Dear editor:

Continuing from my letter last week about flooding, finances and infrastructure in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the meeting that was held June 16 between Coun. Erwin Wiens, Jordan Frost (the town’s engineer and director of public works and infrastructure) and a number of St. Davids residents …

It’s a well-known fact that the town relies on consultant reports to substantiate its approvals. Concern regarding these consultant reports have been present for years, partly because these consultants are paid by the developers to advance their development proposals.

Mr. Frost was asked why he didn’t put his engineering stamp on any of the consultant reports to confirm they “covered all the bases,” and financially protected NOTL residents. Mr. Frost indicated that he didn’t want to put his engineering stamp on any of these consultant reports because he would then become liable.

The obvious question that came to mind was: why hasn’t the town provided him with liability insurance in such an eventuality?

We also asked ourselves: why are NOTL taxpayers compensating a staff engineer if he’s not willing to professionally place his engineering stamp behind his recommendations? Will the consultant reports place him in professional and financial dilemma? It appears so.

Erwin Wiens is aware that there is a heavy reliance on consultants’ recommendations, which seem to often include exculpatory language. Exculpatory language can absolve the consultants from liabilities and lawsuits, leaving the residents of NOTL and the town without recourse for damages.

Mr. Wiens indicated that the town mitigated this risk by seeking external legal opinions regarding consultant’s liabilities. The town is apparently in possession of legal opinions that state that the consultants’ exculpatory language does not absolve those consultants from liability.

Having read legal opinions in my previous business career, I asked Mr. Wiens for copies of these legal opinions to see how they were worded. Mr. Wiens did not provide them. When I followed up with a subsequent reminder, he had apparently forgotten all about my request.

I have to wonder: what do these legal opinions really say? What are the consultants’ liabilities limited to, and why are they being sequestered? My imagination tells me there are gaping holes in them.

Mr. Wiens expressed concerns regarding Ron Simkus of the NOTL Residents Association, who has apparently continued to erroneously state that the consultant’s exculpatory language absolved them from liabilities, even when he knew that contrary legal opinions existed. You have to wonder whether Mr. Simkus is correct.

When questioned about infrastructure issues, Mr. Wiens admitted that he did not understand engineering (and he indicated that probably all of council was in that position). That is why town council is almost solely relying on the recommendations of town staff when approving/declining applications.

But it’s town staff that won’t put an engineering stamp on their recommendations. The rely on developer-paid consultant reports with exculpatory language. So, what kind of decision-making is taking place?

Although the expertise of town council with regards to financial matters, budgeting, etc., was not discussed, you could assume town staff makes recommendations on these matters as well, which are largely accepted by town council without a solid understanding.

It makes me wonder: why we don’t elect town staff rather than town council?

To be continued next week.

Gienek Ksiazkiewicz
St. Davids