One of my priorities for District 5 Economic Growth

One of my priorities for District 5 Economic Growth: I will continue to work to strengthen District 5 by supporting opportunities such as tri-party partnership with CBRM, Membertou and Eskasoni creating jobs that are in the best interest of our communities fostering growth ensuring a brighter future for residents of District 5 and all of CBRM. I believe moving forward with various port projects both public and private are necessary to growing existing businesses and encouraging new growth by pursuing business partnerships that are interested in diversifying our economy, investing in our communities and building a successful municipality.

Posted by
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW


682 11

11

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Donelda MacDonald Follow Me
Hello Eldon MacDonald. I am in your district and here are MY questions. I should also note that I am a part of the growing (progressive) trend to view the CBRM in the context of the whole region rather than limiting ourselves to our own district. What is your opinion of councillors sitting on the new Sydney Ports Corporation board? What is your stance on Cecil Clarke creating new positions and then hiring close, political allies to fill them? Are you in favour of the CBRM council's high number of in-camera sessions that have taken place in the last 4 years? And finally, the Sustainability Fund- did you vote in favour of funds going to organizations that were not registered with the Joint Stocks of NS or worse, for profit organizations. If you did can you share your rationale for CBRM council’s unethical violation of its own rules. As a tax paying resident in your district (and someone whom you have “represented” for the last 4 years), I would appreciate an honest, articulate, and timely response to these questions.
Eldon MacDonald My Post Follow Me
In regards your question of the councillors sitting on the Ports Board I agree with the decision of council by way of a motion to adopt the articles of association of which the permanent board will be governed by. With that being said there was discussions during council meetings prior to the replacement of the original Port of Sydney Corporation board that an interim board would be chosen to bridge the transition of the two port boards and this interim board would be made up of councillors. I believe it would be in the best interest of the new council to move forward with the process of the permanent board early in the term of the new council. Regarding the political appointments made by the mayor, as a new councillor and during my first council meeting as the councillor of District 5 I was the only councillor that spoke out against political appointments and advocated that if a position was going to be created that we should hire that individual under the same process that employees are hired by CBRM and that a search should be conducted across the country to ensure we were getting the best qualified person for the job. Political party appointments happen in senior levels of government but such appointments should have no place in municipal government. With that being said if a person applies for a job and that individual is the best qualified candidate who applies for the job they should not be disqualified because of a political affiliation.
Joe Ward Follow Me
Eldon, I'm not sure why it never occurred to me to ask you before. However, this is an important question. If Mayor Clarke decided to create an interim board that consisted of himself and four councillors: ►Why did they not invite the councillor (you) that actually represents downtown Sydney, where the Joan Harriss and the port corp itself is located? Since the port has a direct impact specifically on downtown Sydney, I cannot understand how it would make sense to not have you be one of the four selected. The port master plans specifically outlines (despite the 2nd berth focus that is emphasized) that it is Sydney's poor visitor experience that is the biggest issue. Surely if there was any councillor at all that would have some claim to relevance on this board, for the interim period, it would be you. Why would councillor Saccary in District #8, with absolutely nothing to do with the port in his district and no business experience, be chosen over you?
Joe Ward Follow Me
Eldon - did you refuse a position on the Port of Sydney Development Corporation interim board? It seems that they either excluded you, or you declined. As the port is in your district and relates so closely to the businesses (and the experience they provide) in your district, you would have the strongest argument for being selected. Please help us understand how it came about that you did not join that board. In the interest of transparency, if the reason for you not joining was something that is protected by the confidentiality of an in-camera meeting, please let us know if that is the case.
Eldon MacDonald My Post Follow Me
Regarding in-camera sessions I believe meetings should be open and transparent as possible, I would welcome more meetings being held open to the public. The setting of meetings and agendas are decided by the Mayor in consultation with the CAO and the Clerk. Regarding Sustainability applications, to provide a rational it would be best to receive clarity from Marie Walsh as to the status of any groups you may have concerns of regarding receiving money. Marie leads a committee of staff who carry out the review and selection process of all applicants so they can be recommended to council for approval. There has been some information circulated by an individual who I believe has not provided accurate facts regarding approved applications leaving question marks about for profit organizations. As one example statements have been made that Ben Eion Marina was one of the biggest winners in receiving these funds. To my knowledge the marina has never received or been approved for funding. My support for funding was strictly based on the ski hill which to my knowledge is a non-profit organization; my position was stated during an open meeting of council at the time of the request from board members. To my knowledge as of July 23rd no money has been provided to any of these entities, the ski hill, golf course or marina. If there are specific applicants you would like to discuss I would be happy to personally speak with you about them.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Hi Eldon, I'm in your district. We've shared emails before regarding the Louisbourg Waterfront project. I'm originally from Louisbourg and it's future is still of concern to me. I was wondering how you see the future of this project?
Eldon MacDonald My Post Follow Me
Hi Bill nice to hear from you. The last I have heard regarding the project is the comments in the CB post following the last deliberations council held on this project back in the Spring/Summer. To my knowledge the funding approved for the project last year is still designated for the project. It is my understanding that Dorthy Pane decided to stop the consultants I believe it was Dillon Consulting from continuing with the engineering work that would layout the exact plans for implementation to be executed. Once the implementation stage was ready I believe the CBRM funding is still there to move the project forward. This is just my understanding, Dorthy would be the best person to clarify where the project is and when the project will move forward as she is hands on with the project progress. If my understanding is correct I am not sure why the consultants where told to stop their work. This project has always been an important project for me and will continue to be as long as we can continue to provide assistance when possible.
[comment deleted] Posted
Eldon MacDonald My Post Follow Me
Hi Bill I have not spoken to anyone on this issue since we voted to move the project forward at our last council meeting that dealt with this issue. I am not sure of your statement "do not continue to listen to people who may make you 'understand' otherwise." The only thing I can take from this is that you believe others are lobbing me to get on their page, I can tell you nobody has had any such discussions with me in this manner prior to or after any discussions on this issue. I responded on this forum because of your question. The original request of 400,000 is still budgeted for the project and once the detail engineering specifics are completed for that work the work should be able to begin to my knowledge.
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Thanks Eldon for your response. And keep up the independent thinking. It is my belief that if Saccary's attack on Dorothy Payne on 02May is any example, is that a project that was supported by this councilor was in the end under-minded. A comment picked up on microphone from another councilor reflects this. If you read any of the articles on gocapebreton by Joe Ward and through my own research on this matter, you can see how this conclusion may have been arrived at. I ask of you and all councilors to perhaps reach out to synergy. This project is not only vital to Louisbourg but all of Cape Breton.
[comment deleted] Posted
Bill Fiander Follow Me
Hi Eldon, I've been doing some checking and wished to relay to you the information and hopefully clarify some things regarding where synergy stands. There was a press release for one thing on the synergy project https://capebreton.lokol.me/louisbourg-development-project-at-an-impasse. I've also reached out to synergy to get some clarification on the comments you made earlier. The completed design package was delivered to CBRM and Synergy the last week in September. Perhaps you haven't received it yet? These are the facts. The CBRM prevented Synergy from relocating the visitor services operation to the waterfront this summer and refused to give permission until it was to late. After talking to Synergy they also indicated that a meeting of the consultants was held with Synergy and the CBRM to finalize the details of the boardwalk in June. So I fail to understand your indication that Dorothy Payne would have halted the design work. This may be all for naught in the end, because there is as yet an unsubstantiated rumour that Parks Canada will give up on the waterfront project because of the delay and will instead refurbish the existing reception center. If this is the case, than Mr Saccary has 'won' with the disinfomation he has been relaying to everyone including the CBRM Council. He is currently telling community groups in Louisbourg that he will bring back the trailer park while at the same time telling CBRM council that he is for the Waterfront project. This will make it appear that the CBRM council went along with Mr Saccary and I don't think any member of council would want to be saddled with this sort of thing. And what he 'won' will be everyone's loss.
Donelda MacDonald Follow Me
Eldon thank you for responding to my questions. I am pleased that you would “welcome...more meetings being held open to the public”. I just wish you had challenged the current status quo of so many in-camera sessions while in office. As you stated, meetings and agendas may be decided by the mayor and CAO but as District 5 councillor you could have publicly challenged this pattern of poor (and unethical) decision-making. I appreciate your initial questioning of Cecil Clarke’s anointment of his Tory pals. I am disappointed that you chose not to pursue this as an ongoing issue as Clarke’s nepotism was not a one-off. In regards to my “ports” question...I am not convinced that an “interim board” consisting of councillors has served the best interest of the public, especially when one reads some of the information coming to light about the port dealings. I am referring to (among others) https://capebreton.lokol.me/serious-questions-and-observations-about-the-port-of-sydney . Side note- I also recommend a quick read of the tongue and cheek review of an actual Port meeting when Cecil Clarke suggests a “retreat” for board members (yikes) and the request to redact information from previous minute meetings is approved (disturbing). The latter, in my opinion, is yet another Conservative strategy adopted by Cecil Clarke and his Tory friend CAO Michael Merritt. https://capebreton.lokol.me/port-of-sydney-board-publishes-meeting-minutes Finally, the sustainability fund... I need more specifics? Perhaps you could write a counter article to these two informative articles: https://capebreton.lokol.me/announcing-the-winners-of-2016-in-the-cbrm , https://capebreton.lokol.me/cao-responds-to-questions-about-the-cbrm-sustainability-fund that would better clarify your weak defence of how the sustainability funding has been allotted. Thank you again for the response. We may disagree but at least you’re no Kevin Saccary- a councillor who has written off public debate!

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts
View

Share this comment by copying the direct link.

  • Our Sponsors

Using this website is subject to the Terms of Use that contain binding contractual terms.