Behind the decision

The decision was made more than a month ago.

In a motion that was passed by a vote of 4-3 on June 22, Clarenville Town Council denied an application from Kent Building Supplies to build a new store in this town.

Kent is one of the most recognized building suppliers in Atlantic Canada.

Its stores are of the “big box” variety.

This could have meant significant tax revenue for the town and, just as importantly, more job opportunities for local people.

Four members of council felt the company was asking for too much in the way of concessions – namely a ‘no competition’ clause and dead-ending a road, which would have stunted future development behind Walmart.

What that “no-competition” clause entailed, however, we do not know.

That’s because the council record of the proposal is very short on detail.

Part of the reason we’re delving into this issue again – The Packet carried a story in its July 15 edition called “Building supplier blocked”, based on a tip from a local resident who suggested we look into the matter – was prompted by a call last week from Mayor Fred Best.

He felt a clarification was required.

The story reported that the mayor cast the swing vote that saw the application by Kent turned down.

The Mayor called to advise us that he did not cast a tie-breaking vote; that he voted at the same time the other members of council voted.

In the same breath, however, he noted he makes it a practice to vote last so as to not unduly influence the other councilors. That’s what he did in this case – voted with them, but voting last.

One might call it splitting hairs.

However, we digress.

The fact is the motion was put to the council table at its June 22 meeting and voted on in relatively quick fashion.

According to the data we have been able to obtain, the Kent request came to the public works committee meeting the previous week, on June 15.

The official record of that public works meeting, however, does not make mention of it.

That’s because the committee couldn’t come to a resolution, explained town manager Bob Hiscock, when one of our reporters called to double check the facts of our original story.

“The committee, basically, has to be uniform… to forward (recommendations) to council for discussion as a whole.”

What happened, Hiscock explained, is that it got taken off the agenda and brought up as a separate item in the council chamber.

Hiscock briefed Council on the application, there was a general discussion, and they voted on it.

The motion was, simply, to approve the Kent application.

It was defeated, 4-3, with the mayor voting last.

The process begs another question:

The official record does not give any evidence that the public works committee, or the council, met with Kent officials.

The mayor, when asked this week, said it would be “too onerous” for the council as a whole to meet with every individual or group applying for permits.

That’s what committees are for, he said.

We agree it’s not necessary for every single application to come before the whole council.

However, we must ponder why – for a major development (like the Kent proposal) and in the interest of exploring business opportunities for the town – the council did not consider a full council meeting with the reps from Kent.

Past history shows us that when it wants to, the Council can take considerable time to explore the issue from every conceivable angle before reaching a conclusion.

Last year the question of whether or not to allow Targa to come to town involved, as part of the process, a meeting between Targa officials and the full council.

The Shopping Centre Parking lot issue is a lesson in how not to rush things, even though, in that case, the proper decision – put up the “for sale” sign and accept the best offer – has been staring them in the face for years.

Just last week the council decided it needed to have an audience with Canada Post before proceeding with a motion on whether to allow commit mailboxes in local neighbourhoods.

So why not more dialogue, involving the whole council, with Kent on their proposal?

And, while we’re asking, why no mention in minutes of public works or council, the fact that Kent was behind the proposal.

Members of council advised us it was in the interest of business confidentiality.

But representatives from Kent had no problem providing our reporter with information when she was preparing the story for the July 15 edition.

We’ll leave it to the citizens of Clarenville to decide how much information is too little, or too much, and whether the Kent decision was right, or wrong.