{"id":6420,"date":"2025-10-09T20:35:18","date_gmt":"2025-10-10T00:35:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/?page_id=6420"},"modified":"2025-10-09T20:35:18","modified_gmt":"2025-10-10T00:35:18","slug":"delegation-september-24-2024","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/?page_id=6420","title":{"rendered":"Delegation September 24, 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following is a transcript of Item 13.1 on the Council Meeting Agenda of September 23, 2024, regarding \u201cReport received for Information\u201d re. PMP consultant contract award.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Transcript starts at 2:29:10 ends at 3:05:42 of the Youtube version of meeting.<\/p>\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

That leaves us with item 13.1, which Councilor Wilkinson, did you have your hand up?<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair I would like to pull this for a comment and brief discussion.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

\u00a0Absolutely and just to note, you can make your comment and we do have a delegate on that matter for this evening as well. But you can make your comment first if you would like.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair, I guess the one thing I would make a comment on looking at this is that, you know, it’s noted that Councilor Martin and I had an opportunity to evaluate. But I would suggest that staff had an opportunity to participate in that evaluation as well, not necessarily all council.<\/p>\n

\n

But perhaps we can have a brief conversation regarding maybe the scope in which it’s moving forward. I think certainly we have a consultant that is able to move forward and perform the work, which is important.<\/p>\n

\n

But ultimately making sure that we have the required scope in terms of what I think our desired outcome was as a council. So perhaps we hear from the delegation and then we can discuss after, just in terms of making sure that we’re capturing all parties interested in this for, against, independent and perhaps a discuss an amendment.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Sure. I would agree amendments would come after we hear from delegations. Are there any other technical questions that anybody wants to ask on this item right now? Okay, seeing none. In that case, I will invite up our first registered delegate. Actually, our only registered delegate on this item, Mr. Barry Wolfe. Barry. Thank you for joining us and you will have seven minutes.<\/p>\n

\n

Barry:<\/p>\n

Thank you, Mayor. Council. We’re here regarding a contract award, which will allow us to start talking about Wilmot\u2019s and our entire national lands story.<\/p>\n

\n

A long time ago this land we now call Canada was uninhabited. Then humans appeared upon the land. Today we refer to them as the first peoples or indigenous peoples. These people inhabiting the land from earliest times.<\/p>\n

\n

These peoples organize themselves in various tribal groupings and on occasion, argue among themselves as people do. They develop strategies for addressing these disputes in their own ways, but always dependent upon communicating with each other face to face.<\/p>\n

\n

Over time other groups arrived in this land area. They came from various places at various times and settled in development areas and onto others lands. This has caused many conflicts, the solutions for which we still seek resolutions today.<\/p>\n

\n

The story of Canada like any other area we can think of is complicated. Canada’s history is complicated. There have been terrific events in Canada’s story. There have been terrible events in Canada’s stories.<\/p>\n

\n

These events can be associated with many people who live in a period of time in our history. In seeking answers to the complications in our story and in seeking strategies to move forward, we have traditionally used the same methods as used by the first peoples when addressing their inter-tribal disputes. We gather everyone together. We talk about it – respectfully considering the input of all affected. The interests of the majority, the majority, the single. We can’t make everyone happy, but we must continue to try.<\/p>\n

\n

In June of 2020 the fates of timely coincidence converged and the paint hit the head. Literally. The council of the day decided that Wilmot had a problem centered on Indigenous Peoples Complaints only. I disagree with that council’s analysis of the issue. This was not a complication. An issue centered on Indigenous Peoples Complaints only.<\/p>\n

\n

That decision biased in its approach to addressing the social issue faced by all citizens of this land in one direction only. It created an artificial silo into which it could place a complicated issue of how do we communicate and understand and reconcile our perceived differences.<\/p>\n

\n

The United States operates as a mail melting pot. You expect it to all become a homogenous conglomeration.<\/p>\n

\n

Canada is different. We are officially a multicultural country. When no folks, new folks arrive here they can maintain all aspects of the culture they came here with. To survive, these arrivals adopted our two language, rules of driving, etc. All of us find ways to adapt to each other so as to live together securely, cooperatively, and as happily as possible.<\/p>\n

\n

When the paint hit the fore head it could have been of any color and it could have been thrown by anyone who had an issue with something that had happened somewhere, sometime in the past in this country.<\/p>\n

\n

That paint could have been thrown by people of Chinese ancestry on the Wilford Laurier who raised a head tax on Chinese immigrants. It could have been thrown on the head of the owner of the CPR in the late 1800s for using Chinese immigrants to do the most dangerous tasks while building the railroad through the western mountains. And those people were blown by fragile dynamite into pieces and those pieces tumbled into the canyons of the west. They had no known or marked gravesites.<\/p>\n

\n

It could have been thrown by Japanese, on a local resident who interned Japanese comedians, or by Jews who were refugees fleeing Adolph Hitler and were refused entry, only be turned back and become victims of the ovens. They have no marked graves.<\/p>\n

\n

It could have been thrown by Indigenous leader Joseph Brant who bought and owned black African slaves and sold his people’s lands out from under them.<\/p>\n

\n

It could have been thrown by Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Irish, French, English, anybody. Our history is complicated and we’ll continue to cause angst if we continue to exclude voices when we communicate – as the last council did.<\/p>\n

\n

There had not been an opportunity for widespread comprehensive consultation with a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot before<\/strong> that council made its decision.<\/p>\n

\n

I have some suggestions on what council might consider this evening. Using the draft of the proposed C.O.R. 2024-49, I’m looking at page 2. I’m suggesting that we can address this issue in a consolidated way.<\/p>\n

\n

On page 2, below option 1 in the third paragraph which begins,<\/p>\n

\u201cFurther, this option advances the work done by the first people’s groups on behalf of the township using a collaborative approach to help determine a path forward for the Prime Minister’s project and its statues<\/strong><\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n

Just add that, insert that little bit.<\/p>\n

\n

In the sub-heading number 2, “Terms of Reference”, I’m suggesting that the wording would become,<\/p>\n

“The firm can assist council<\/strong> and the working group in crafting clear and comprehensive terms of reference for the working group. These documents outline the group’s objectives, scope, and responsibility which will include consideration of two questions; a) Why and how do we dispose of the statues? b) Why and how do we display the statues with an educational component?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

That provides an opportunity for council to participate.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

30 seconds remaining.<\/p>\n

\n

Barry:<\/p>\n

To participate with a consultant in setting the objectives, scope, and responsibilities and it ensures that the whole part of the project is considered. Not only parts A and B. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Thank you very much, Barry. Councilors, any questions of clarification for Mr. Wolfe? Seeing none, Thank you very much for joining us.<\/p>\n

\n

Barry:<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll see you later for [mumbled \u2013 the Strategic Plan]<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Very good. Okay, and Councilor Wilkinson, back to you.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Thank you, through the chair. I want to say we’ve certainly come a long way on this issue and there’s been a lot of commentary on this throughout the whole process but I think from the get-go this was something that we experienced and it heard from constituents on.<\/p>\n

\n

So going through the process I’m quite happy with the fact that we’ve been able to agree upon and secure a consultant moving forward and having discussions with interim CAO Clark that we were able to really sort of achieve an, and he can comment on this, but a framework in terms of the project management side of it from the staff perspective which is good.<\/p>\n

\n

And having further conversations as well with constituents, and one particularly concerned individual, who I share a similar belief in terms of approach to this project, is that we do need to have some engagement on the terms of reference and mandate.<\/p>\n

\n

So what I’d like to propose is that we essentially maintain what’s being proposed this evening and that LURA (?) will be awarded to contract to move forward, but that we do propose an amendment here that council be involved in the term of reference approval and ensure that we are very clearly opening the door and setting the mandate that we are not just moving forward with the first peoples group recommendation initially but rather we do change course a little bit here and make sure that the question being asked is, \u201cDo we dispose of the statues and how? or \u201cDo we display the statues and how?\u201d, which I think goes back to the conversation we had in council where we were talking about taking a step back and more so observing and getting opinions from the vast population that lives here and the different demographics that are represented here.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I want to make sure that that is there and that if council is going to put faith in this process that we have the ability to make sure that we have a clear term of reference that we are in agreeance on.<\/p>\n

\n

So that would be the one amendment I’d like to make to this, this evening.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Just before we move on getting a seconder for your amendment, I do just want to give active CAO Clark an opportunity as I know not all of our colleagues or the general public have heard Director Clark’s action plan essentially for how to do the project management<\/strong> so if I can just turn it over to acting CAO Clark.<\/p>\n

\n

Clark:<\/p>\n

Thank you Madam Mayor and I appreciate the opportunity that, now that this report has been pulled.<\/p>\n

\n

One thing I do want to make clear is that on page two that option one is copied word for word, identically, from the March 2024 council report. So that is exactly what council directed staff to do.<\/p>\n

\n

So, none of that has been changed in any way shape or form so that’s what council agreed to back then and that’s what our marching orders were in terms of engaging this this group.<\/p>\n

\n

In terms of the comment about terms of reference and mandate. Obviously, it\u2019s council\u2019s will and direction and how we proceed<\/p>\n

[The OMA specifies that staff act at the will of council<\/strong>. That\u2019s their duty, not their option. i.e., \u201cDo what you are directed to do, when you are directed to do so. Evidence of a \u201cnegative cultural history\u201d among administration staff and their perception of their duties?]<\/p>\n

\n

and just caution that any time that we have to come back to council for approval and direction means that the process is going to take substantially longer. [This process started on July 5, 2021. That means the process has taken 3 years, 11 weeks and 3 days to September 23rd<\/sup>, 2024 \u2013 so far. As events unfold, the re-direction by council was completed in less than an hour later \u2013 that night. The acting CAO\u2019s issue appears to be tenuous, and perhaps a frivolous attempt to avoid having to ensure that the project aligns with council\u2019s present direction, not that of a previous council\u2019s?<\/strong>].<\/p>\n

\n

So now we’re having to set up timing for meeting get back to council report to council about those types of things. Uh, to me<\/strong> the terms of reference and mandate are pretty straightforward<\/p>\n

\n

[The acting CAO, as seen on the video portion, is looking down at his desktop and appears to be reading from a prepared script. We have heard from CAOs in the past about what they think some wording means, but in effect the actions do not match the words. Council has reason to not just trust the verbal, but confirm in writing. <\/strong>The acting CAO\u2019s words are put together in a very long run-on sentence which I have segmented \/<\/em><\/strong> into concepts for easier analysis and assessment.<\/strong>]<\/p>\n

\n

and that the overall guidelines that council laid out in that March report \/ <\/em><\/strong>as well as the RFP \/<\/em><\/strong>state that we’re looking for a group that’s going to come together \/ <\/em><\/strong>and form a working group \/<\/em><\/strong>that’s going to represent all of the community, and \/ <\/em><\/strong>is going to provide an opportunity to engage then with every member of the community that wants to be engaged on this \/ <\/em><\/strong>to be heard to be represented and that \/ <\/em><\/strong>those involvement those engagements will be reported back to council.<\/p>\n

\n

Ultimately, I think the key thing to remember here is that this group and this this work is going to bring conversations and opinions and ideas forward to council for consideration.<\/p>\n

\n

Ultimately, council makes the decision on this at the end of the day. This group is here to provide context and I think we’ve heard loudly that we feel that – some feel – that the previous iteration of engagement was skewed one way or the other to represent different groups more substantially than others and we are very cognizant of that.<\/p>\n

\n

So, to that point, the mayor’s asked me to sort of highlight and I think it’s a, it’s a good conversation that we had a couple weeks ago. How we intend to keep council apprised of the work that we’re undertaking and that’s on page three, this center section there in the project management and that’s really about keeping council apprised on a regular basis of the work that’s been completed.<\/p>\n

\n

So, who have we engaged with what methods of engagement, how many people, what kind of feedback we’re getting, not in a specific sense, but more in an aggregate sense.<\/p>\n

[Not data driven. Someone\u2019s perception of what they thought they heard. Just like the focus group process, this appears to be a \u201cqualitative\u201d process and subject to interviewer bias. Read the research.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Are we getting good engagement or hearing from lots of people? Have we had good attendance and then giving them an idea of what’s coming up in the next two weeks in terms of specifically planned events or engagements, work that’s being completed, information that might<\/strong> be shared with the public<\/p>\n

\n

[MIGHT BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC? MIGHT BE? REALLY?]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

and allowing council to have an understanding of what that overview is and then also looking at that three to four weeks, what’s coming up further down the road. And the critical thing to remember about this is that while council through this reporting isn’t able to give directions<\/u> because it’s not a council meeting<\/strong>, it’s an information that we’re sharing with council. This is information that’s available to the public.<\/p>\n

[Council must be willing to put any need to change the actions of the consultant and working group on the council\u2019s agenda. Here he says, it\u2019s public. Above, it wasn\u2019t. The CAO can\u2019t have it both ways.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’re providing it concisely to council in a timely manner.<\/p>\n

[Concisely is the opposite of transparent and fulsome, abundant information for council and citizens. The CAO is telling you straight, you\u2019re not going to get a complete \u201cpicture\u201d of what\u2019s happening, just someone\u2019s pr\u00e9cis of what they think is happening.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

And if at any time in the road council feels that the process is not moving and then the way that they had hoped or had felt that was appropriate, they can bring us to council and ask for an update, ask for a conversation, ask for a change. And then we can get a change in direction.<\/p>\n

\n

To me, I think<\/strong> there’s plenty of opportunity to have engagement between administration and council to ensure that we’re all on the same page and we’re all moving in the same direction. And that if something does go in a different direction than council was expecting, we can get it on the next agenda. We can come to council. We can have a discussion in front of council. We can get a change in direction.<\/p>\n

[These reports and this discussion are behind the scenes, through the bi-weekly reports. The CAO knows that only individual councillors can discuss reports with the CAO \u201cproject manager\u201d and can\u2019t work out differences, behind the scenes, in concert, as a council. It\u2019s illegal. This is a historic strategy for administrations to manipulate councils through \u201cdivide-and-rule\u201d. Not everyone is present, together, to hear everyone else\u2019s information.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s why all these reports must be presented, in their whole, to the citizens, because the citizens are not restricted from acting in concert<\/strong>. Citizens can monitor events and intervene \u2013 IF<\/strong> they get the information. It\u2019s a trust thing, and that\u2019s an issue in Wilmot!<\/strong>]<\/p>\n

\n

That’s my preference simply because like I said, if we have mandates to come back to council at a specific time period, that adds time<\/strong>. It’s just not the council I want to blame, the council is slowing us down. But there’s procedures that have to be followed in terms of getting on agendas and those timelines might not line up. [Change the rules of Procedure to be more \u2018user-friendly\u2019?] <\/strong>And, then next thing, we’re delaying something by two weeks to meet a council need to be on an agenda for an item that maybe isn’t going to have a lot of conversation. [Opinion> bias which is undue influence on councilors?]<\/strong><\/p>\n

[I repeat from above. This process started on July 5, 2021. That means the process has taken 3 years, 11 weeks and 3 days to September 23rd<\/sup>, 2024 \u2013 so far. As events unfold, the re-direction by council was completed in less than an hour later \u2013 that night. The acting CAO\u2019s issue appears to be tenuous, and perhaps a frivolous attempt to avoid having to ensure that the project aligns with council\u2019s present direction, not that of a previous council\u2019s?<\/strong>].<\/p>\n

\n

That’s my view on how we can move this forward. And there’s going to be lots of conversations over the next few months. I know that and I know there’s going to be lots of times where we have to come to council to have some further conversations and I look forward to those as well<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

[The acting CAO is predicting that there are going to be differences between council and the project manager (himself), and that he\u2019s acknowledging that he\u2019s going to drag disagreements out into public<\/em>. I\u2019m shocked that a CAO would be so blatant in this apparent dismissiveness of council\u2019s input. It\u2019s arrogant, condescending and almost hubris. COUNCIL, YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED. BE PREPARED TO ACT ACCORDINGLY.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Thank you very much. Before we get to the amendment, I realized I need a mover and seconder for the main motion first. So moved by Councilor Wilkinson, seconded by Councilor Martin. We will go to the amendment and looking for a seconder on the amendment. Councilor Dunstall.<\/p>\n

\n

Dunstall:<\/p>\n

Can I ask a question?<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Yes.<\/p>\n

\n

Dunstall:<\/p>\n

On that. Thank you. Through you, Mayor. I want to make sure that I understand what the direction currently is<\/u>. Is the direction currently to dispose of the statues and get information from the public or is the direction currently to engage the public that want the statues, that don’t want the statues and that are indifferent? Which of those is currently the direction?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Clark:<\/p>\n

Through you, Madam Mayor, to the council, the direction currently is to engage with the public to your point on both sides of the issue and get feedback and get recommendations on how to proceed.<\/p>\n

[Wrong, until the writing says otherwise. The \u2018current direction\u2019 currently, as of September 23rd<\/sup> call to meeting, is to remove and store the statues, no further expansion of investment in the project, terminate Createscape contract, Plus a) and b) at the bottom of CAO-2021-03. Current direction is only a) and b) at bottom, and get rid of statues.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

And proceeding could be any number of things from disposal of the statues to putting up the statues and continuing with the project as originally envisioned and anything in between.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I think<\/strong> that’s really, it’s to engage, get the sentiment and bring that back to council for a decision.<\/p>\n

[His thinking, and written reality, don\u2019t align.<\/strong>]<\/p>\n

\n

Dunstall:<\/p>\n

Great. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councilor Wilkinson.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair and I appreciate the question because I think that’s really what this conversation is centered around. And you know, kudos to you in terms of CAO for your framework in terms of how the project will be managed. I think it’s excellent.<\/p>\n

\n

Ultimately, my concern is that I think we need to formalize that wording because right now the direction based on what I can find is that we could maintain current direction and further down the second paragraph is advance the work done by the First Peoples Group. I think a lot of the concern was about the consultation that they did and the recommendations that came out of it.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I think that what you’re suggesting and saying in good faith is that we will move forward and have a wholesome conversation. So, I think that the whole purpose of what I put in four years that we formalize that so that it is written so that we can go back to it and the public can see it as well that we intend to take into account all opinions on this project<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

So, that’s where I sit with the amendment.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

So, just to everybody on the same page, if the clerk could just confirm that what he has recorded is encapsulating what you would like to see.<\/p>\n

\n

Clerk:<\/p>\n

Through the mayor, this is going to be a joint initiative between myself and the councilor. What I have right now is that the amendment is,<\/p>\n

\u201cThat council be involved in the terms of reference approval, and that the following questions be asked as part of the terms of reference. Do we dispose of the statues and how? or Do we display the statues with an educational component?\u201d<\/p>\n

So, I’ll catch that quickly. (mumbled ?)<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair. It doesn’t necessarily have to be an educational component, but do we continue to display the statues and how? And, do we include, you know, we want to capture folks that are indifferent as well?<\/p>\n

\n

If I may add in terms of comment here, I think the ultimate thing is yes, we want to get this done within a reasonable timeframe and we don’t want to add to a ton of work load, but I think this is important that we get this done right.<\/p>\n

\n

And if we have it formally written out, I think everyone in the public can have faith in the fact that we are approaching this through a lens that everyone will have the input.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Okay, is there a seconder for councillor Wilkinson’s amendment? Councillor Dunstall. And seconded. Are there comments on the amendment part? Councillor Cressman first.<\/p>\n

\n

Cressman:<\/p>\n

No, I was specifically looking to councilor Martin who’s on that original committee to select or to put the RFP out to get his understanding. Because I was equally of the opinion of the amendment that that’s what we had instructed and intended, that it referred back to the first people’s group, recommendation of a working group, but not the terms of reference of that first people’s group.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I always interpreted that phrase to mean the establishment of the working group, but not necessarily the path that they were, no pun intended, the path they were following.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councilor Martin, if you’d like to answer that, then you can go to your questions as well.<\/p>\n

\n

Martin:<\/p>\n

Thank you, and through you Mayor Salonen, I would follow in line with what Councilor Cressman is talking about that this is how I’ve understood the whole process. That it’s a process to help us engage the public to help us make decisions<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0And so with regards to the amendment, I would vote against it. I would be concerned that it’s limiting because it’s either saying we’re going to dispose of the statues or we’re going to display the statues. What if there’s a third or a fourth option?<\/p>\n

\n

And so I think that’s one or the other, and I would worry that the amendment already starts the process by limiting the scope. And I think the scope should be wider rather than narrower.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councillor Wilkinson.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair, I understand where you’re going in and I’m not suggesting that one of those has to be the predetermined outcome. I think ultimately what we’re getting at here is that, I think Council needs to have involvement and final approval of the terms of reference. And the, I’m under the same understanding as Councilor Cressman, from the conversation we had was form the working group, terms of reference and mandate will be different.<\/p>\n

\n

My concern is that that has never been documented outside of a verbal conversation. I want to ensure that that is reflected in the instructions that are put forward so that we can make sure that that process is taking place.<\/p>\n

[In video portion one can see that the acting CAO is not listening to the councilor\u2019s comments, but rather, is leaning over toward the mayor and is involved in a \u201csidebar\u201d with the mayor.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

And so, if it sets out that maybe we say, hey, it could be option one, it could be option two, it could be an unknown option to be determined, I think that that would be agreeable. I ultimately just want to make sure that it is documented so that we can go back to this and the public have a clear way of viewing this option as well. Thank you.<\/p>\n

[During all these comments the acting CAO and Mayor continue to smile at each other, chat, and appear not to be listening carefully to the councilor\u2019s comments<\/strong>. In fact, the councilor\u2019s remarks, had concluded as quoted above, and the mayor was still attending to the acting CAO rather than to the proceedings of council.]<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Thank you. We’re going to go to acting CAO Clark first as he just wants to technically clarify who’s setting terms of reference.<\/p>\n

\n

Clark:<\/p>\n

I think one of the things we need to remember in the methodology that we’ve approved here is that the working group will be brought together and they’re the ones setting the terms of reference.<\/p>\n

[Not factually accurate. The methodology is not approved until it comes back to council n future and are approved in a By-law.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

And so, if we bring in Council to set the terms of reference, then we’re creating a bit of conflict in the process because we have a working group that we’re asking to come together and form and create that terms of reference about the work that they need to do.<\/p>\n

\n

And then at the same time when we’re going to come back to Council and ask Council if that’s okay, I struggle with how that meshes, I guess.<\/p>\n

\n

You know, I understand if Council definitely has concerns and wants to make sure that we get the terms of reference right. I’m struggling with how we do that when we’ve put in the process that the working group is going to be developing those terms of reference and then say, but they have to come back to Council for approval.<\/p>\n

[These are proposed<\/em>\u00a0 by staff<\/em>, for setting the terms of reference. They do not exist in reality until council approves the process, and councilors are discussing that process and raising concerns<\/strong>.]<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councior Martin.<\/p>\n

\n

Martin:<\/p>\n

Thank through you Mayor Salonen, and following up what acting CAO Clark has talked about. I would also wonder, does that change the way we’ve advertised the RFP.<\/p>\n

\n

So, we’ve put the RFP out. We’ve said that we want to and as a solicitor here create a working group comprised of a balanced representation of individuals and communities. So, yeah, that would be my worry is that we’re now changing it after we put out the RFP. And we have a, we’ve made a decision as to who we want to go forward with. So.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councillor Cressman.<\/p>\n

\n

Cressman:<\/p>\n

So, I guess my simplistic conclusion through you Mayor. Sorry. I keep forgetting that, would be that with all outcomes considered. You know, and so that.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

So that’s what you’re asking as a friendly amendment to the amendment would be instead of the two questions either or but do it as a, all outcomes considered. Councilor Wilkinson.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair I\u2019d be willing to accept that if it was in addition to obviously maybe suggesting those initial because you’re right. We don’t know what the final outcome or suggestion would be. But I think those are starting points, as is, that is it continue down the path. Change course. Or is there another option and what can that outcome be.<\/p>\n

\n

I think for against or other outcome or all outcomes considered needs to be done. But I think ultimately again at the end of the day the term of reference needs to come back to council and I. You know we have a group. They’ve been tasked with, with helping through this process.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I don’t think it fundamentally changes the RFP and what was put out. But I think, you know very similar to when we set a term of reference for say the Canada Day committee it came through council. We determine what that task was and ultimately what we hope to see out of it, right?<\/p>\n

\n

What the conclusion will be that’s for them to determine on their own. And ultimately my understanding is we’ll have final say but we’ll take that advice.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I’m open to maybe wordsmithing that a little bit, if you will. But I think it’s very important that we have that input on what this term of reference will be.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councilor Dunstall.<\/p>\n

\n

Dunstall:<\/p>\n

Thank you. Through you Mayor. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, Councilor Wilkinson. I just want to make sure. That’s why I wanted to get this on the floor.<\/p>\n

\n

Director Clark, you have said, and I believe that there will be — the working group will ensure that there are all voices at the table. Correct? So, when they do their interviewing of whoever’s going to be on this council or on this committee, it will be people who want the statue. It will be people who do not want the statue. And then I don’t know if there’s a third.<\/p>\n

\n

So, that is the criteria, correct? [CAO nods his head.]<\/p>\n

\n

So, both of those groups will come to some kind of decision or will come to us with information, and then we decide whether the statue stay or the statues go. That’s currently what we have. Okay.<\/p>\n

\n

You want to get the language in there to make sure that that’s the case. Why do we have to bring the terms of reference back to council if we have that language specifically in there? That all options need to be considered, why do we have to — why do we need to do the terms of reference?<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councilor, Wilkinson.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair, I think the overall conversation that we had in the March meeting in terms of how we would move forward is not reflected here.<\/p>\n

\n

I think it’s important that we have a balanced representation and it does need to be reflected for and against. My concern is that if this group that we’ve engaged to do the work forms a working group, but they’re only able to find individuals that are opposed but not for, then we’re not going to follow the process properly. They will not go out and consult with everyone and make sure that all opinions are brought to the table here.<\/p>\n

\n

The concern is that ultimately the option put forward is to maintain current direction and further the work of the First Peoples Group.<\/p>\n

\n

And unfortunately, when we go further to see what those reports entailed and what the ultimate outcomes were, there’s really nothing in there that would indicate that the voices in favor of seeing a project continue or expanded upon are at the table.<\/p>\n

\n

And I just want to make sure that that is formalized so that we have something that is clear that we can go back to and say, “This really is inclusive of everyone.” Because we all agreed when we agreed on option one, which wasn’t perfect, that we would form a working group and we would be taking a step back to weigh all opinions and have all voices there.<\/p>\n

\n

But I don’t see that language specifically indicating that that’s going to be the case. It just really speaks to diverse communities.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councillor Dunstall<\/p>\n

\n

Dunstall:<\/p>\n

Through you Mayor. Okay, I get that part. What I don’t understand is why we just can’t have that language in there. I don’t know why we<\/strong> have to do the terms of reference. I think that’s taken it away. I don’t know why we just can’t say there must be [must be what? Incomplete idea<\/strong>] and I think that’s what it says.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I’m just not sure why we’re going this extra step when it’s clear. And Director Clark, I don’t know if you can answer this question. If we have people who are just of one decision, regardless of what it is, what occurs then? Do we just continue to look until we find people that have both viewpoints?<\/p>\n

\n

Clark:<\/p>\n

So, through you Madam Chair, Um, the first step in the project in phase one is stakeholder mapping and outreach. That step means we’re going to map out who are all the various stakeholders in the community, who’s been engaged before, who had a voice before, who brought up an issue before, who raised a concern, and then list everybody else that could be in that group and then outreach, reaching out to them.<\/p>\n

\n

So, putting out information about how they can become engaged, looking for people that want to be engaged. And there’s a number of different channels they list in here and all that. So basically, trying to cast as wide in that as possible<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0And that working group then will be invited from those people that express interest, and they’ll be interviewed and there’ll be a decision-making process. Ultimately, the diversity and the value of this working group is based on the people that step forward to participate.<\/p>\n

\n

And that, I mean, if we see we’re not getting engagement, that’ll be one of my first reports back to council. We’re not seeing engagement from this community. We’re not seeing voices from this community. So that’s on me as a project manager to make sure we’re getting engagement. You know, there’s a lot of work involved in this that’s back and forth.<\/p>\n

\n

And so, you know, just saying what would we do if we didn’t get one group speaking up? That’s a bit of a theoretical. I would hope we’d never get to that point. But we do a whole bunch of steps in between to make sure we do try to give everybody an opportunity to make sure they’re aware and engaged.<\/p>\n

\n

We understand the critical nature of engaging this project and making sure that we have a path forward that, you know, at the end of the day, council’s given good information that’s being gleaned from the entire community at large and has the information they require to make a decision.<\/p>\n

\n

So, it’s on me as a project manager to make sure we fulfill that mandate and I feel like it’s here. Obviously, I will leave it to council’s discretion<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councilor Wilkinson.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair – to comment on the terms of reference and why it’s important. I think ultimately, we’ve decided that this is the group we’re going to entrust to perform the consultation.<\/p>\n

\n

If they go out and they decide or they form a term of reference that isn’t agreeable to council and they start working certain down a path that we’re looking at and saying, this isn’t at all what we want and this isn’t going to advise us on what the community wants. We’ve essentially wasted money and time and we don’t have anything clear.<\/p>\n

\n

So, I think it’s important that we see that term of reference so that we can ensure, yes, you are indeed working on the correct task through the right framework and your mandate is clear and it will bring back to us the information that we require to make the ultimate decision.<\/p>\n

\n

Because this will fall into us and we want to make sure that what we’re seeing is the work that will inform us.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councillor Dunstall and then I’m going to go to any councillor who hasn’t spoken and<\/p>\n

\n

Dunstall:<\/p>\n

thank you. So, we could have the currently – it’s going to be the group that does the term of reference correct. So, we could have the term of reference approved by council. Is that what you’re saying or you want to do the term of reference? Approve? To approve.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair. I’d like to see the term of reference brought to us before they start that work.<\/p>\n

\n

Dustall:<\/p>\n

Okay. Alright.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Councilor Sidhu.<\/p>\n

\n

Sidhu:<\/p>\n

Yeah, so essentially what I’m hearing in very roundabout way is we want to make sure we’re doing it right and we want to get as large of a scope as possible. To Councilor Wilkinson’s point, yeah, I guess if it is in writing and then they are somewhat bound to it<\/strong> and I know our on this side of the horseshoe all around the horseshoe. We want to make sure we get this right. This has been trouble since day one.<\/p>\n

\n

I would argue that the council of the day didn’t do any of this or have a thorough engagement of the project or not. My worry was when at the start of the conversation that we would be narrowing the scope but with councilor Cressman’s suggestion of having an open-ended wording at the end of it kind of pours water over that. It leaves it open-ended and at the end of the day this is going to be a council decision.<\/p>\n

\n

So having some sort of input on the terms of reference, I don’t see that as a negative. Something in writing that holds us accountable and holds the consulting firm accountable too<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Okay. Thank you, Councilor. I believe every councilor has now had an opportunity to speak. Is there anyone who has words they really need to get out before we vote on this amendment? I’m just trying to be cognizant of the fact. We’re still on our consent agenda item and we have multiple reports tonight. That’s past nine o’clock. Councilor Wilkinson.<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

Through the chair, can we maybe, Clerk, do you feel like you have a recommendation that would encapsulate what we have discussed here?<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Yes. To the clerk, please.<\/p>\n

\n

Clerk:<\/p>\n

Thank you. Through the Mayor, I think I do. There’s been a few changes through friendly amendments and of course the acting CAO also made some comments that I think should be reflected just in terms of clear directions.<\/p>\n

\n

So, what I have right now is that council direct the working group to bring forward a draft terms of reference for council approval and further that the draft — sorry — and further that the terms of reference, comment on all options with respect to the future Prime Ministers Path Project, including asking the questions, \u201cDoes the township dispose of the statues? And if so, how\u201d or alternatively, \u201cDoes the township continue to display the statues? And if so, how?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Wilkinson:<\/p>\n

And all other options considered.<\/p>\n

\n

Mayor:<\/p>\n

Okay. So, you’ll add that and all other options considered. Perfect. Seeing no other questions or comments, we’re voting on the amendment first.<\/p>\n

\n

So, all those in favor of the amendment. All those opposed. [Councilor Martin was the only councilor opposed to specifying that all options for the PMP Project be considered.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

That carries.<\/p>\n

And now we will vote on the motion as amended. All those in favor. And that carries unanimously.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following is a transcript of Item 13.1 on the Council Meeting Agenda of September 23, 2024, regarding \u201cReport received for Information\u201d re. PMP consultant contract award. Transcript starts at 2:29:10 ends at 3:05:42 of the Youtube version of meeting. Mayor: That leaves us with item 13.1, which Councilor Wilkinson, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":3144,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-6420","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6420"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6421,"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6420\/revisions\/6421"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thisiswilmot.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}