addressing the fundamental issue which is the decision-making around the PMP project. As a result, it appears that the CAO and her assistant were and still are researching consultants and experts. The first research would have occurred before the hiring of Linton Consulting to conduct the strategic planning public consultation. Linton has already been hired and is supposedly at work. Secondly, on March 25th the CAO said, “The learning that we are doing right now is very valuable in developing some knowledge and best practices on how to engage the community on these issues.” which indicates that she and her assistant are still learning about how to conduct public consultations, and this learning appears to be necessary to direct in her writing an RFP and hiring a consultant/expert for the PMP project. On the surface, this does not appear to be logically consistent. 1) Learning must have been essential in writing an RFP and choosing a consultant to perform the strategic planning consultations > Linton Consulting was contracted. 2) Why is new learning needed in preparation for writing an RFP to perform the same public consultation process, but for a separate PMP project?

Strategic planning, and the creation of a working group to address the PMP project through public consultation (Option #1) are entirely separate tasks.

The CAO had already started the process of strategic planning by hiring a consulting firm, Linton Consulting, to provide advice and direction of how to start a community consultation process. The process of community consultation on strategic planning has already begun.

She has attached this “community engagement process” to what I believe is her priority – which is strategic planning. Her ‘down-the-road’ concern is the actual decision-making process and a restart of the process regarding the PMP project. Her rationale for “staging” these processes is an assumption that visioning and valuing must be established first, as a base upon which to build a PMP consultation process. I believe this is a premature assumption. People have a multitude of values and visions, depending on the issue at hand – different issue > different goal or ‘vision’ based on separate values they hold. To assume that one described vision, in a strategic planning report, applies in all situations is false. As part of the consultant/working group community engagement/consultation process, there will probably be a ‘perfunctory’ discussion at the beginning of the consultations around values, in the context of the PMP project. A strategic planning process is NOT a requirement preceding the PMP project consultations. I believe it is an unnecessary delay and this a waste of time, probably causing an increase in citizens’ frustrations around the process of addressing this issue.

The CAO wants to finish up this strategic planning process and NOT include the PMP in this part of the consultation.

There is NOT a working group as part of the strategic planning process.

After the strategic planning is all completed, then she wants to start the working group process of consultation to address the PMP issue.

From an administrator’s/management point of view, this may appear to make sense. Do one thing using the resources of in-house personnel available to you. Then, move on to another thing.  OK But I believe this sequence does not align with the priority interest of the citizens. Do the strategic planning in-house last. Do the community engagement consultation to restart the decision-making process of the PMP project FIRST.

 NOTE: The federal grant terminates in June (subject to an expeditious application to extend it).

HOW DOES WILMOT COMPLETE A STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTATION AT THE SAME TIME AS HIRING A PMP CONSULTANT AND PRIOR TO FORMING A WORKING GROUP AND DOING A CONSULTATION RE. PMP?

ANSWER?    USE THE SAME CONSULTANT (LINTON) TO DO BOTH?

OPINION:

The CAO appears to want to be in control of the community engagement process, not a “working group” of citizens as was directed in the July 5th 2021 motion.

This strategy of already hiring her preferred consultant and initiating community consultations on a “red-herring” task has usurped the PMP task of the working group, i.e., to prepare a report on how to consult and engage the public.

The Mayor (Council) needs to direct the CAOs office to:

  1. Put the visioning, mission statement, strategic planning process on “hold”. The time for creating a strategic plan was by July 2023. Its time has passed. Do nothing more regarding strategic planning community consultations until AFTER the PMP process has been completed. Wilmot citizens I believe do not care much about visioning, mission statements and strategic plans to direct the Council’s work plans. It cares about the decision-making process of the PMP project. The issue is the restart of the decision-making process of the PMP. It is NOT some administrative “busy-being-busy” strategic plan.
  2. Submit to Council a list of all “consultants/experts” it has consulted (names, topic consulted on, potential tasks to be performed for the Township – for two issues: the strategic plan considerations, AND the PMP investigations so far).
  3. Provide the Council with the RFP distributed that resulted in the contract awarded to Linton Consultants describing the tasks it is to perform for the Township with timelines.
  4. Solicit additional consultants and provide a comprehensive list of potential consultants to Council for review and input re. the PMP project.
  5. Provide a DRAFT version of an RFP for the PMP working group, consultation process and ensure that all potential tasks a consultant would have to be capable of performing are described in the RFP, and direct applicants to describe how they would execute the tasks. A consultant must have the capacity (size of work force) and skills and technology to be able to create statistically valid questionnaires and surveys and be able to tabulate statistically valid results, compile oral and written submissions from Wilmot citizens, execute the logistics of public meetings in 6 community centres including security, etc.

It is my opinion that the Mayor and Council have made a strategic leadership error in not controlling the CAOs ability to unilaterally award a contract to a consultant firm (Linton) that will now probably be in control (along with the CAO) of all future actions concerning: strategic plans, goal setting, information sharing, consultation methods, and probably of the outcomes of any issue and decisions dumped into Council’s lap.

Because the CAO hired the “strategic planning” consultant, and the consultant wants to be hired for the next steps in “Wilmot’s Walk Through History” project it will do whatever the CAO nudges it toward to get the next contract. [Linton’s web site: “We build long-lasting business relationships.]

It will be the CAO calling the leadership shots, not the Council. The CAO has “responsibility deniability” and the Council gets the accountability consequences = BLAME.

A Council must be constantly vigilant that it is constantly aware, and constantly informed before – not after a decision. It is the Council’s legal duty to perform its supervisory duties – ALWAYS.

OPINIONS

1) The CAO and staff act at the will and direction of the Council and the CEO – the Mayor.

The Mayor as CEO, and Council, do not ask permission to be actively involved in tasks assigned to its staff.

 When the Mayor wants to be involved, they will tell the CAO how and when they want to be involved. The CAO does not take any actions, in these intense situations, until given authorization by the Council.

2) The Mayor should ensure a “common purpose” with their Councillors through their own “visioning process”. As the CEO, the Mayor needs, at the beginning of the term of office, or at the first opportunity now, to hold a retreat with Councillors to identify key items of each Council member:

+ reasons for running for office

+ goals to achieve for their ward and Township residents (short and long-term)

+ personal goals

+ how long do they plan to stay on the Council

         + if one term, then the Council had better start a ward succession plan

3) The Mayor needs to decide whether Council will be a managers, busy-being-busy, or leaders. Filling potholes, stop signs, easements, minor variances are for management – CAOs office direction. Developing strategies to move the Township toward long-term goals is the OMA responsibility of the leadership team – Mayor as CEO & Council as Board of Directors. Councillors must decide how they fulfill their role – manage or lead.

4) If the Mayor chooses to act as a long-term leader with defined goals and timelines, then there needs to be a consensus that they (Mayor and Councillors) need to act in cohesion:

       + Council is the Board of Directors providing direction.

       + The CAO and staff provide counsel and professional advice ONLY.

       + The CAO and staff do not act without authorization. The Councill will, as is the case of the “decision-making process” tell the CAO clearly what to do.

       + Some issues are not controversial and “all-hands-on-deck” watching over shoulders is not required. It is the responsibility of the Mayor to determine key issues, coordinate with Councillors, and make staff clearly aware of their authorized limits to act.

 

SUMMARY

The following observations, conclusions and opinions are based on what the CAO has said at Council – see script above.

  1. The CAO wants to implement a “strategic planning” process BEFORE addressing the PMP project. [The CAO is telling Council that its priority should be strategic planning and the PMP can wait until …?]
  2. The strategic planning process addresses visioning, mission statements, and values leading to a goal which is unspecified in public comments by the CAO. [Strategic plans have traditionally addressed how a group sets its goals, prioritizes its tasks, how it allocates personnel and resources and sets timelines with observable, measurable outcomes. This process should have been completed by mid 2023 and is now a waste of resources. National reconciliation does not result from a strategic planning process nor a PMP restart process.]
  3. The CAO has already hired Linton Consulting to drive that process of community engagement including focus groups consultations. Consultations begin in April/have already begun.
  4. There is no indication that the working group will play any part in this process as it is not dealing with the PMP project.
  5. The CAO and the strategic initiatives mgr. (Miss Kell) have already started consulting “experts” and other communities about best practices to approaching the PMP project and have been reviewing “consultants”. [The CAO has not named who she deems “experts” or potential consultants. She has indicated that she is seeking advice as to what consultants want in an RFP. The potential consultants are setting the scope, mandate and probable terms to be written into the RFP. Opinion: It’s like asking the foxes to describe how they want you to let them into the henhouse. The council needs to set the scope, mandate and terms for this particular, highly charged RFP. Any consultant needs to have the “capacity” (size and skills and technology) to not just plan the logistics of conducting meetings with breakout or focus groups in 6 community centres, but also the skills to design VALID surveys, questionnaires and the technical ability to compile and interpret the statistical validity of the data, but also able to solicit, receive, document and compile a permanent record of written submissions which would form an “appendix” to a report.]
  6. The federal government grant expires in June (with the potential for a minor extension). The CAO is suggesting that a consultant be hired (and she’s been doing the groundwork – see #4 above for concerns – and ‘needs to get the RFP out quickly’. She says she’d be “happy to bring back the provisions of the RFP for Council to look at”. [“look at” is not acceptable. Council needs to drive the process of writing and distributing as well as evaluating responses of the RFP. The council approves the contractor and its contract terms. This is too sensitive to be given away to the CAO with the risk of blowback onto Councillors.]
  7. The only way the CAO can get in under the federal grant timelines is to use the same consultant, a father & daughter business – Linton, for the strategic planning and the PMP decision-making process using a working group of representative citizens and communities within Wilmot. [Even then, the working group will have already been told how to jump, where to jump, and how high by the CAO and consultant – unless Council does get more deeply involved. Council cannot pass this off to a working group to be accountable for because Council is responsible for supervising and monitoring all Township affairs and thus accountable to the public for any success or failure. In my opinion, this will not be as easy as approving a stop sign. Council will need to get even more deeply involved in this process from start to finish.]
  8. The timeline to comply with the federal grant conditions do not align with the CAOs plan to complete the visioning strategic plan before starting to create and implement a working group. [I suggest that the Wilmot public does not care 2¢ for any visioning and strategic planning. I suggest that the Wilmot public wants Council to address the issue at hand which is, “The previous Council changed its mind at the last minute and made arbitrary decisions using a flawed process of consultation. The issue, the question, that needs to be managed “at the end of the day”, is, “Does Wilmot dispose of the statues, why and how, OR, does Wilmot display the statues, why and how?” The Wilmot public will only get more upset when it discovers that this “strategic planning” consultation is not about their issue, but rather is a make-work task which obfuscates, denies their priorities, delays public input and wastes their time. Using the CAOs sequence the public will be more frustrated, and will not participate in the real issue because they do not trust a process which is driven down upon them from the top – the CAOs office. BUT, Councillors will get the blame and all that entails. The strategic planning is a red herring. POSTPONE IT INDEFINITELY UNTIL AFTER ALL PMP CONSULTATIONS ARE COMPLETED AND A DECISION MADE – DISPOSE OR DISPLAY!]
  9. The CAO made a point of reading the July 5, 2021 motion to Council. She highlighted that this Council must act within the parameters set by the previous Council unless it changes direction, in an unspecified manner. She emphasized this need for compliance with the previous Council including the point “THAT staff be directed to report back to Council with an implementation plan for the incorporation of the remaining recommendations from the First Peoples Group, including,….” [The CAO has not indicated what “remaining recommendations” she may parachute into an RFP or insert during the design stage with the consultant hired. PERSONAL OPINION: It appears to me that the CAO does not want to manage (with Council) a consultation process that leads to a clear answer to the question which might include DISPLAY THE STATUES AND HERE’S WHY AND HOW that may result. I sense that the CAO is “reading/interpreting/opinionating” that the First Peoples Group has already told Council to dump the statues and thus the statues being displayed is really a dead issue. The rationale for inserting a strategic planning red herring is to distract attention from the real issue right now (fix the decision-making process and do a restart about the whole PMP project) and focus on the ‘touchy-feely’, emotion-driven ‘reconciliation of settlers to Indigenous Peoples concerns’ which, in my opinion, is a national task to resolve. Wilmot needs to keep to its knitting and focus on what it can influence and control – not change attitudes and behaviours of all Wilmot citizens resulting from generations of socialization.]