Summary of the Town of New-Wes-Valley's Address to our First Community Newsletter

Summary of Council's address to our Newsletter

 

The Mayor expressed that it felt like the Newsletter was an attack, and we believe it is crucial to address this concern. We want to reiterate that our actions were not intended as an attack on any individual or group.

 

Purpose of this Summary:

The information provided by council included many details not directly related to the newsletter inquiries, which may have caused confusion for residents. Therefore, we have decided to simplify and clarify this information.

 

Positive take aways:

Mayor agreed to address newsletter in their public meeting on March 18 – Thank you

Reason for privileged session held on March 18 provided (labour relations) as per our suggestion – Thank you

 

Newsletter Questions:

Request made for community newsletter by seniors not actioned.

No explanation from council

 

Why does NWV require so many closed meetings/privileged sessions?

No direct response provided by council

The Mayor did tell us that Gander holds a closed meeting every other week, which was represented on a graph showing a 100% rate of closed meetings. We have yet to verify this information; further details will follow.

The Mayor, mentioned that our town, with a population of 2000 residents, should not be compared to larger centers, which might be a valid point. However, there was no mention of the meeting information for Centerville, Wareham, & Trinity, a town that is very comparable to ours, which we also referenced.

 

Is the town in trouble since the reasons for these closed meetings is not provided?

This question was not answered. There were discussions regarding town finances however financials are only one of the possible reasons for a closed/privileged meeting being required.

 

Isn’t the canteen being managed already?

We were told in the meeting that a current contract exists.

 

Why is this being publicized now and the last time the community wasn’t aware until it was open for business?

No direct response provided by Mayor.

The Mayor mentioned a tender for canteen services issued by the town in the Fall of 2023, stating there were two interested parties at that time. However, there was only one local business that expressed interest in the tender and they decided not to proceed. The Nov 22, 2023 meeting minutes speak to only one interested business:

The Mayor also noted that the RFP example used is not an adequate comparison, as the population and number of staff for Richmond County is significantly greater than NWV. However I will also note that when comparing the ratio of population to number of staff members, NWV is actually in a much better situation than the other communities mentioned:

Richmond County	Gander	NWV
Population   8,914	Population   11,880	Population   2,000
# staff   37	#staff   35	#staff   10
1 staff for 240 people	1 staff for 339 people	1 staff for 200 people

 

RFPs are used to ensure quality and prevent misunderstandings or conflicts, regardless of the size of the town or number of staff. Additionally, town workers review these documents, but they are created by another government group under the Department of Municipal Infrastructure.

 

How might this RFP impact the current business agreement?

No answer provided

 

What is the current lease rate?

 …response received from the Mayor was that “this information is confidential.”

The ATIPP and the Towns and Local Service Districts Act was referenced by the Mayor to support his explanation regarding the lease rate being confidential. This has caused confusion due to Section 41 of the Town and Local Service Districts Act specifically addressing closed meetings identifying the information that council cannot share publicly.

Section 41

(b)  personal information that is protected under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015;

Further clarification is needed regarding how a lease rate for a publicly owned building can be considered personal information. According to the Access to Personal Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, personal information is defined as individual information such as name, address, telephone number, age, sex, sexual orientation, blood type, etc., as found in the definition section of the act. The leasing cost for a publicly owned space is not categorized as individual information.

 41(c)  information that could cause financial loss or gain to a person or the town, or could jeopardize negotiations leading to an agreement or contract;

Further clarification is necessary to demonstrate how this pertains to the RFP in question. While we understand its relevance to information shared by the council regarding other parties during a closed meeting, it remains unclear how this relates to the confidentiality required for a lease rate of a publicly owned property for which the town has submitted an RFP for public consideration. Is the town suggesting that this may jeopardize their ability to negotiate a deal?

The newsletter shared the following quote,  “…CAO noting as a Municipality the Town does not have stakeholders.”

The Mayor stated that the quote was misinterpreted, clarifying that the discussion when this was said by the CAO was about housing. According to the meeting minutes on page 4 of January 7, 2025, the conversation was in fact about a floating dock. A screenshot is provided below:

The council informed the public that they use the words "resident" and "taxpayer" instead of "stakeholder" because they find these terms more pleasant.

________________________________________________________________

If you would like to have your post published here on the Citizens of New-Wes-Valley blog, please email it to newwesvalleycitizens.haveyoursay@blogger.com without any attachments.

Posts are moderated before publishing in order to prevent spam, hate speech, etc.