Bureau Changes Vote on Remuneration – Budget Approved

At last week’s Committee of the Whole (CoW) meeting, Councillors voted 4-3 to increase their remuneration and this came up for ratification at tonight’s regular Council meeting. But, surprise, Councillor Adam Bureau changed his mind.  Conceding that he might be accused of flip-flopping, Adam said he listened to the people – in particular those demonstrating outside Victoria Hall.  The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and each of the Councillors (except for Aaron) spoke about the reasons for their vote but basically, the disagreement was on whether this is the right time for a raise.  All agreed that a raise was required.  Randy Barber also pointed out that individual councillors did not have to accept the raise – they could for example donate back to the Town. But no one was interested – it seemed to be a political issue. 

2023 Budget

At the same meeting, the 2023 budget came up for final approval and Mayor Lucas Cleveland said that it was absurd that Councillors were concerned about the small amount required for salary increases when they added multiple much larger items like the Pickle Ball courts and the Skateboard park.  Lucas said that he campaigned on keeping the tax low but was out-voted 30 times.  He wanted to limit the levy increase to 5%.  The $28,154,601 operating budget represents a 8.1% increase over the 2022 Operating Budget and a 6.6% net increase after allowing for New Assessment Growth of 1.5%.  Lucas voted against approving the budget but it was approved 6-1. 

Summary of Councillor Comments on Increase in Remuneration

Adam Bureau – he listened to the people and decided that this was the wrong time.  Citizens are against it.
Miriam Mutton – people she spoke to were supportive of a correction.  She said those opposed were not familiar with the facts.
Randy Barber – we need to right a wrong.
Aaron Burchat – no comment
Deputy Mayor Nicole Beatty – although she voted for an increase in the previous council, now was not the right time.  It should be in year 2 or 3.
Mayor Lucas Cleveland – there’s never a wrong time to do the right thing.

The final recorded vote was 4-3 against – Lucas, Randy and Miriam voted in favour of the raise.

The meeting also covered some other contentious items – stay tuned for reports on these in the next few days.

Resources

Print Article: 

 

165 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
marya
11 months ago

It is inappropriate and unprofessional to publicly chastise another co-worker as did Bureau to the Mayor, which puts Bureau in the same category as the person who he chastised as “not being a team player.” I am happy that I did not vote for Bureau (or Beatty).

Dave Chomitz
11 months ago

If the argument is going to be “it’s a full time job so we need full time pay” there should also be term limits instituted or the next thing will be a demand for benefits and a pension. It’s a small town that is mostly run by town staff – as proved again this week by council passing off the CIP grants.

Give me a break
11 months ago

It looks like if you need Council and Mayor to agree to your suggestion then get about 20 people to protest in front of Victoria Hall and one of the Councillors will not only support you but vote for or against what you looking for and he will run over at the end of the meeting and shake your hand and you will go happy and plan for the next protest …… that is how it happens with Cobourg Council …..

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Give me a break
11 months ago

Yes, 20 protesters out of 20,000 residents advances ridiculous ideas such as “tiny homes” or a 14+% spending increase. On the other hand, 35 adversely affected home owners are ignored.

Last edited 11 months ago by Ken Strauss
Doug
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Please explain in some detail. Your comments are very difficult to understand.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Doug
11 months ago

Doug, I am sorry if it was confusing; I’ll try again.

Two dozen protestors at Victoria Hall appear to have influenced several Council decisions including flip-flops on the remuneration question.

Thirty-six homeowners who live near the proposed shantytown submitted a petition to Council. The petition was “accepted for information purposes” which is Council’s usual way of saying “thanks for your comments but we are not interested”.

Is that easier to understand?

ben
11 months ago
Ken Strauss
Reply to  ben
11 months ago

Ben, you have some interesting comments in your blog:

…he has to defend the document and process as Head of Council and chief spokesperson. Therein lies his problem. If he continues to keep saying “I voted 30 times against the budget – it was those other dudes who raised your taxes”, he risks ridicule if he can’t control or lead those other dudes.

How do you suggest that Cleveland or any Mayor “control those dudes”? Councillors are independent actors and we elected Councillors who have radically different ideas about taxes. Some feel that our tax dollars should go to special interests such as the lawn bowling club or skateboarders. Others feel that we should spend on welfare programs such as an almost free bus service or affordable housing or… Some favour tree planting. Another Councillor has publicly stated the absurdity that debentures do not increase our taxes.

Sadly none other than Cleveland appear particularly concerned about the recently approved 14+% increase in taxes and fees to be collected this year. What should Lucas do?

Last edited 11 months ago by Ken Strauss
Concerned
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

It’s not about control it’s about working together and finding common ground trying to control is what gets him in trouble this a democracy not an autocracy. If he had done that in the beginning he probably wouldn’t be in this position.

ben
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

“How do you suggest that Cleveland or any Mayor “control those dudes”?”

Perhaps control is a strong way of saying “I am going to exercise my leadership capabilities and lead this team and control the agenda” – even if it is not his agenda.

After all people believed that he could; it was the major plank of his campaign.

PS I would be the last person to suggest what Lucas should do, but I have some thoughts which may or may not appear later.

Last edited 11 months ago by ben
Flora
Reply to  ben
11 months ago

Ben how can you criticize Lucas for voting for restraint? It was those other dudes who raised taxes. He has led by example. How many times have we seen in history where one brave person has stood up and taken a stand? It takes guts to do it. There is no way he can control Council. The law is he has one vote.

ben
Reply to  Flora
11 months ago

Flora read carefully and you will find that I don’t criticise Mayor Cleveland for voting for restraint but point out the political danger he is in by having the majority of Council disagree with his stance on restraint.

As you very well point out there is no way he can control Council but with his well explained, by him, leadership skills he now has to lead a Council that obviously disagrees with him on the budget. How he succeeds in the rest of his political agenda remains to be seen.

Last edited 11 months ago by ben
Dave
11 months ago

I have found this Blog offers many opportunities to increase ones knowledge of Town Council. I had posed a question to Ken Strauss but my reply ended up at the bottom of the page. I would be interested in knowing after further reading of by-law 037-2018 which reflected the then raise was not passed and the assertion under the Information Report – 2022 Municipal Report of Town Council with Resolutions that confirm the term for any change to Council Salary remains at the 3rd year. the 3rd year requirement is to provide changes to renumeration for the following council, not the present one. I am curious why you inserted this without further elaboration for those of us less familar. It would not seem appropriate for a sitting Council to vote themselves such a large increase effective this term it has always been the prior Councils perogative not the sitting Council for the following term.
That is why it was voted down.

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave
Bill
11 months ago

Check his Website, Frenchy. I believe there is mention of some company with which I am unfamiliar; otherwise, just generalities.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

Bill, Weatherford is an oil field services company with a market cap of about $5B and quarterly revenue of over $1.2B.

Bill
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Thanks, Ken! I’ll check it out.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago
Frenchy
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

link doesn’t work for me. captcha just keeps refreshing

Bryan
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy,

The link works OK for me. Easily able to find Lucas’ info

Bill
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

His name is listed on the website. Occupation was a Directional Driller. Seems to me that our mayor worked on an oil rig. Roughneck?

Dave
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

Here is a piece done from Watershed Northumberland Magazine
Partners in business and in life, Lucas Cleveland and Montana Desjardins met in Montreal while working in the restaurant business during their twenties. After moving to Alberta and “working the rigs”, they took off for a year to travel around the world, to refine their values and to experience food markets, restaurants, and flavours from new perspectives.
Doesn’t explain just says “working the rigs”, could mean anything. Directional Driller?

Dam_213
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

I believe he was a directional driller. Important role similar to that of a foreman of a small crew. Hardly in charge of a multi million dollar corporation.

ben
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Ken the Weatherford listing is updated 2019, did he have two jobs for three years? Lucas says he came to Cobourg in 2016

Ken Strauss
Reply to  ben
11 months ago

I have no idea when/if the Weatherford listed was updated nor its accuracy. Weren’t Lucas and Montana running their beach canteen prior to 2019?

Frenchy
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

Yeah, just generalities.
I would rather check someone else’s website to get a objective view about our mayor’s business background and grandiose claims.
If I had a website it could say that I’m a handsome billionaire, would you believe it?

Last edited 11 months ago by Frenchy
Bill
11 months ago

I just read the news article on Northumberland News regarding the protest in front of Victoria Hall about the proposed salary increase for counsellors. It is interesting to note the Mayor’s reaction when engaging with the protesters. He said that he wasn’t motivated by money when he ran for office and implied he could resume a career in the oil and gas industry where he was engaged in multi-million dollar projects. Really! Not sure how majors in political science and philosophy would qualify one to have a substantive role in that area. Perhaps the mayor may wish to revisit his website and provide more details of his past accomplishments. Just a thought!

On another point! What were you trying to accomplish, Mr. Mayor, when you voted 30 times opposed to passing budget items that were approved by the majority of counsellors? Were you trying to impress the electorate? A guardian of the public purse! Unfortunately, your antics, so far, have had the opposite effect with many of us. There appears to be a lack of credibility and a sense of dysfunction with our municipal government as it stands now.

Frenchy
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

“He said that he wasn’t motivated by money when he ran for office and implied he could resume a career in the oil and gas industry where he was engaged in multi-million dollar projects.”
Is there any way to fact check these boasts, or do we just take his word for it?

Frenchy
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Bryan and Ken S., you guys are pretty good at research, can you help us out?

Flora
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Okay Frenchy, so your are questioning his resume. That won’t help with the main problem. We have this Council for four years. Let’ focus on ways of getting Councillors to stop the frivolous spending. This is a twofold problem. One, some residents are asking for money for things that are anything but necessary. And they have to be convinced to stop and or raise money for their pet projects. And Two, enough people have to give Councillors a clear message that taxes are too high. To accomplish these two things will take a lot of work.

Kathleen
Reply to  Flora
11 months ago

We just have to get 20 like-minded people and make noise in front of City Hall. Or, write an emotional letter and read it in front of Council.

Wally Keeler
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

“…a career in the oil and gas industry where he was engaged in multi-million dollar projects.

Isn’t that the industry where Hunter Biden made millions for The Big Guy?

Flora
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

Is it sensible to criticize the one person who voted for restraint? Could you make some suggestions on how to improve things? Or are you one of the people encouraging the spend spend spend Councillors to spend more?

Dave
Reply to  Flora
11 months ago

Flora – as raised previously on a prior topic the mayor was all for the considerable out of time raise, hiring an new EA at a cost of $85,000 and said he would be pleased to recommend $100,000 for a consultation on the previously done Strategic Plan for a new study.

As for his down votes to save Cobourg money they involved cuts to services for residents. Placing the tax dollars away from citizen needs to Council expenditure. How therefore are his 30 negative votes for services a great thing?

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Every tax dollar is a dollar that residents cannot spend as they choose. Why should you pay for my special interests? Why should I pay for yours?

Flora
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Which services do you think are worth saving which would benefit the majority of Cobourg residents? How many skateboard, play pickleball or lawn bowl? Or visit the art gallery? I believe citizens should support their own recreation and entertainment.

Dave
Reply to  Flora
11 months ago

Flora if you would like to list the 30 citizen services the mayor voted against rather than cherry picking I will be glad to let you know which I am in favour of. Apparently when it comes to himself though he feels spare no expense is his mantra.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave, rather than “cherry picking” services of which you approve, maybe we should reduce/ make more efficient/ eliminate some of the biggest ticket items. For a start, consider protection services (police/fire), bus, stormwater, library, CCC, Art Gallery, Venture13, pickleball courts, skateboard park, East Pier repairs, affordable housing handouts, downtown CIP and opioid spending. Which of these? Anything to add to my list for consideration?

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Keep going Ken – so far you have selected 9 I approve of. What else are should tax dollars be spent on but citizen services and necessary infrastructure repairs instead of perks for the mayor which in dollar amounts are very costly and have no benefit to anyone but him? But then from your postings you would prefer there be no services here at all. Let them eat cake is it?

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

You gave me a good laugh with “perks for the mayor which in dollar amounts are very costly“. I assume that you are referring to an EA shared between the Mayor and the CAO for $85K.

Compare that to $1.8M for a bus used by a few hundred. Compare that to $150K for an inferior art gallery that is seldom visited. Compare that to $100K for a portion of a skateboard park (very important for a mostly senior town). Compare that to $1.2M for the CCC. Compare that to…

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Most citizen services that are common to all municipalities Ken when they reach the size of Cobourg. You will note I didn’t say I approved of them all, just 9. Previously I listed the mayor’s preferred items he has brought forth so I will not repeat the list but refer you to my other comments Ken. You seem rather annoyed as you keep appearing against all my comments now. I do not agree with sitting Council voting themselves and increase – apparently we disagree and apparently this irks you to the point of dogging me.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Please don’t feel singled out. I tend to “dog” those with whom I disagree and particularly those who repeatedly espouse the same erroneous and/or unsubstantiated justifications.

For example, you mentioned the “services that are common to all municipalities when they reach the size of Cobourg“. Few towns our size provide public transit.

You said that you disagree with only 9 of my suggested places to reduce spending. Where do we agree?

Flora
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

I’m not going to type out a couple of dozen items. I gave a few examples. Comment on those if you wish. Also the mayor withdrew his request for an EA. That is an example of working with Council.
I don’t see much chance of a consensus if six others are against restraint. So now that we have this situation and if we are serious about keeping taxes down we need more than criticism to make progress. Surely some person out of the 20,000 residents can come up a workable plan. Let’s try.

Bill
Reply to  Flora
11 months ago

I’m all for restraint, Flora. I believe that the mayor was putting on a show by taking a contrary position on many items in the budget. He was the one who wanted an immediate salary increase plus the additional hire of an assistant for his office. Our town needs to focus on necessary services (stick to the basics) and withhold funding for

Bill
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

I meant to add: withhold funding for non-necessities. We have too many studies and additional hires. I question the value of Venture 13. These are just a couple of examples, among many, where savings can occur.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

Agreed, Bill. Insofar as has been reported V13 has made no contribution to Cobourg’s economy but has cost the taxpayers over $1M.

KAJ
11 months ago

What is the current pay for the Port Hope Mayor & Council. Have trouble finding that info. Thanks

Ken Strauss
Reply to  KAJ
11 months ago

KAJ, Base salaries starting December 1st, 2023 will be raised by 27% to $30,000 for councillors, and by 18% to $36,000 for the deputy mayor and $68,800 for the mayor.

See https://classicrock1079.ca/2022/05/04/port-hope-council-approves-salary-increase-for-incoming-council/

Last edited 11 months ago by Ken Strauss
Bill
11 months ago

The problem with politics is that anyone can seek office and be, potentially, elected regardless of whether or not they have the ability or employment background to enable them to carry out their civic duties effectively. I doubt that anyone with a good career would seek to run for office in Cobourg even if Council remuneration were doubled. Suggesting that increasing pay considerably will attract well qualified candidates is a fallacy; therefore, it appears to me that likely candidates will be retirees or those who really need the money. I find the comments, regarding compensation, made by counsellors Mutton, Barber, and Cleveland laughable and insulting. You knew what the pay was! Why did you bother to run? I suggest that you fall into one of those categories that I mentioned. By all means raise council salaries, but do it within an appropriate framework and with some dignity.

In regards to the budget, things are getting out of hand. Tough decisions need to be made and we need people on counsel who are capable of making them. It is turning into a circus!

Beachwalker
Reply to  Bill
11 months ago

It seems to me that, when tough decisions are about to be made, folk start whining . ” Don’t close the pool”! Ok, keep it open but it’s gonna cost ya!

marya
11 months ago

Has anyone else noted the established pact between Bureau and Beatty?!

Rob
Reply to  marya
11 months ago

You mean similar to Mutton, Barber and Cleveland?

Bryan
Reply to  Rob
11 months ago

Rob,

Did you notice that Mutton & Barber also voted with Bureau and Beatty (Darling & Burchat also).

marya
Reply to  Rob
11 months ago

The word “similar” is appropriate. Theirs is a typical and inconsistent agreement.

Give me a break
1 year ago

Most comments are negative as usual …… for those that have another income or pension I guess you don’t need a raise ….. if you consider the time most on Council or Mayor spends on our behalf it is less than minimum salary …… maybe they should be paid by the hour and keep a time sheet like the town staff ….. give the mayor and newbies a chance ….. for those complaining next time run for Council or Mayor ….. with the tax increase this will set a new plateau and if inflation drops from current level to a lower rate will we get a rebate ….. wonder what the average salary of Cobourg Town folks is ..

Frenchy
Reply to  Give me a break
1 year ago

“wonder what the average salary of Cobourg Town folks is”
$57,331

Give me a break
Reply to  Frenchy
1 year ago

Thanks for providing ….. does this include Management, Police and Fire Dept ?

Bryan
Reply to  Give me a break
1 year ago

Give me a break,

I believe that the $57K amount Frenchy provided is the average for residents of Cobourg. Your question seems to be about the average of Town staff.

Perhaps Frenchy has this. If not, I will try and look it up

Frenchy
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Nope, I just sent a link to what Ken posted below.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy, I posted median rather than average household income. That is, half of Cobourg’s families make less than $57,331 and half make more. The average Cobourg household income was $81,200 in 2020. The high income for some (mostly government employees?) raises the average. In 2020 there were 2,415 Cobourg households with over $100,000 in after tax income. The low income for our many retirees and those working a minimum wage jobs lowers the median.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Must have a lot of government paid employees then in this town if the average is only $57K. Seniors also have nest eggs which have been accumulated over a lifetime or recently in home sales not counted as income, usually invested – capital gains, interest are the only calcs in for income. The rest sits richly by to supplement income until dealth.

Bryan
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Gmab,

As Frenchy notes, Ken’s $57K number is the Cobourg average income.

A rough calculation of the Town staff average income is $77K-$81K. This is based on data in the Town’s 2021 FIR (financial information report). I’ve made assumptions about the amount of benefits (30%) and the number of part time and seasonal that equal one full time.

The relatively high average income shouldn’t be a surprise, given the number of Town staff making over $100K (cops, fire, senior staff)

Last edited 11 months ago by Bryan
Scottie
Reply to  Give me a break
11 months ago

I absolutely agree — Council and Mayor do need to keep timesheets. Even at minimum wage of $15.50/hour, at his current salary of $45,412 Lucas would need to limit his work week to 56 hours/week (actually less hours than that because he should be getting time and a half after 40 hours!), the Deputy Mayor (at $31,082) to 38 hours/week, and the councillors (at $25,963) to 32 hours/week.
Forget Lucas’ 180 emails answered in a day — he should only answer about “10” and only answer the ones that are TRULY important! Forget attending business openings and all the political goodwill, hand-shaking stuff …
Let STAFF handle the day to day activities.
Keep Council meetings to a pre-approved time limit of 1-2 hours- AND eliminate the need for councillors to read and digest 300+ page “reports” in advance of council meetings (i.e. town staff should be doing this and summarizing for Council).
Make council positions TRULY part-time – let the highly paid municipal unionized staff truly EARN their salaries and don’t keep uploading their work to Councillors. If councillors are getting paid for part-time jobs, make their jobs TRULY part-time. They deserve much more than minimum wage.

RUSS
Reply to  Give me a break
11 months ago

The Council has made a mistake ….. pay increases are in order !

Dave
Reply to  RUSS
11 months ago

RUSS – There is a by-law governing the time period when an increase to Council is to be placed. I don’t doubt an increase is in order however revenue/expenditures should also be reviewed – a whole review of budget prior to a dollar amount to be established. The by-law states clearly now is not the time. Besides on a faith basis it feels duplicit to just have them assume office and bang they vote themselves a raise. Akin to betting on a racehorse in their maiden race. The outcome is unknown. It is important to follow the ground rules laid out in case they should become twisted in other matters allowing heaven knows what.

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave
Cobourger
1 year ago

Seems very clear from numerous comments that quite a number of small-minded people inhabit small towns.

Resentful and fearful of change, scornful of those with unfamiliar ideas, focused on petty concerns, lacking vision of a different future, and stingy with regard to rewarding those willing to take up responsibility for local governance. You won’t see these naysayers steppng up to do the jobs.

Give me a break
Reply to  Cobourger
1 year ago

Agree ….. not likely to change …… thinking out of the box is not possible here

Dam_213
Reply to  Cobourger
1 year ago

Fearful of change? Lacking vision of different future? What a silly thing to say. You are aware a large portion of Cobourg now are people who have moved here within the last ten years. The actual embodiment of change and different future. Council deserve better pay. However there are Bylaws in place for a reason. You don’t demand a pay increase moments after accepting a job. We need results, not excuses of how this is not for them but women and minorities. What absolute tripe. It’s optics right now and the optics are wrong. They will get an increase in time.

Bryan
Reply to  Dam_213
1 year ago

Dam_213
History proves you wrong. Past (20 years or so) attempts to get compensation increased in years 2, 3 or 4 have all failed. Only token increases were approved. Significant change has to occur in year 1

Council did not “demand” a pay increase. They have the authority to propose and approve it on their own. Majority agreement is needed and that didn’t happen.

Last edited 11 months ago by Bryan
Dam_213
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

I understand the process and how council can grant their own increase. A new mayor with zero experience should not be in the position to appoint this hence the bylaw. Cobourg is changing and will continue to change, a balance of respecting the past while opening up to the future needs to be in place. Change needs to happen along with a pay increase such as accountability of hours for council. If you have a full time job as well as being on council how can you put 100% into the position. Maybe it should be a full time position with full time hours. A position where having another job would not be possible. I could not do the job of being on council while being employed. It would be a side job to my career. Change has to happen if we want a good return on investment.

Bryan
Reply to  Dam_213
11 months ago

Dan_213

This is not about pay for performance. If that standard was in place, the number of Town staff would be somewhat smaller.

Many of the big expenses the Town is facing now and for the near future are due to past staff and Councils not attending to necessary infrastructure repairs and replacement, letting things deteriorate until at a near crisis level.

Council compensation is the same. Years of useless compensation studies and token increases. Enough bandages. Fix the problem.

Lots of talk about $110K for the council compensation increase. Not a word about downsizing (eliminating) non-performing departments (eg V13 $200K+), reducing services and increasing fees.

Wasn’t the User Fee consultant to have reported by budget time? Where’s the consultant’s plan that staff promised would generate $100K+ in new/increased revenue?

Concerned
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Yes Mr. Davey was supposed to have that report commissioned and done a year ago but anything he has to report on is always late. Whether it is this or a simple quarterly report.

Dam_213
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

I agree it needs to change. However it should not change without reconstruction of the position. I have worked in government for about 15 yrs. Ten of which for a large municipality the last three for a smaller one. I understand the problems within municipalities. I also know that council members who also have full time jobs don’t always attend important meetings as they can’t due to their jobs. It should be about performance and they should be rewarded as such. It’s too easy to dial things in as the model currently stands. Better pay requires better results.

Bryan
Reply to  Dam_213
11 months ago

Dam_123,

Agree that better pay requires better results. However, you need to have capable people first.
Further, Cobourg isn’t a “results” Town. There are no KPIs and no performance evaluations, so how can you expect results.

The budget is not used as a management tool for performance measurement. Its sole purpose is to provide the tax levy.

I understand the “small” town argument to a degree. However Cobourg is a $60M corporation. It’s not small. There are lots of $10M private sector corporations that have considerably more sophisticated management than Cobourg .

Kathleen
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

That is so freaking scary…no performance measures for paid staff? No wonder we’re in a financial mess. There’s no incentive to do a good job.

Frenchy
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

“Many of the big expenses the Town is facing now and for the near future are due to past staff and Councils not attending to necessary infrastructure repairs and replacement, letting things deteriorate until at a near crisis level.”

Could these two have been a part of that past Council?

“We had a DM and a Councillor who took “fiscal prudence” seriously.”

Bryan
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy,
Possibly. but they are only 2 votes. The 4 re-elected councilors also contributed. Several past Councils have had a hand in this over the past 20 or so years

Frenchy
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Possibly????

Frenchy
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

They were your people.
Possibly????

Bryan
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy,

My people? What are you claiming?

Frenchy
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Not yours personally as in “Bryan’s” people but councilors backed financially and resource-wise by the CTA.
But still, Possibly??? 😉 C’mon.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy, the CTA has never backed any Councillor financially. We are willing to offer advice to any Councillor or resident for that matter. Sadly most Councillors don’t want our advice!

Frenchy
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Never contributed to a councillor’s election campaign under the CTA brand or personally?

Bryan
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy,

Not one by the CTA. The CTA has never run a slate or supported any candidate or group of candidates.

Personally, yes according to the members’ personal choice. The same choice you and every resident have in supporting your candidates.

Last edited 11 months ago by Bryan
Kathleen
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Well, if there isn’t a law prohibiting it, maybe the CTA should back candidates. Then we might have had a more balanced and financially saavy Council. (Like Michael Sprayson)

Bryan
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Yes Frenchy, possibly.
On any given issue the DM and a Councillor voted according to their evaluation of the issue. Sometimes they agreed, Sometimes not. Similarly, sometimes I agreed. Sometimes not.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dam_213
11 months ago

However there are Bylaws in place for a reason. 

Dam_213, what Bylaws are you talking about?

Dam_213
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Bylaw, council cannot increase wages until the third year of their term.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dam_213
11 months ago

But Dam_213 you wrote “However there are Bylaws in place for a reason.” There is no such Bylaw in place so what are you talking about?

Last edited 11 months ago by Ken Strauss
Dam_213
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

I think you need to check the bylaws. There is one and it is there for this very reason. The mayor himself when asked about it replied with “we change bylaws all the time”. Typically when it suits them I might add.

Rationale
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Huh?? Are you being cute Mr Strauss. You know exactly what Dan_213 is referring too. This has been discussed several times over the past month.

In my opinion I have lost confidence in what any member of the CTA says given the hard press you and Bryan (proposed remuneration increase in closing minutes – planned?) have made in support of the remuneration increase for the Mayor and Counsel.

Last edited 11 months ago by Rationale
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Rationale
11 months ago

Rationale, paying our Councillors more than minimum wage has been the topic of CTA delegations for many years. Why do you feel that paying more than minimum wage is unreasonable.

Back to my earlier question: What is the number of the Bylaw that prevents an increase?

Rationale
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

LOL!! You just proved my point. You know exactly. The Council Remuneration By Law – remuneration looked at in third year of term. What a waste of time this is. If it is called by some other name? So what.

Last edited 11 months ago by Rationale
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Rationale
11 months ago

Perhaps you are misunderstanding Resolution 205-22 which includes “…and a formal review of Council remuneration takes place in the third year of the next term of Council by a method of Council’s choosing to take effect for the next incoming Council Term”

Insofar as I know there is nothing in that resolution that precludes changes at other times. Do you have contrary information?

The bylaw defining remuneration (most recently Bylaw 037-2018) has been amended many times over the years so that is not an impediment to an increase.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

I guess Nicole Beatty misunderstood too Ken – she said reported in the meat of the material provided for Blog discussions that it was not possible to enact a raise as it clearly states in the by-law that this can only be done until the third year as Bryan pointed out previously. Bryan further stated it has always been that and he felt council was afraid to enact it then for fear they would not be re-elected.
Who are you kidding Ken?
In viewing back as you won’t I found Nicole recommended in 2nd or 3rd year – I also have been following in the Northumberland News where she stated this matter is appropriately looked at in year 3 as Bryan has mentioned several times.

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Almost every Council session amends or rescinds previously approved bylaws.

To settle the question, please post the text that precludes an early change to remuneration.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

I’ll let you look it up Ken – take a look at the last couple of Blogs when this was being discussed you will find it there. It is there but I don’t feel like looking for something for you that you missed.

I can recall a change in by-law in Toronto when Kyle Rae decided to give himself a good bye party at the expense of his office budget. The current by-law clearly stated no funds were to be used for private purpose. The by-law was then needlessly strengthened to ensure every round smooth brain that may be sitting understood it. It was very clear as it had been written as I am sure the current by-law is written in Cobourg on Council increases – even Bryan stated this Ken.

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave, your Kyle Rae story is interesting but irrelevant. You say that there was a bylaw prohibiting the expenditure but you do not mention that the bylaw could not have been amended to allow the expenditure.

Just because you, Ms Beatty or even Bryan says something does not make it true.

Again, please provide a reference to an actual bylaw that proves your point. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time repeating a falsehood.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

To quote you then Ken – “Resolution 205-22 which includes “…and a formal review of Council remuneration takes place in the third year of the next term of Council by a method of Council’s choosing to take effect for the next incoming Council Term”

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Yes, Dave, I posted that excerpt earlier. Please note the the resolution does not mention that a review occurs only in the third year. Nor does it mention prohibiting an increase at other times.

Anything else?

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Northumberland News has an article Ken quoting Brian Darling, by-law governance – will paste it here for you.
should be a correction in council remuneration in the third year of the term, as per the town bylaw, but said he couldn’t support a pay raise this year.”
Nicole Beatty – “Beatty said while she agrees in principle with a salary correction or fair compensation, she supports the existing bylaw where council raises are reviewed in year three.”
Anything else??

Bryan
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave,

And there you have it.
The DM and a senior councillor not knowing the difference between a by-law and a resolution.
Further, neither seems to understand the meaning of the resolution. It does not prevent Council from doing a compensation review or changing compensation at some other time.

Note the operative work “should”. It is permissive, not mandatory.

Should “denotes a guideline or recommendation whenever noncompliance with the specification is permissible”

On the other hand, shall is “an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive”

Current best practice is to use must in place of shall and may in place of should. These two words provide a much clearer communication of the intent.

Attention to the specific words and “tools” (by-law, resolution) is required. They matter.

Last edited 11 months ago by Bryan
Bryan
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave,
Please refresh my memory.
What did I state regarding a council compensation increases by-law?

Dave
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Sorry Bryan – got a phone call – you had said traditionally renumeration is not reviewed until the 3rd year from which if that is always the case the reason as to why would be governed. then Ken – who has better access to the by-laws quoted from by-law 205-22 which states “a formal review of Council remuneration takes place in the third year of the next term of Council by a method of Council’s choosing to take effect for the next incoming Council Term” which seems clear and easy to understand Bryan.

Bryan
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave,

Simple to understand? Perhaps not so much.

You indicate that I said……traditional remuneration….. but you did not quote what I said. I find your paraphrasing confusing.

As Ken noted 205-22 is a resolution, not a by-law. It is a lower level of approval/authority.
As ken also points out, there is nothing in the resolution preventing Council from making compensation changes at some other time.

Some definitions may help.

A by-law is a form of legislation established by local government to resolve issues and address the needs of citizens.

A resolution is a record of decisions or wishes of council, and includes routine administrative and management matters such as appointing an auditor

Last edited 11 months ago by Bryan
Dave
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Please see above answer to Ken Strauss which I provided after reading the responses from Brian Darling and Nicole Beatty for their reasons for voting against the Council increase, pasted verbatim from the Northumberland News Bryan.

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave
Bryan
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave,
As noted elsewhere, I don’t think your paraphrasing of my comments is accurate.

Bryan
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Dave,
I don’t think that your paraphrasing of my comments are accurate.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

By-law 037-2018 renumeration section was defeated Ken, attached as a link the information report which shows the defeat and when.
Other parts of the document specify when changes to renumeration will be considered. If the link does not work you will find under Information Report – 2022 Town of Cobourg Municipal Council. It also states verbatim “FURTHER THAT a formal review of Council remuneration takes place in the third year of every Council’s term of office by a method of Council’s choosing;”
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrhSpW7Av9jEfIfqq7rFAx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1677685563/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fpub-cobourg.escribemeetings.com%2ffilestream.ashx%3fDocumentId%3d17145/RK=2/RS=YZXa5rKjoSGbmKvHI6jYmPSJnis-

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

Once again, Dave, the resolution does not say that a review can ONLY occur in the third year. Further, why do you think that a bylaw or resolution cannot be amended or rescinded? If you had bothered to read the agenda you will find that the defeated increase in pay is described as “Bylaw 025-2023, a by-law to AMEND by-law 078-2015 and by-law 037-2018″.

This is tiresome. Please, Dave, either provide a valid rationale for your assertion that Council cannot change their remuneration when desired or stop wasting everyone’s time.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

In finality Ken for sitting Council to vote themselves a raise would create a conflict of interest as they would be awarding themselves contrary to long standing practice of voting to increase the next Council renumeration of which membership is yet to be established.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

In finality Bryan by-law 025-2023 is in the current year that recommends the big raise. Previously the 3rd term of the sitting Council is when renumeration is increased for the FOLLOWING council yet to be elected. Otherwise you have a Conflict of Interest in people that are voting for a benefit for themselves.

On your other argument that we required more money to attract talent I can name other Councils paid very handsomely yet there is a lack of talent on them. The areas they are representing have in the last 8 years become riddled with crime, dirty with litter etc., short on housing and other problems too numerous to mention despite large compensatoy packages.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

The areas they are representing have become riddled with crime, dirty with litter etc., short on housing and other problems too numerous to mention… 

Dave, are you describing downtown Cobourg?

Last edited 11 months ago by Ken Strauss
Frenchy
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

Ken,
I think Dave said:
“other Councils paid very handsomely”
and
“The areas they are representing”
and
“despite large compensatoy (sic) packages” (rules out Cobourg, right?)
I took it that he wasn‘t describing downtown Cobourg.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy, I suppose that we should be happy. We get all of the bad things without having to pay our Councillors very much!

marya
Reply to  Dave
11 months ago

With by-laws we all know from where the controlling authority comes.

Bryan
Reply to  Rationale
11 months ago

Rationale,
You wrote “What a waste of time this is. If it is called by some other name? So what.

It makes a big difference. A resolution does not have the approval/authority weight that a by-law does.

Further, “…..remuneration looked at in third year ….” does not preclude Council from making changes at ant other time, as Ken noted.

This is a legal framework where the tools and words used matter.

Rob
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

But Bryan in my opinion it isn’t really germane to the lay person in the context of the discussion here…moreover the critical nature of the comments/replies and demanding of the use of “approved” verbiage give a perception of self importance and really does little to further or add value to the conversation. Whether it is a bylaw or resolution, what people understand is that there is a mechanism for increases to remuneration – the fact is, most people are angry/disappointed in (1) the Mayor’s insistence on pursuing an increase and an Executive Assistant for himself after 100 days into his tenure, (2) his obvious absence of leadership and ability to bring people together and (3) the approach he took while addressing the small group of protesters which would suggest he hasn’t learned anything from his questionable public perception ..(there is a YouTube video available for those interested)

Bryan
Reply to  Dam_213
11 months ago

Dam_213,
Ken is correct. 205-22 is a resolution, not a by-law.
Further, it doesn’t prohibit Council from making compensation change at some other time.

Dam_213
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Rather it be a bylaw or resolution it is there for good reason. The mayor himself referred to it as a bylaw. So clearly there is confusion on the subject. However it is still good practise.

Dave
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

I have read now many past minutes and present minutes going back to the beginning of 2018. Each renumeration change is accompanied by the directive is the issue of increase for the next council will be considered no soon than the 3rd year or perhaps 4th.

You state it doesn’t prohibit Council from making compensation change time change from 3 or 4th year but has not changed as I went several years into past minutes.

In reading the decisions on Council renumeration the minutes state a comparison to similar size town councils is done and this determined the rate to the 50th and 60th percentile of comparable compensation to establish what is to be paid.

Bryan
1 year ago

JD,

You indicate that the 2023 Ops budget is $28,154,601. An 8.1% increase and 6.6% increase after growth. The adds & deletes schedule indicates different amounts: $28,355,919 ($201,318 higher), an increase of 8.84% and 7.73% after growth (AG).

Combined with the 6% storm water user fee (tax), the increase is 14.84% and 13.73% AG

I have asked Ian Davey for clarification and will advise regarding his reply.

Ken
Reply to  Bryan
1 year ago

YIKES!!!…..

Bryan
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

JD,

Ian has provided clarification. The A&D schedule that I referenced was a Feb 7 “draft” of suggested changes. Some changes were made on Feb 9 and these resulted in a $201K reduction

JD’s article shows the proper amounts and percentages.

Bryan
Reply to  Bryan
11 months ago

Bryan,

The combined increase of the levy (8.1%) and the storm-water fee (tax, 6%) is 14.1%
The “after growth” increase is 12.6% for those who believe this is a meaningful metric.

Rob
1 year ago

Welcome to the world of small town Municipal politics Mr. Cleveland…he probably learned a valuable lesson about politicking, one person/one vote, etc…. And voting down the budget equates to taking his ball and going home. I suspect he likely would have voted in favour of it had it included the raise.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rob
Dam_213
Reply to  Rob
1 year ago

It would seem the man who promised he would lead is having a very hard time leading. Maybe some self reflection is required of the mayor. His attitude while dealing with the public is terrible. Smug, condescending and rude. One can only imagine what council is subjected to. Hopefully while taking his ball home he had time to pick up some humble pie on the way.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dam_213
Give me a break
Reply to  Dam_213
1 year ago

Wow …. Mayor has only been there for a few months ….. give him a chance and besides he has 3 councilors that have been there for a while that should help out

Dam_213
Reply to  Give me a break
11 months ago

The fact that he has been there for a few months has nothing to do with how he interacts with residents of this town. Especially when he feels he is not getting his own way. Maybe there is a budget item for customer service training. I’m not sure if you watched him interact with the protest. It was nothing short of disgraceful. He could certainly learn from Adam who listened and was respectful. Big difference.

Veronica
Reply to  Dam_213
11 months ago

DAN213, disgraceful? Disgraceful was the ignorance of some of the protester’s comments. Perhaps Adam was respectful because he was among his kindred

Dam_213
Reply to  Veronica
11 months ago

He was respectful because as a member of council that is what is expected when engaging with residents. It comes with the position of office. The mayor on the other hand, rather on Facebook or in person has been called out many times for his behaviour when dealing with residents. A training course in customer service would serve him well.

John Draper
Reply to  Rob
1 year ago

The budget vote was before the remuneration vote. In fact when the remuneration vote was taken, there was a discussion on what happens to the money for extra pay in the budget. The answer was that it will simply be an unspent amount.

Rob
Reply to  John Draper
1 year ago

Thanks for the clarification John

Flora
1 year ago

We have an economical mayor and a six spendthrift Councillors. It is a pleasant surprise to have a mayor who discusses the issues and isn’t afraid of controversy. He is always available to discuss issues. His office door is open. He voted against frivolous additional spending 30 times. On the other hand the spendthrifts who say they are for affordable housing have just made housing and rent 6.6 percent more expensive in Cobourg and that is on top of the 6 percent storm water management increase that affects all properties. And even more next year when we start paying for the items they debentured.

Last edited 1 year ago by Flora
Tucker
Reply to  Flora
1 year ago

“An economical Mayor”?? Who wanted an assistant at a salary of $85,000.00 a year. Kudoos to the people who protested. Do the work first and lets see the results of the promises made and then see if they actually accomplish anything to warrant an increase in salary.

Jim
Reply to  Tucker
11 months ago

The mayor was the only one to vote against this budget and all his motions to reduce were voted down. Last night the other six patted themselves on a job well done. Too bad all of us residents can’t share in the “love in’…we will be too busy paying 6.6% more taxes. Why do we vote in the same useless Councillors

Rob
Reply to  Jim
11 months ago

The Mayor was taken to task last night as he has been on several other occasions. He hasn’t earned respect. He hasn’t worked hard enough at developing internal relationships (except with Mutton, likely the CAO and maybe Barber). He has not yet established credibility and he hasn’t demonstrated leadership. It feels like he expected these things to happen much faster than they are and probably anticipated less resistance. In my opinion, his early lack of political savvy has diminished his ability to influence outcomes and probably stalled his agenda. This isn’t Ginny and Georgia but he has 3 3/4 years to figure it out…

Frenchy
Reply to  Flora
1 year ago

It’s easy to vote no 30 times when you know the yes’ will carry the day. That way, you look good and can say you voted against those expenses for the next 4 years. We used to have a DM who did that.

Bryan
Reply to  Frenchy
11 months ago

Frenchy,

We had a DM and a Councillor who took “fiscal prudence” seriously. We also had a DM who became mayor and said yes to everything except providing leadership.

Jade
1 year ago

Well now , had that protest not taken place I’m sure the raise would have gone through. Hats off to the people that showed up. Had any one listened to the Mayor on video speaking to the crowd ? Called people FOLKS so many times. He must have spoken to Ford before showing up. Good god we are in for a very long 4 years with this guy. He doesn’t listen at all to anyone. All for himself and always will be. I say vote no confidence in the Mayor. Can we do that? How do we do that ? And I don’t think Adam would be foolish enough to run

Informed
Reply to  Jade
1 year ago

The Mayor might not be my favourite person but I certainly didn’t want a “yes” man in there that bends over for every special interest group. this includes the proposed Shanty Town at the arena.

Dave
Reply to  Informed
11 months ago

I agree Informed. The mayor has strongly stood up for the “shanty town” offering it consideration. Peterborough Council was faced with the same request for sleeping cabins but voted it down very quickly not like Cobourg where it was referred to the Planning Department. The mayor states it will go through process like any other proposed development and in the end shifted the ball saying the consortium proposing needed to poll citizens of Cobourg for their desires on this proposal.

Give me a break
Reply to  Jade
1 year ago

Folks is not as condescending as calling people “ my friends “ ….. he is not my friend. What would you like him to address the folks.

Tucker
Reply to  Give me a break
11 months ago

Maybe just “fellow residents” or “over paying residents”.

Gerry
1 year ago

What is that often-used phrase? People get the government they deserve. Makes more sense to me the older I get.

Bryan
Reply to  Gerry
1 year ago

Gerald,

Thomas Jefferson had it right.

Gerinator
1 year ago

Congrats Adam for your consideration, and influence, regardless of how ‘minimal’ the results. I’m even more taken aback by Councilor Mutton comments about ‘not familiar with the facts’. Which set of facts might that be? The rest of the budget is a joke. So no this group of Councilors is not off the hook for their complete mis-handling, mis-reading of the room – pickle ball court indeed!

Gerinator
Reply to  Gerinator
1 year ago

Plus – congrats to those folks that petitioned/demonstrating outside of City Hall. Well done.

Dave
Reply to  Gerinator
1 year ago

I see nothing wrong with funding an activity for people in Cobourg that enriches their lives such as Pickle Ball not that I participate in this. I am glad they have the CCC – never knew of a town or city that did not have a funded community centre, even Trenton has such, a much more hard pressed municipality. It is also more than important though the tax dollars collected go to supporting base services. Updating roads, sewers, assisting economic factors of the region, policing etc. etc. Otherwise we can follow the example of U.S. cities that have cut all this and become desolate, run down places, unsafe to live with little policing. The choice is up to Council and the people ultimately when they cast their vote. People say wait and see what the new mayor will do, so far his suggestions have failed to impress me. Let us hope he redeems himself with wise decisions for Cobourg as it grows and changes. We can always hope.

Kathleen
Reply to  Dave
1 year ago

Google this…”What City has the most Pickleball Courts?” Answer: Seattle WA with 3 courts per 20,000 people. Cobourg already has 2 outdoor courts and the CCC has indoor courts.
I for one will not be contributing to any Pickleball fundraising to enable more needless, wasted spending by Council.

Ahewson
Reply to  Kathleen
1 year ago

Cobourg has 2 tennis courts doubling as pickleball courts.

Dave
Reply to  Kathleen
1 year ago

News for you Kathleen, Seattle is making a come back. They woke up and realized they needed community activities over their prior decisions.

Concerned
Reply to  Kathleen
1 year ago

Seattle has 3 dedicated courts per 20,000. Cobourg has 0.

Last edited 1 year ago by Concerned
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Concerned
1 year ago

Concerned, the median family income in Seattle is us$105,391. The median family income in Cobourg is cdn$57,331. Perhaps Seattle residents can afford 3 dedicated courts per 20,000; we cannot!

See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/seattlecitywashington/EDU685221 for further details.

Dave
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 months ago

They must be very well attended and used by the citizens then Ken and the nice thing is they were re-purposed not built from scratch which has saved construction costs. Interests change but it is important to offer people a leisure outlet rather than sitting at home staring out the window or drinking or some other unhealthy activity.

marya
1 year ago

I believe that a long overdue salary correction is necessary.

Concerned
Reply to  marya
1 year ago

Sure in accordance with the by-law in year 2 or 3. The other councillors even stated that they support that course of action.

Bryan
Reply to  Concerned
1 year ago

Concerned,

History proves otherwise. Past attempts at significantly increasing council compensation in years 2, 3 or 4 have all failed. Token increases were approved.
Year 1 is the correct time to make the change.

Bryan
Reply to  Concerned
11 months ago

Concerned,

In accordance with what by-law?
There isn’t one.
Darling, Beatty and Bureau (likely Burchat also) all got it wrong.

There is a resolution indicating that Council can, if it chooses (optional, not mandatory) review compensation in year 3. There is no prohibition from making changes at any other time.

Cobourg taxpayer
1 year ago

While the actual dollar amount for council salary increase this year was minimal I believe Adam Bureau made the right choice, the optics were wrong at this time. Interesting that the 3 who voted for the increase are new councillors and have yet to prove their worth.

Are_n
Reply to  Cobourg taxpayer
1 year ago

The actual dollar amount may have been “minimal” in terms of the overall budget it was still well above increases to other peoples wages percentage wise. That sets a bad precedent when dealing with other employee wage increases / contracts. I think there should be a law that wages for those positions should be set late in the 3rd year of council’s term. That way incumbents can defend the raise during the next election campaign.

Jayne Finn
Reply to  Cobourg taxpayer
1 year ago

Miriam Mutton is not a new councillor, in fact she is among the most experienced on council having served from 2006-2014. That’s a fact.

Bryan
Reply to  Jayne Finn
1 year ago

JF,

Randy Barber is also an experienced Councilor, having served 2 terms in Markham.

Kevin Hedley
1 year ago

I’m guessing that most people that voted for this new Mayor wish they would have had the opportunity to vote for Councillor Bureau for Mayor.

Jim
Reply to  Kevin Hedley
1 year ago

What you seem to overlook is that Mr. Bureau thought it was good budget and should be adopted. Really???