At Monday night’s meeting, I voted against Ordinance 2056 out of concern for the residents of Selborne House and in support of Council’s fiduciary duties under the City Charter. The Ordinance passed 3-2, but with at least an acknowledgement of the concerning circumstances. (FN1)

Following the meeting, I reached out to the Mayor and I appreciated his openness to figure out a compromise to achieve the end result of legally requiring the Selborne House grant funds to be disbursed in accordance with the grant parameters discussed this month in our Council meetings, but which weren’t actually included in the Ordinance itself.

To help resolve, the Mayor provided me the draft contract for the grant administrator and invited me to add in the grant parameters discussed in Council Meetings, including: (a) who should be eligible to receive funds, and (b) how much they should receive.

My edits were accepted and I’ve received assurance that the clauses I added will stand in the executed copy and that I’d receive a copy once signed.

This process achieved, I believe, the goals of government on a couple different fronts:

  • One, that Executive and Legislative branches are called to collaborate, even going the extra mile, to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution in the service of the people; and

  • Two, ensuring that the principles of responsible spending are fulfilled even if the Charter appears to allow for different interpretations.

I want to express my sincere thanks again to the Mayor for his willingness to work something out on this, and for what it means for the ability to assist Selborne House residents with assurance and clarity.

(FN1): For those interested in the legislative minutia, the question came down to whether Council could amend the Ordinance to include information on the core grant parameters. The reason it’s relevant, is that without legislatively defined parameters, the authorized funds can technically be spent following any terms, equating to a $151k blank check. And while I held belief this wouldn’t happen here, the legal principle remained: Council has a sworn fiduciary duty to oversee the City’s spending, and I could not in good conscience act against that and the principles of responsible government. This particular circumstance also served to illustrate an interpretive grey area in our City Charter between Sec 505 and Sec 524 that multiple parties coming out of this agree should be clarified to avoid the awkward situation we found ourselves in.