A memo to the CAO written by former Mountain View County planning director Diana Hawryluk reveals the strained relationship that existed between her and Reeve Paddy Munro in the weeks before her ìmutual parting of waysî with the county.The May 10 memo ñ obtained by the Gazette under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ñ is a three-page chronology of the events related to the Municipal Development Plan mail-out survey conducted in April.That day, in an article in the Gazette, Munro said he wanted administration to explain why council did not have an opportunity to review the April mail-out survey questions, as it had requested. The next day, in a private meeting with council, Martens cleared Hawryluk and the planning department of blame, saying he had made the decision to release the survey without council vetting the questions because of timing and other issues, according to notes from his verbal report, also provided to the Gazette under FOIP.In her memo to Martens, Hawryluk lists the steps taken to develop and adjust the survey questions prior to the spring councillor open houses, noting that after Div. 1 Coun. Kevin Good's and the reeve's open houses in late March, ìno councillor contacted me about concerns over the questions.îFour days before the survey was mailed out, Hawryluk, Munro and two other councillors were attending a conference in Red Deer, Hawryluk wrote.ìI kept getting calls during the session and I indicated to Paddy that I kept getting called out as I was trying to organize the mail-out, which was difficult because of the tight timeframes,î Hawryluk wrote. ìPaddy did not ask me any questions regarding the mail-out or the questions and this is after his open house.îThe survey was mailed out on April 8, but it was not until April 27 that Hawryluk learned some councillors had unspecified concerns about the survey questions or process, she wrote.On April 29, during a council workshop, ìReeve Munro brings up during the meeting that planning did not consult on the questions as an issue but he has never asked me for a direct explanation to date.îLater at the workshop, ìCoun. McKean wants the MDP meeting date changed as it is a long weekend. We discuss this at lunch and the councillors agree that the meeting has been set and it is each councillor's responsibility to make the meeting time work as that was the direction given back in February. I am instructed to keep the meeting time.ìBefore lunch I forward to the reeve, deputy reeve (Bruce Beattie) and Tony the two telephone surveys we received and ask for confirmation by May 3 so that I can proceed. Bruce indicated to me verbally the firm he prefers. To date the reeve has not responded to me at all, even though I went up to him in person after lunch stating that I sent this e-mail and that I need him to respond to me.îOn May 2, Munro contacted Hawryluk's administrative assistant ì(not me) asking to have the MDP meeting changed as he has a doctor's appointment.îOn May 10, the Gazette article appeared and Hawryluk cites a litany of ìinconsistencies with the reeve's statementsî in the article.ìThe reeve should not have been in shock,î Hawryluk wrote, ìas he was made aware the survey was going out at the CPA conference and he did not try to stop it or question me about it.îThe announcement of Hawryluk's June 30 departure was followed by the resignations of the planning intern and the administrative assistant.
