Decision accepted

Vardy said he was pleased that council wouldn’t be spending any more time or energy debating the matter.

“I think given my letter and the frustration in general from people in Kings County, I don’t think they wanted to beat that horse anymore,” Vardy said.

However, Vardy’s letter didn’t make it on the Aug. 2 agenda - and he’s not happy. At the beginning of the session, Coun. Peter Muttart asked why the letter wasn’t included. Brothers said the letter didn’t come in soon enough but indicated it would be on a future agenda.

Muttart asked about having a discussion about the municipality losing staff members, another concern raised in Vardy’s letter. Brothers said that could also be added to a future agenda.

Vardy said he hand- delivered his letter to the municipality July 25 at around 11 a.m., eight days in advance of the Aug. 2 meeting. He said council’s agendas “must be printed in stone a month in advance” if that wasn’t enough time.

He wonders if the concerns he raised about the way the administration is managing municipal affairs would have been addressed if the letter had been discussed.

Vardy had a “short and sweet” meeting with Brothers at her request July 28, following council’s meeting with vil- lage representatives regarding the UARB decision. Vardy brought along his councillor, Muttart, and says he was questioned on the legitimacy of some of the statements he made and the concerns he raised.

Vardy has requested a reply from Brothers to “set him straight” on what was factually incorrect or offensive in the letter.