As of today, there is an almost irrefutable argument that Councillor Kevin Saccary should resign. And the reason it's so strong is because Mr. Saccary made it himself.

Let’s clear things up quickly before we jump ahead. This isn’t his position as councillor of District 8 of the CBRM. That will be decided in the upcoming municipal election in October 2016.

Mr. Saccary should resign immediately as Board Member of the Port of Sydney Development Corporation.

Let’s get to the why.

In the March 28th, 2016 Cape Breton Post article, he called out Destination Louisbourg for the group’s “lack of integrity” and a “blatant conflict of interest” in their hiring practises - which he’s quoted as saying appear 'shady at best'.

He completely tore down three very important organizations for the community of Louisbourg and neighboring areas. He refused to speak with the Fortress of Louisbourg Association. And, more grievously, he even expressed reluctance to represent Synergy Louisbourg’s interests and development initiatives to the CBRM.

Despite that boatload of bad judgement in how to respond to the issue... he had a point.

Destination Louisbourg has been called out and criticized for how they handled the hiring of the Executive Director, Mitch McNutt.

In brief, he was one of three people who were vetting and interviewing the candidates who actually applied for the position. Then out of nowhere - from the perspective of the candidates at least - they hired McNutt. He wasn't a candidate. He was interviewing them for the job.

Meanwhile, this is not his first time McNutt's been involved in employment related controversy. Most recently online comments suggest there were some objections related to his hiring at the Old Sydney Society due to his wife’s role there. Catherine Arsenault is the Director of the Beaton Institute. She was on the hiring committee for the Old Sydney Society when McNutt was chosen. She later resigned from the board to avoid - you guessed it - a conflict of interest. 

Justifiably she wanted to know why his concerns about conflict of interest and hiring practises weren’t raised when Mayor Cecil Clarke was handpicking Christina Lamey or Mark Bettens, or returning an old favor to Marlene Usher?

In Usher’s case, Clarke appointed her to the Port of Sydney Development Corporation prior to it even forming its initial board officially. She had given him a lobbying contract to hold him over between his loss to Mark Eyking for MP and running for mayor. Then he suggested she should receive a $200,000 a year salary. Note: Usher’s sister is also Marie Walsh, current CFO for the CBRM - just in case we needed an additional layer of intrigue and conflict.

Surely if Saccary has problems with “shady” or insider, non-competitive hiring practises like these… then he must also have a problem with the mayor’s hiring too.

Further, he must take issue with the hiring method for the CEO of the Port of Sydney Corporation, upon which he sits as a board member.

In her comment, Whitaker also notably references Barry Sheehy and Albert Barbusci, now known as the HPDP (Harbor Port Development Partners). They were given an exclusivity contract with the CBRM to market and develop the port based primarily on the mayor insisting they had spent $1.2 million of their own money.

What that supposed money was spent on was never adequately disclosed. Sheehy didn’t like being asked about it on CBC’s Information Morning program. He ummed and ahhed, and closed it out by rhyming off a series of cities he’s visited - when Steve Sutherland wisely didn’t let him off the hook.

If Saccary is ok with all of that, he must have some better information than the public can access. Perhaps it was obtained during one of the far-too-many confidential (aka in camera) council meetings Mayor Clarke has a reputation for hosting?

Mr. Saccary's Own Board Appointment is Against the Intent of the Port of Sydney Development Corporation

How does Saccary feel about his very own position being compromised, conflicted, and more than a bit shady?

FYI The articles of incorporation for the Port of Sydney Development Corporation state that elected officials including councillors and the mayor should not be permitted to be on the board.

Mr. Saccary is participating in violating our democratic process. The CBRM council (representing us all) is not getting a fair vote on port matters. If he votes for something in his role on the port corp’s board, he then has to vote again on it in a CBRM council meeting.

Imagine being asked to approve something you already approved. Does that make sense?

What do you think the chances are that he’ll vote against something he already approved in a board meeting at the port corp?

That’s right. He won’t. He won’t because it’s a conflict of interest.

It’s a conflict of interest that is worse than the situation with Destination Louisbourg that he was willing to burn Louisbourg’s three main development groups to the ground over. To push salt in the wound, he also suggested that he might not be able to represent them to the CBRM.

Can you imagine a CBRM councillor that becomes unwilling to promote major local development projects (representing millions of dollars of local investment) to the CBRM?

Is he really willing to burn down his own district from which he was elected over a conflict of interest… while at the same time sitting on a board that puts him into an even worse conflict of interest?

Councillor Saccary receives no salary for his role on the board. He is under no obligation to continue sitting on that board.

If Mr. Saccary really believes everything he said about conflict of interest, then he will immediately offer his resignation as a board member to the Port of Sydney Development Corporation. And his fellow councillors sitting on that board will do the same.

Mr. Saccary, please offer up your resignation. Remove yourself from the Port of Sydney Development Corporation board immediately.

Don’t allow yourself to be in the type of conflict of interest that you so adamantly scold groups like Destination Louisbourg over.

Cecil Clarke. Wrong Friends. Wrong Candidate. Time for a Change.