Dear Beagle Editor, Just some facts: 1: As a councillor I can clearly state that there has been as yet, no consultation by the Mayor with me in regard to the remuneration or KPIs that are relevant to the renewal of the current GM's contract. I assume therefore that such a contract does not as yet exist. 2: In regard to the amendment of the minutes of the meeting on 13 June which dealt in confidence (I was the only councillor who voted against going into 'closed' session) with the matter of offering a renewal of the current GM's contract, I advise that this issue only arose because I formally asked the organisation in writing as to why the accepted motions in the minutes in the confidential part of the meeting, (6 parts) were not in the minutes released to the public (only 3 parts). The organisation subsequently sought advice from OLG. As you will all now know, OLG advised the organisation to cease being secretive and to openly disclose the full determination of the motion passed in the closed/confidential part of the meeting. 3. The minutes of the meeting of 13 June still require amendment. In relation to the matter of the renewal of the GM's contract, during the confidential/closed part of the meeting, I called for, and was granted approval by the Mayor for a division being recorded on the decision. Subsequently the motion was approved by 8 councillors. I was the dissenting vote. This division and the result is still not reflected in the now amended minutes and I will take whatever measures I can to have the minutes amended yet again to reflect this reality. 4. Within the bounds of 'confidential' information as provided to me as a councillor I will continue to try to be as open to the public and transparent in regard as to decision making processes as I can possibly be, in carrying out my role. Cheers, Pat McGinlay
