Td;dr I’m going to discuss how the CBRM council and mayor appear to be picking and choosing favorites. And I’m going to do it using their own words. Yes, video snippets.

When you start comparing what happened with Archibald’s Wharf to the Synergy Louisbourg project, some dramatic inconsistencies appear.

Imagine an elephant hiding behind a telephone pole. It isn’t exactly very challenging to spot. All you have to do is glance in that direction. So spare me a few minutes of your time and let’s take a peek.

Other than blatant unprofessionalism, it’s still somewhat puzzling to watch councillors like Kevin Saccary use underhanded tactics against the Destination Louisbourg project.

And it was downright laborious to watch Mayor Cecil Clarke ramble on about how there is “uncertainty” due to a lack of communication with other levels of government. That was at the May 2nd, 2016 council meeting.

And it’s quite misleading. You’ll see why by the end of my first video snippet for you:

Did Mayor Clarke and the CBRM council suddenly develop a new fondness for rigorous due diligence?

That seems somewhat unlikely. If you see something that is moving along quickly, it’s often because someone in a position of authority wants it to. Archibald’s Wharf was one of those rush jobs.

On November 18th, 2014, the Cape Breton Post reported that the CBRM was in talks with CME (Canadian Maritime Engineering) to sell Archibald’s Wharf.

If you don’t know the location, it is/was a green space with two businesses, a boardwalk, a memorial, and a children’s playground in downtown North Sydney.

There was an immediate backlash from the public.

On December 19th, just one month later, council voted 10-2 to amend their recreation policy. That was step one in clearing the way to sell the property to CME. Because you can’t just sell green spaces and turn them into industrial zones that easy. If you can’t bend the rules, you change them.

And it was done despite estimates of upwards of 400 people overflowing the council meeting; a petition of 1,500 names having been submitted in opposition; and even an alternative offer of $260,000 from a business person seeking to save Archibald’s Wharf. That’s $60,000 more than CME paid for the land and buildings.

The public voice was loud and clear, but none of it mattered.

Just six months later, the council voted (9-3) in favor of the sale agreement. That was despite Councillor Eldon MacDonald telling us about getting the legal documents just the night before and falling asleep trying to get through it - up until 4:13am. Then he just couldn’t stay awake anymore.

He says they waited for the agreement for about 7 months. They received it the night before they were supposed to vote for it.

Despite the practical wisdom of Councillor MacDonald, 9 of the other councillors voted for the sales agreement without having enough time to read it thoroughly or invest enough time to fully understand it.

The constant public backlash, petition, and letters were ignored.

From the pre-Christmas surprise announcement to the re-zoning and closing of the deal, just 6 months had elapsed.

That is what you call a rush job. The CBRM wanted a private corporation to have that property on the promise of jobs. And they ignored the will of the people of North Sydney in forcing it through.

So how does that compare to the Destination Louisbourg project?

If the Destination Louisbourg project had been rushed through at the same rate, they would already have the Louisbourg boardwalk transformed into a crabwalk, and a new visitor center with Fortress Louisbourg ticketing in place... in the center of the town’s commercial area.

Instead, the Synergy Louisbourg group’s first detailed presentation before council was on January 14th, 2014. They were thoughtful enough to let everyone come back and re-adjust from their Christmas vacations.

A full 10 months before anyone (besides the insiders) knew of the future Archibald’s Wharf sale proposal, they made their detailed pitch to the CBRM council.

Destination Louisbourg doesn’t represent a private corporation. They have backing from Parks Canada, ACOA, Tourism Nova Scotia, and Destination Cape Breton.

They’ve presented detailed business plans, spatial plans, and even commissioned engineering plans for the boardwalk. They’ve presented to council multiple times, and they’ve secured funding from several parties.

They built a strategy around enhancing both the town of Louisbourg’s capture of tourism dollars, and an improved experience for visitors of the Fortress of Louisbourg... Cape Breton’s number one tourism attraction.

Outside of Councillor Saccary himself, they’ve had no significant public opposition of record.

And yet it’s now May 2016, and the CBRM is still stalling the project.

The mayor is contradicting his own CAO and solicitor (as we showed you in the video above).

Councillor Kevin Saccary joined a local group as a director of a newly registered “society” that essentially usurped the “Destination Louisbourg” brand from a CBRM funded/committed project. Since then he’s been tearing down the Louisbourg Synergy group in the Cape Breton Post.

Just recently CAO Michael Merritt refused to acknowledge the Synergy group had the go ahead to install new signage in the town. This is despite emails from his CBRM Public Works reps giving Synergy Louisbourg installation info and specifying which signs they could install...

Now, it would be wrong to suggest, despite all of the above, that the CBRM has been fully working against the project: 

The CBRM has handed over $15,000 early on, and committed to allocations of $40,000 and $400,000 contributions to date.

Still the nonsense about welcome signs, the underhandedness and wilful conflict of interest of Councillor Saccary, and the mayor’s recent ramblings suggesting that they haven’t talked to ACOA… are all putting the project at risk.

It’s been 2 years and 5 months. All this time has past on a project with a clearly defined scope, and the kind of government partners that can be counted on - for a project that appears to have strong support within the community.

And yet the CBRM keeps writing issue papers without removing the key bottlenecks to the project.

That is what you call a stall job.

Conduct the public consultation. Turn over the requested plots of land for $1. And include in the contract a requirement to secure project funding within 12 months - or the CBRM re-obtains the property for $1.

That would be immediately much better than the worthless buy back clause added into the CME agreement. That one looked like it was written as a favor to the buyer or by a lawyer running on less sleep than Eldon MacDonald the night he actually tried unsuccessfully to read until 4am.

It’s not that hard to advance the Destination Louisbourg project if the CBRM was really committed to doing so.

So what is the hold up?

The Curious Conflict of Councillor Kevin Saccary

If you follow Councillor Saccary’s actions a bit, it isn’t long before you see there’s a bit of an apparent ego there. He’s certainly a man who likes to get his hands into things and likes recognition.

I personally think he also cares for the communities he represents. I just lack the certainty that he’s able to rise above a Coronation Street-like sense of drama.

After seeing his comments in all council meetings related to Synergy and his behavior in the media, it’s become apparent to me that he’ll sacrifice professionalism for the sake of recognition.

I wrote two response articles each time he went out of his way to take shots at Synergy Louisbourg in the Cape Breton Post, here and here.

I still think his resignation is warranted, despite being entirely unlikely.

But Saccary may be a nice enough guy in his day to day activities. I’m sure that many people like him. So rather than have some of you think I’m just calling him unprofessional because I’m not a fan, let me share a collection of the terms he’s used in the CB Post to describe Synergy.

Note: If you think this is a professional way for a councillor to speak about an important economic development group in his district, please vote Saccary in October. He is certainly your representative.

Here are some of the phrases he chose to use after Mitch McNutt was hired, and after the Synergy Louisbourg group set about to replace some of the town’s signage:

"lack of integrity", "blatant conflict of interest", "We don’t need organizations like this creating negativity, in any community", "shady at best", "It's all tied in. It gets thicker as we dig", "There's no excuses"

I’m not sure the representatives at ACOA that invest so much in Cape Breton would be impressed with Councillor Saccary’s choice of words.

Nor would I expect them to be overflowing with enthusiasm to get involved with anything Kevin Saccary tries to sponsor in his district now, whether it be in Louisbourg or the charming Port Morien.

But, in my opinion, Saccary doesn’t act professionally. He’s underhanded. It was clear when he tried to burn the group down in the Cape Breton Post. It was clear when he tried to grab and squat on the Destination Louisbourg brand.

And it’s was clear again on May 2nd, 2016 when he tried to imply that Synergy Louisbourg Chairwoman Dorothy Payne was trying to be dishonest about the Park’s Canada investment in the overall project.

He added the word “muddy” to his list of favorite phrases. Then he tried to speak over Ms. Payne and discourage her from getting the opportunity to respond. Fortunately, she is well versed at dealing with an adversarial personality and took the opportunity to correct Mr. Saccary.

First I’m going to show you Mr. Saccary’s latest Coronation Street performance. And then I’ll show you why he was being fully dishonest.

We didn’t really need the video. If you look at page 96 of the 2014 document released by Synergy Louisbourg entitled “Louisbourg Tourism & Community Spatial Planning & Design Initiative” you - just like Councillor Saccary did - would see there wasn’t anything “muddy” about it at all.

Well, one thing is muddy. And that is Councillor Saccary’s intentions.

Most people are not big fans of the in-camera (aka private) council meetings. What kind of stuff is said behind closed doors, between councillors?

Is there any possibility that Saccary is continuing to misrepresent and malign Synergy Louisbourg to his colleagues?

At the May 2nd, 2016 meeting, one councillor gave us a reason to raise an eyebrow.

How should the chairwoman be addressed?

During the meeting, Councillor Doncaster asked an excellent question.

He wanted to know the relationship between the Destination Louisbourg project and the support for the reopening of the Louisbourg-Gabarus highway linkage.

The consultant presenting then referred the answer to Dorothy Payne, the Chairwoman of Synergy Louisbourg.

As she approached the presentation desk, Doncaster perhaps didn’t realize that the microphones pick up whispers too.

In a sideways glance, he turned slightly to Councillor Saccary and said:

“There’s your First Lady”

I reached out to Councillor Doncaster to ask him what he meant by that comment and he replied shortly afterwards.

He explained that he wasn’t trying to “show her up”. He expressed his compliments to the fine job “Dorothy and her volunteers are doing”. And he explained it was a reference to someone’s wife or partner; and apologized if I felt it was intended otherwise.

I appreciate Councillor Doncaster responding. However, I sent him an email reply describing my interpretation. And the core of my response was that it’s hard to imagine that term being used in a respectful way when directed at Councillor Saccary.

Saccary’s been trying to burn them in the Cape Breton Post, usurp the “Destination Louisbourg” brand, and less than ten minutes later was doing his best to corner Ms. Payne as I showed in the video above.

In what way would she be his “First Lady”?

I’ll let you, the reader, watch the video and decide if Councillor Doncaster was being complimentary or not. My feeling is that he was making a joke to Saccary as a direct result of how Ms. Payne is spoken about, off the record.

The only ones that will know for sure are the councillors themselves.

But in the interest of transparency, when such things are said, they deserve a showcase.

Afterall, it was in the middle of an official CBRM council meeting.

Et tu, Paruch?

I’m a fan of Councillor Paruch. He along with Councillor Eldon MacDonald are among the tiny minority on council that will speak up, and call a spade a spade.

Unfortunately in addressing Ms. Payne, I think Paruch momentarily forgot which council he was on.

Councillor, please don’t forget those 9-2 and 9-3 votes on Archibald’s Wharf matters. Let’s see what he said:

When Synergy Louisbourg impresses upon council the sense of urgency to move forward after more than two years - and highlights the opportunity cost of not doing so… they are absolutely correct to do so.

While Paruch and Eldon may pay attention to the business case and earn the trust of their district, that certainly isn’t universal behavior for this council.

When both of these councillors strenuously objected to the approval of the Archibald’s Wharf sale on such short notice, who among their peers stood with them? Just one.

So Councillor Paruch needs to avoid giving the rest of council far more credit than they deserve based on their behavior and actions.

And he should avoid scolding development groups for wisely emphasizing their business case and the urgency of moving forward.

So why was one project rushed and one stalled?

I’ve shown you what Destination Louisbourg has been up against, with particular emphasis on the underhandedness of Councillor Saccary.

Archibald’s Wharf was a sale of a green space to a private commercial entity. And it was rushed through with councillors voting for a sale agreement most of them hadn’t even fully read.

It was done in the face of a major community backlash. But the CBRM agreed to the deal anyway.

Destination Louisbourg, by comparison, is an extensively planned and detailed community project with backing from multiple levels of government including ACOA and Parks Canada. They’ve had great support and almost no public opposition (beyond what Mr. Saccary manufactures).

They are over 2 years into the project and still getting maligned in the Cape Breton Post by the councillor for their district, and scolded before council.

And though usually supportive, they have Mayor Clarke now suggesting he hasn’t talked to ACOA. This despite just months before he, his solicitor, and his CAO Michael Merritt emphasized that they did... and that everything was clear.

The next council meeting is again in May. The Synergy Louisbourg project will be on the agenda again. And it’s going to be very interesting.

We’ll have an opportunity to find out just how far Saccary is willing to go.

Maybe he’ll have the strength of character to admit to and explain his opposition on the record instead of by bits and pieces in the Cape Breton Post.

In just a few days, we’ll have another opportunity find out to what extent the CBRM really does pick and choose its favorites.

Perhaps they don’t care which citizens are sitting and watching from the cheap seats. However, they might want to consider that the executive seats are watching too.

It won’t be lost on ACOA, Tourism Nova Scotia, Destination Cape Breton, or Parks Canada… as to who is delaying, jeopardizing, or interfering with the projects they are working with.