Monsieur Bruce St.-Louis
Le tableau donné par la Ville de Westmount du travail de Monsieur St-Louis, l’interprétation des paiements, et le portrait de son travail sont semblables à la version des faits rendue par NPR – eux aussi sont non crédibles, d’après moi.
À la fin de 2008, un citoyen – devenu conseilller municipal par la suite – Monsieur Gary Ikeman, a découvert une allocation budgétaire pour 2009: un paiement de $65,000 envisagé à Monsieur Bruce St-Louis en 2009, après sa retraite comme Directeur Général de la Ville de Westmount.
Le 25 octobre 2010, j’ai démandé à savoir si Monsieur St-Louis était payé $65,000 en 2009, et pour quelles tâches exactement. Le 22 décembre, la Ville m’a informé que Monsieur St. Louis n’a pas reçu un paiement d’acompte pour 2009. J’ai employé l’expression “retainer fee” dans ma requête d’information:
According to the information received from the Director General [Duncan Campbell] Mr. St Louis did not get a “retainer fee” in 2009. (Voir, s.v.p. Document #6)
Beaucoup plus tard, j’ai reçu une autre réponse, –finalement– 10 mois après ma lettre d’octobre 2010. Cette deuxième fois, c’était presque la contraire, possiblement parce que les évènements sur la scène municipale de Westmount étaient décrits dans le Globe and Mail:
In reply to part No. 1 of your request dated March 17, 2011 for access to documents (information), received at our office on the same day, specifically to the reasons why Mr. Bruce St. Louis was paid $65,000 by the City of Westmount in 2009, this is to inform you that Mr. St. Louis as Arena/Pool Project Coordinator, was remunerated for:
–Coordination of meetings between the City’s Design Team, the project architects and professionals;
–Attending coordination meetings with the project architects;
–Assisting the Communications Division with preparation of materials for public consultation meetings and communications plan;
–Preparation and coordination of various reports, studies and project schedules, as requested by the Director General.
(Voir s.v.p. Document #7)
Ceci est extraordinaire, parce que, quand j’ai décrit Monsieur St. Louis comme “chef du projet” à Monsieur Duncan Campbell, le Directeur Général actuel, il refusait cette description, en disant que Monsieur St. Louis n’était pas “competent” de faire ce travail.
Mais quelle était la compétence de Monsieur St.-Louis, finalement, si ce n’était pas d’agir comme chef provisoire du projet? Surtout en 2009 quand très peu était fait sur le plan du travail sérieux sur le projet avant l’annonce de la subvention?
C’était le travail politique.
Monsieur St.-Louis est très, très connu pour ses contacts politiques – c’est lui qui a soumis la première application de Westmount pour une subvention provinciale à la fin de 2007. C’est Monsieur St.-Louis qui est très connu par les membres du conseil de l’agglomération de Montréal. Et c’est Monsieur St.-Louis qui est l’officiel de Westmount le plus connu au niveau provincial.
Il n’était pas payé $65,000 pour la paperasse administrative. Exactement comme National Public Relations n’était pas payé non plus pour quelques renseignements concernant la bureaucratie provinciale.
Je demande, donc, Monsieur le Commissaire, que la Commission ouvre une investigation sur les activités de National Public Relations et de Monsieur Bruce St.-Louis pendant la période de Janvier 2009 à Septembre 2009. Et si vous trouvez qu’ils ont agi comme lobbyistes sans s’enregistrer comme tels, je vous demande de les sanctionner, comme la loi demande.
Je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur, l’assurance de mes sentiments les plus respectueux,
Patrick Barnard
Interesting, but what do you hope to achieve here? The cancellation of the grant? It’s laudable that proper process is followed, but I’m failing to understand what your goal is. Don’t forget that the Province stiffed Westmount with a $37M debt following the de-merger debacle – so even though the grant is higher per capita than other places, if you factor this in, then it doesn’t look quite so rosy.
I don’t think it’s correct to “right” another wrong by getting grant money using questionable methods. The merger is one thing, the grant is another altogether. We are Westmounters, but we are also Quebeckers and Canadians. And as far as this kind of infrastructure money, it’s a zero-sum game. Some other deserving community might have gotten the share of the $20M we will spend on an unnecessary second indoor rink.
We need a proper (and correct) needs analysis. Westmount does *not* have 1 indoor pool. That’s just plain wrong. And it’s a key part of the issue. It’s not the only consideration, but until we face the fact that this project never fully justified an additional (and costly!) rink to its community. The extra rink — face it — is for the overflow that will be created by Selwyn House’s 16-20 extra hours per week.
And just just like the fencing off of a public field for (primarily) private school use, the construction of an additional rink to meet the needs of a very restricted segment of the population… is just plain wrong!
This project is an abortion. It was handled in the very worst way possible, using extremely shoddy (and deceptive) politics. And, say what you will, the population knows this. Provably.
Paul,
You ask “what do you hope to achieve here”?
Have you heard of truth, honesty, transparency and just doing what is right and not squandering the peoples hard earned tax dollars during the worst economic times of their lives?
Larry Klepper
Paul,
I have recently learned that you have complained that my comments which was sent in on January 20th, 2011, was only recently posted but I and everyone else will still accept your repsonse at this late date. For the future please let us all know the cutoff date you use for responding to a comment.
Also, I extend a warm hearted invitation to you and anyone of your friends at the WMA and the City Council to meet me for a coffee (a la Martin style) to discuss what is happening in Westmount and what has taken place by the last two councils. We should also add to the agenda for our meeting the function and relevance of the WMA in Westmount.
I hope you bring as many of your friends to our meeting and please do not respond “whatever” or you will be known around Westmount as “Monsieur Whatever”.
My telephone number is listed in all phone books unlike yours so it will not be difficult to contact me. As I do not have an answering service should I miss your call I will see it when I return on my call display and I will immediately get back to you.
I look forward to meetin with you and your friends and in the meantime please do NOT forget to post your response to my comments of January 20th.
Larry Klepper
Paul,
Still waiting to hear from you for a coffee (A La Martin Style). Please bring your friends for support if you feel necessary.
Since you have not responded I can only assume you wish to hide behind the incorrect statements you have been posting. If a coffee is not acceptable why don’t you simply call me so I can help you by correcting you on the facts of something you recently posted on Face Book and also on Westmountwatch.org in the past.
You should have enough cojones for a telephone conversation I hope, unless you prefer to spend your time crisis crossing Victoria and Sherbrooke Street.
If I do not hear from you I will introduce myself to you while you are criss crossing this corner doing your research.
Larry Klepper
Sorry, I didn’t see your message buried so far down in the other comments.
No need for a private meeting to discuss the role of the WMA, come to a board meeting – they’re open to all – that’s why we invited Patrick Martin so there would be a chance for a public, rather than private, meeting.
As for why I’m not in the telephone book, that’s because I don’t have a landline. You can always send me an email to my WMA email address – it’s on the website. Not sure which incorrect statements you think I’ve posted – I’m usually pretty careful before posting something, though there is always the chance I’m wrong.
Paul,
We have a lot more to discuss than the WMA, and the venue of the WMA for a lengthy and intelligent discussion is not suited for this.
I await your call and I am sure it will take more than one coffee meeting and I would be delighted to meet with you in person in an informal setting.
Please bring some of your friends as well.
Larry Klepper
Paul,
Please understand that I respect you and have read your letters and comments. You are an intelligent and likeable person and for this I would enjoy meeting you for a conversation in a non-confrontational atmosphere and setting.
I consider you to be an honest and sincere gentleman.
Respectfully,
Larry Klepper
Larry,
I am up to my neck in work until the end of March, but I will make some time in early April to meet you.
Paul.
Paul,
I sincerely look forward to meeting you for the reasons I already mentioned.
I actually respected you and wanted to meet you a few years ago when I read about what you have done with your home. My compliments to you and your wife and I wish that more home owners in Westmount would do the same.
Larry
Paul.
If you look at your comments above you said you are very busy in March but would make some time to meet me in early April. Well Paul it is now the middle of April and I have not heard from you.
If you do not want to be alone please bring some of your friends. I am waiting to hear from you and I am listed in the telephone book.
Larry Klepper