Here is an email letter I recently sent to Town Council. In addition to the question of whether the Town should agree to amend for the second time the timing of obligations in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and Devour!, I raise questions about the Town’s decision-making processes.
December 15, 2024
Dear Members of Council:
When Devour! sought to amend the MOU for the first time earlier this year I posed a question to the Mayor, Councillors and staff, both in writing and in person at a council meeting: why hadn’t Staff nor any member of council raised the issue of whether the Town could seek the return of the $50,000.00 it had already provided to Devour! and to forego its obligation under the MOU to pay another $50,000.00 because Devour! had failed to meet time obligations it had assumed under the MOU?
I never received a single response from council members nor staff.
Staff sought to explain why the Town should not seek the return of the initial $50,000.00 and not pay the second $50,000.00 based upon differing opinions on whether Devour! would still be obligated to build the accessible deck and restroom. (I could not locate in my files a copy of the original business plan submitted by Devour to justify its grant request. But I recall that the plan included building a deck on the back of the building.). I asked staff the source of the differing opinions, assuming one was the Town solicitor. I received no answer.
Devour! has now asked that the Town agree to amend the MOU regarding time limits for a second time. The RFD submitted by staff in support of proposed amendment does not discuss the non-payment of the $100,000.00 grant because Devour! has not fulfilled its MOU obligations, as amended. Under the heading “Alternatives“, the Staff simply says: “Council does not approve the motions.”
During the discussion of this matter at the December 3, 2024, COW meeting, council members asked questions regarding the reasons for Devour!’s failure to meet its obligations. The questions of whether the Town’s actions or inactions caused the delays and whether the Town’s actions or inactions altered Devour!’s obligations under the MOU are legal questions. There is no indication in the RFD or Council’s discussion that the Town solicitor has been asked to provide his opinion.
The Town’s website sets out five “key principles” to guide Council’s work. The second principle is “transparency”. The Council and staff’s failure to reply to questions posed, or to explain why it will not answer questions, demonstrates a lack of transparency. Having read the documents and watched the recordings of the relevant portions of the council meetings, I could not tell you why members of council and staff have not taken seriously the Town’s rights under the MOU.
The third key principle is “accountability”. Accountability occurs not just by elections held every four years. When residents pose questions or raise concerns, the Mayor and Council members should respond in a timely and conscientious fashion, or ensure that the staff respond appropriately. When they fail to act in this way, the Mayor and Council members behave as if they are no longer accountable public officials.
The fifth principle is “evidence-based” decision making. Why hasn’t the Town asked Devour! to justify, with evidence and on paper, why the Town should agree to a second amendment?
In effect, it has been left to Town staff to advocate on behalf of Devour!. If the Town does not respond to residents’ questions or take seriously their arguments, then the evidence-based decision making process is jeopardized.
Respectfully,
David Daniels