I attended the Sept 9th council meeting to see how Counsellor Fedeyko’s Whistle Blower motion would be handled. Needless to say, this meeting was an eye opener.
Counsellors Fedeyko, Flowers, Reed and Nagel were present along with Mayor Genung and administration - Counsellors Wilson and McFadden were absent. Right from the start it seemed that there was a clear voting block of 3.5 versus two. No, you didn’t read wrong, I said 3.5 given that administration was allowed to go beyond their primary role of giving information, to at times, actively engage in 'off topic' information and even initiating a motion to end future debate on the topic.
Counsellor Fedeyko made a professional, well researched and well considered proposal. Counsellor Flowers remained mainly silent during this debate. Counsellor Reed asked some good questions but seemed focused on reaffirming his intention to vote against the motion. Mayor Genung stated his intention to vote ‘no’ even before all the information was given or a vote was called.
So it was not surprising that Counsellor Nagel’s motion to postpone this vote so that Counsellors McFadden and Reed could be present was defeated, or that Counsellor Fadayko’s motion was defeated, or that a motion to end any future debate on this topic was passed.
Administration stated, both in writing and verbally, that, while they recognized whistleblower protection was going to be required as Cochrane grew, whistleblower protection was “not a priority” at this time. So when is whistleblower protection a priority?
I’ve heard many Cochranites say that we need whistleblower protection, just like other towns, and that this protection should be a priority.
During the meeting there appeared to be an acceptance from everyone in the room that the costs associated with this motion were not a significant factor. But subsequent reporting quoted Mayor Genung being worried about the possibility of additional costs associated with investigating a complaint.
If there were concerns about the possibility of additional costs of investigating a complaint, would a more prudent action not be to get actual information on costs versus voting ‘no’ based on assumptions?
One of the points that was not stressed enough in my opinion was that one of the groups protected by the whistleblower protections were Cochrane residents themselves.
This decision was not in Cochrane’s best interests.
Regards
Dan Cunin
Cochrane, AB
