St. Ann's Bay Development Association

Meeting of 6 August 2013

Present: Loreto Doyle, James Murphy, Rosie Smith, Angelo Spinazzola, Jitka Zgola

Regrets: Anne-Claude Pépin, Paul Weinberg

1. Agenda
2. The meeting will focus on difficulties with the new web site.
3. Old Business
   • Cape Breton Small Business Development Centre
   • The RDA is being reorganised; so far, it has spun off the Cape Breton Small Business Development Centre. Loreto spoke with Joyce MacDougall, who organizes community information sessions as well the Centre's training programmes. They are doing a roadshow in October to showcase their offerings, and have agreed to hold a session in our community.
   • Green Gym
   • SABDA does not have the funds to support this project, and previously declined it ourselves. SABDA will not be offering financial support at this time.
   • Action: Jamie will respond to St Ann's Bay United Church.
   • Financial Report
   • The account has accrued $0.25 in interest since our last meeting.
4. Web Site Discussion
5. We have been experiencing unacceptable delays in communication with and delivery from our contracted developer. Following is a brief update from Loreto, our board-appointed liaison to the developer.
6. "Our board discussed his draft design and determined that it did not reflect our discussions with him about using community photography as the basis of the design. Therefore, on April 24, I asked the developer for a revised design that more closely followed our initial outline. On April 25, he said he'd need a week, and declined my offer to meet to confirm that he understood our concerns. Based on his message, I expected to receive a new design on or about May 2, cutting very close to the start of the tourism season.
7. "I did not receive any kind of redesign until July 2, fully two months after it was promised (our contract specified a time-line of 4 to 6 weeks for a working site, which the developer several times confirmed). In the interim, I had made repeated efforts to contact the developer, clarify our needs, and request a meeting, some replied to with apologies, most not answered at all. Unfortunately, the design offered on July 2 was not responsive to our April 24 request—it merely added a photo scroller to business listings pages, which we had agreed formed the only part of the initial design that was acceptable as presented, as was explained to him on April 24.
8. "I conveyed our disappointment with the new design. After several ignored requests for a meeting, and further attempts to explain, yet again, what we wanted via e-mail, communication from the developer had entirely ceased by July 26. I asked Jamie for his opinion as to how and whether our committee should continue to try to deal with the developer.
9. "After a discussion of the situation, the web site committee (Anne-Claude, Angelo, and myself) and Jamie agreed that the developer should continue to deal with the appointed committee, and I conveyed this decision to the developer on August 2 via e-mail, along with a request for a meeting with the entire committee. There has since been no further communication from the developer."
10. Action: Loreto will send the developer's contact info to Jamie.
11. Action: Jamie will send a formal request to the developer, asking him again to meet with our committee. He will be asked to suggest three potential meeting dates in the next two weeks. We will revisit the situation and the contract once we hear back from the developer.
12. Next Board Meeting
13. The next meeting date will be set once a meeting with the developer has been arranged.
14. Meeting Adjourned: (moved: Loreto; seconded: Angelo)

^ top