On Dec. 15th, Mayor Cecil Clarke tried to get a 5-year extension to the exclusivity agreement to port marketers, formerly the Harbor Port Development Partners (HPDP), approved by our CBRM council.

By the way, you should know that they’re now known as Sydney Harbour Investment Partners (SHIP).

The council business on Thursday was interrupted when Councillor Gillespie (District 4) collapsed due to what turned out to be a minor medical incident. When council reconvened on the public record on Monday, Dec. 19th, the mayor and councillors voted down a motion to defer the decision until more information was gathered by 8-5. They then voted 9-4 to approve the 5-year extension with Councillor Bruckschwaiger defecting from the deferral group.

It’s understandable if you don’t like or follow local politics - or politics at all. It’s also understandable if your focus is on your family and career if you’re fortunate enough to have one here in the CBRM. But...

For those not paying close attention, it must have seemed like a positive step towards the creation of new jobs. For many of those who are paying attention, it was a rush job. And it demonstrated the irresponsibility of the mayor and 8 of our district councillors.

Here’s 20 reasons why.

Reason #1 - They didn’t read the agreement

Council members were asked to vote on an extension agreement that they didn’t get to read. Mayor Clarke, Deputy Mayor Eldon MacDonald, and seven other councillors didn’t think it was necessary. Though, as we'll discover shortly, some definitely had more access to information than others.

Reason #2 - Councillors were provided info at last minute only

Some councillors were asking for information about the port business prior to the port business being announced for the next meeting. They were given notice only 24-hours in advance. Some of them first heard about it from an interview Clarke gave to Local Xpress. The media had more access to information than some council members themselves.

Reason #3 - The extension wasn’t even on the meeting agenda at first

The extension agreement vote was not on the council meeting agenda sent to councillors earlier in the week. They added it in with late notice.

Reason #4 - Reps for the port marketers didn’t appear before council themselves to ask for an extension

CBRM lawyer, Jim Gogan, presented an issue paper. He recommended approving an extension agreement that hadn’t been provided to council. Without him clarifying who he was representing (i.e. the CBRM), it would have been easy to form the impression he was acting as a representative of HPDP/SHIP as he advocated for extending their exclusivity by five years. Councillor Ray Paruch expressed similar sentiment during one of the council sessions.

Reason #5 - The issue paper was only two pages long

Keep in mind that this port business is related to a project with costs in the billions, and interests in our key public assets as CBRM tax payers. Yet the justification provided for granting the extension was only two pages long.

Reason #6 - The original HPDP/SHIP agreement doesn’t expire for 6 months

On behalf of the CBRM public, there was no apparent urgency to rush through the extension on an agreement that doesn’t expire until June 2017.

Reason #7 - The vote wasn’t just for extension of the agreement

The issue paper ended with request for a motion to pass four recommendations. The extension was only one of them. It also gave CBRM admins the power to enter into an extension and amendment agreement. Terms of such an agreement are unknown, as it was not provided.

Reason #8 - The motion attached a $10 Million price tag to selling our CBRM land

There were no financials to demonstrate how that valuation came about, and no explanation as to how a land sale would impact the CBRM’s revenue generation - from a prospective container port and logistics park development with estimated value in the billions.

Reason #9 - Mayor Clarke and three councillors were in a conflicted position on Port of Sydney Dev Corp board

Mayor Clarke and councillors George MacDonald, Jim MacLeod, and Clarence Prince are on the Port of Sydney Development Corporation board. They should not be. Firstly, it forbids elected officials. Secondly, they lack the qualifications of the professional board members the corporate articles outline. They are still on a board that Mayor Clarke said would be replaced by the Fall of 2015.

Related: MP Mark Eyking recently suggested in a CBC Mainstreet interview that not having the professional board in place could also impact Federal funding of the second cruise ship berth in Sydney.

Reason #10 - The Port of Sydney Dev Corp professional board won’t be in place until at least April 2017

The Port of Sydney is supposed to be taking a leading role in managing port development. They are responsible for advising and reporting to our elected CBRM council members. When the business at hand is worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, it would certainly be wise to have qualified individuals managing the opportunity and making themselves available to CBRM council.

Reason #11 - The John Whalley lawsuit against the CBRM is still unresolved

Former CBRM executive John Whalley is suing the CBRM for “constructive dismissal” after being removed from the port file. He suggested that this was due to him raising concerns about a possible conflict of interest situation with some aspect of port business. It is of public concern to know whether these claims are valid and whether they have any relationship to the port marketers or members of their consortium (including the CBRM itself).

Reason #12 - It’s uncertain as to who are the partners of HPDP/SHIP

A common concern related to the port development management at the CBRM is the potential for conflict of interest. Who are the shareholders, option holders, or to whom do they have binding legal agreements? Among these stakeholders, are there any conflicts of interest? There is insufficient information to make such a determination. Council could have demanded documented disclosure using deferral of the extension agreement as leverage.

Reason #13 - Requested outside legal advice was not provided

Whether lawyer Jim Gogan represented the CBRM or not, he appeared to present an issue paper that made a case for HPDP/SHIP without them appearing themselves to answer questions. Some council members asked for outside legal advice on Dec. 15th. On Monday the 19th, during a private meeting they didn’t get that. Instead SHIP/HPDP and other private interests had access to lobby them.

Reason #14 - Councillors described feeling pressured or being “bullied” during Monday’s private meeting

Prior to the Dec. 19th public council meeting, that morning the CBRM allowed HPDP/SHIP, two First Nations chiefs, MLA Geoff MacLellan (Provincial Transportation Minister), and members of the private business community in Cape Breton to lobby or compel support of the extension agreement (and other recommendations). Three council members later described how they felt pressured, bullied, scolded, or intimated during that session. The fact that they stood their ground under these conditions is a testament to their integrity, and their commitment to those who elected them.

Reason #15 - Councillors were pushed towards a unanimous vote

Tom Ayers of Local Xpress reported that councillors suggested they were told “anything but a unanimous vote could kill a potential container terminal deal”. MLA Geoff Maclellan expressed a similar proposition during the public session on Dec. 19th.

Councillors do not need to be told how to vote. They need to be given supportive information, so they can make their own informed decisions on our behalf.

Reason #16 - Sydport Terminals Limited reps were given access to lobby council in private

Officials for Sydport Terminals Limited wrote a letter to the editor of the Cape Breton Post. They acknowledged that they were “directly involved with the container file from the beginning” with Laurentian Energy, Sydney Marine Group, and now Sydport Terminals Limited.

It’s unknown as to what their specific relationship is to HPDP/SHIP. However, in a private meeting that the CBRM public could not attend, members of the private business community - who acknowledge they are “directly involved” with the container port development - were given access to our elected councillors.

Note: Lawyer James R Gogan is listed as the Recognized Agent for Laurentian Energy Corporation Incorporated with the Nova Scotia Registry of Joint Stock companies. Is he associated with any other private port stakeholders that have interests in the port development? If so, at what point does he become conflicted between competing interests and priorities?

Reason #17 - Fives years may be too long

Five years may indeed be too long. By that time, Mayor Clarke will have left his office as the mayor of the CBRM. HPDP/SHIP would have been eligible to request any number of additional extensions based on the merits of their moving forward over the next four years. However, if they lapse in their progress, does the CBRM have any way to terminate the agreement prior to completion of that five year period? How are we protected as a municipality to terminate the agreement for non-performance if such a situation arose?

Reason #18 - The CBRM did not upload the council videos on a timely basis

On such an important matter, both council videos were not uploaded until three weeks later. The public and media representatives who were not present during the live council sessions had no access to evaluate what happened at council. This works against transparency and accountability to the public. Councillors also had no access to review the video prior to Dec. 19th when the session resumed.

Reason #19 - Between the Dec 15th and 19th council meetings, the mayor and CBRM executives put together a powerful lobby

Five members of council made it clear on Dec 15th that they had insufficient information and wanted more time to decide. They requested a completely reasonable deferral until the 3rd week of January 2017 so they could become better prepared. Had Councillor Gillespie not collapsed and necessitated adjournment, that deferral vote would have proceeded.

However, by the time Monday, Dec 19th rolled around, the CBRM and Mayor Clarke had assembled a powerful lobby of two First Nations chiefs (Leroy Denny and Terry Paul), MLA Geoff MacLellan, Albert Barbusci of HPDP/SHIP, lawyer Jim Gogan, and at least three members of the CBRM’s most affluent members of the business community - to privately persuade council members in favor of the deferral to grant the extension that day.

None of these stakeholders were offered to council prior to the Dec 15th meeting. They were only recruited after the mayor faced pushback and a motion for deferral.

Reason #20 - They didn’t read the agreement

Some things bear repeating. They didn’t read the agreement. They didn’t read the extension agreement and its amendments because it was not provided to council members before voting for it.

Make no mistake. All five councillors who voted for deferral, and all four who voted against the extension on Dec. 19th are for port development.

They just aren't weak negotiators that are ok with sending signals of desperation and weakness to powerful privates business interests. They know you have to be prepared before voting on projects with billion dollar price tags. They don't bow down to pressure plays. And they don't rubber stamp agreements they haven't read.

If they had the support of the version of Eldon MacDonald that doesn't approve contracts he gets too late to review (Archibald's Wharf), or the version of Steve Gillespie that ran on transparency, then the responsible deferral would have passed.

Instead they delivered the citizens of the CBRM an uninformed rush job.

NOTE:  The views expressed above are my own and do not represent lokol (goCapeBreton.com). Read more