The big bombshell of the night was dropped almost straightaway as Councillors stood up to declare upcoming matters they wouldn’t be speaking to because of pecuniary interest when Ward Three Councillor Bernie MacDonald instead rose to announce,  “I’ll be withdrawing my name from the election.”

The stunned silence that followed this announcement was broken by Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best who said, “That’s not a conflict of interest.” Apparently MacDonald said something about his intentions to Councillor Roger Caranci on their way into the old Middlesex County Court Building for this meeting as Caranci rose to apologize for his offhand rebuttal to what he assumed was just Councillor MacDonald pulling his leg.

Though MacDonald had filed his papers to run again back in January, he was cagey about sitting down with the Voice of London for a Councillors and Contenders interview, saying he wanted to wait until after the summer when election fever gripped the Forest City and people might actually be interested in what he had to say. And now he throws the race over with less than two months before the election and not even two weeks before the September 10 deadline for filing nomination papers.

First elected in 1980, this is a guy with 28 years experience and a whopping 73% of support in the last election. He was clearly perceived as largely unbeatable and his presence on the ballot between January and now probably discouraged potential contenders from coming forward. The only two who had registered before Monday night were Rod Morley and German Guiterrez. Within 24 hours of his announcement, two more jumped into the race – Bill Harris and Tony Burns. A big name candidate in Ward Three could probably still make inroads with the electorate between now and October 25th but I expect it’s already too late for someone less well known to make much of an impact. I think MacDonald has done his Ward and the next City Council a significant disservice by waiting this long to make up his mind not to run.

That out of the way, the proceedings became pretty light and fluffy as I hear tell from a certain Deputy Mayor befits a late summer Council meeting when citizens have actually been known to get snarly if anything of much import is dealt with. There was a ‘recommendation’ brought forth by Controller Gina Barber and Ward Nine Councillor Susan Eagle: “That in the interest of accountability and transparency, local Agencies, Boards and Commissions which include City Council representation BE URGED to make available to the public notices of meetings, agendas, and minutes and proceedings of their governing bodies, wherever appropriate.”

Speaking to the recommendation, Barber said, “We have these positions because we are elected officials. When we sit on these bodies we’re dealing with matters of public interest and it’s important that we make these as open and transparent as possible. This is not a dictum. It’s simply a recommendation.”

Councillor Harold Usher rose to suggest that the word “urge” be replaced with “encourage”. To his ears, “urge” sounded a wee bit harsh whereas “encourage” sounded more, well, “encouraging.” Barber, now running as a Councillor for Ward Nine with the deep-sixing of Board of Control, did not concur and as nobody on Council was prepared to second Usher’s suggested change as an amendment, it was deservedly dropped.

Far more tenacious in his objections to the tone of the recommendation was Ward  Four Councillor Stephen Orser. “It’s totally useless if you don’t have an enforcement arm,” he said. “It’s got no teeth.”

At the Mayor’s urging, City Staff pointed out that it would be hard to develop anything more specific and demanding than a recommendation as each Board and Commission has its own code and policies in place. Orser then called for a bylaw to be developed that would force these bodies to be more open and accountable but nobody on Council would second that either, presumably because they understood that Council did not have the authority to demand any such changes in how these bodies conduct their business.

Moving on to the Board of Control agenda, Councillors Bill Armstrong and David Winninger questioned a $108,000 floor replacement at the Dearness Home. As the publicly-run old age facility has only been open for about five years, Councillors wondered how a brand new floor in the multi-million dollar care centre could have deteriorated that rapidly and were told that ill advised coverings of broadloom and vinyl were punctured and hurt by heavy traffic and chair legs. Controller Gord Hume, noting the Province’s stake in the operation of the Dearness Home, asked City staff to look into sharing the cost of the floor repairs with Queens Park.

Regarding a report received from the City’s Chief Human Resources Officer which showed that in general absenteeism rates are improving in most City departments, Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen resumed his inquiry into the notably higher rate of absenteeism for London firefighters. “Why is absenteeism so much higher with firefighters?” he asked. “The structure of the shifts seems to be problematic,” he said, noting that they are scheduled to work 24-hour shifts so that when they book off sick for a day, it carries three times the price tag that would accrue for a City worker booking off a normal eight hour shift. (It has also been noted that this unusual shift structure allows some firefighters to hold down other full time jobs.) Van Meerbergen asked staff to compile a report on how other cities arrange firefighters’ shifts to see if there isn’t some way to cut down on this expenditure.

Councillor Stephen Orser asked the Mayor for permission to come onto the floor to debate the 1st Report of the Council Compensation Review Task Force. “What are your questions?” the Mayor asked in return. “This is not a debate. You can ask whatever questions you like.” Orser is outraged that in the information gathered by the Task Force, there is a huge discrepancy in confidentially gathered reports of how many hours of work per week are put in by different Councillors. In the name of accountability and openness, he wants those Councillors identified. “There was one who put in ten,” he said. “Others put in 60.”

“If it’s a secret,” Controller Bud Polhill asked, “then how do you know that?”

“The walls have ears,” Orser darkly replied.

This was another one of Orser’s motions that went nowhere. (It wouldn’t be the last.)  He was informed that the Task Force’s job is not to define a Councillor’s job as full time or part time but is to gauge what they feel is an appropriate wage for the job based on the average amount of work put in by all of the Councillors and compared with the wages paid in other cities.

The Environment and Transportation Committee’s agenda was whipped through before the dinner break and the announcement of the first PARK(ing) Day festivities scheduled for downtown on Friday September 17 (when 15 core area parking spaces will be rented out for two hours by participants who will transform these spaces into a “reading nook, camp ground, patio, lounge, park, yoga studio, community garden, etc)” was greeted with both jubilation and stoically gritted teeth. Councillor Van Meerbergen who dismisses the trendy event as “greenwashing”, called for a separate vote so that he and Councillor Cheryl Miller (who didn’t support the event at last week’s ETC meeting) could be the only two members of Council as a whole who rejected it this time as well.

After dinner as the Community and Protective Services Committee agenda was dealt with, Councillor Stephen Orser rose once again to mount another of his lonely crusades. Roundly pooh-poohed in his bid last week to get the CAPS Committee to push for a by-law to have the sale of drug paraphernalia like crack and marijuana pipes banned from city shops, Councillor Walter Lonc seconded his motion to bring the matter forward to Council but no one else would grant him leave to make the recommendation.

Do other Councillors not quite trust the guy because of the frenzy he unleashed with his campaign to allow backyard chicken coops? I expect that’s part of the answer. And for those who swing more to the right, I expect it’s a reluctance to back a motion that could be perceived as more busybodyism, along the line of banning plastic water bottles at City-run outlets.

It’s not that he doesn’t have a point. There certainly is a mixed message being sent when any corner store can sell paraphernalia that’s designed for the consumption of an illegal substance. And maybe if another Councillor had brought this forward, it might’ve had a chance of being considered. But for right now at least Stephen Orser’s Council colleagues seem determined to not cut the man any slack. This late summer Council meeting was mainly distinguished for its trifecta of failed Orser bids.