The point of the bidding process is to generate at least one good bid each and every year. It is an interactive process. Both Surrey and Burnaby bids submitted twice after suggestions from me. The Burnaby bid would have been rejected if they had not made at least one of the changes that I suggested. I could see from the financial statements that they implied that they were making the required payments to the youth fund but they never said so explicitly. If we follow the type of blind process suggested earlier then there would be no chance to improve the bids as new information came in. Guelph would not have been accepted as late.Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis
Really in a perfect world the bid deadline should be at least a month before the AGM so that the bids can be sent to the voting members ahead of time for study. In that perfect world we would also have the financial statements to send the voting member at the same time. The initial bid proposals and financial statements should come in at least two weeks before that so that they can be vetted by the executive.
I endorsed all three bids as excellent bids. I also explained how I would be voting because of a promise I made when there was only one bid on the table. I did this because of questions about my statements clarifying aspects of the Guelph bid as somehow favouring and endorsing the Guelph bid. I would have been very comfortable with any of the three bids if they had won. They were all good bids. I liked all three bids.
