Warning

[toe]

I have decided to come back to agri-ville with a new pen name. I shall attempt to post what should be controversial topics and stir the pot with local items that have broad applicabilty if anyone can see the connections.
How about rural municipal politics in Sask. Anyone else have governing RM councils who run from the thought of ratepayer's meetings and any form of consultation with the electorate or rateyers? Do you have new bylaws for building codes, building inspectors, zoning bylaws, penalty bylaws for infractractions of any of the above etc. etc, all brought into effect with three quick readings at a single council meeting. It may even be too tedious to read it aloud once for the extemely few who have not been labelled "cynical and disengaged". And certainly no one except the council members have any idea that new legisation was in the works. And thus a complete lack of public discussion and input. Do I dare utter the words dictatorship tactics.
And how many instances of "inside information" has been put to productive use by your local councillors. I have heard that in one municipality the councillor sold his land to an oil company so that many horizontal wells may be drilled under the former neighbors. This deprives the neighbors of any benefit of annual surface leases; but they certainly will receive all the side impacts which may contribute to their deciding to abandon their home or also sell out.
And finally here's an example of how the CWB shakeup has an impact in many ways. The Port of Northgate ND is the terminus of the tracks of the Burlington Northern railine...... Can you say Canadian Pacific.....
The now abandoned CN line on the Canadian side (as well as the vacant and worthless nuisance lots in the hamlet)have been apparently noticed by a grain company and maybe oilfield interests. Its also being quietly mentioned that several quarters of nearby farmland has been purchased. Even though I hope I am well hidden behind a DNS server that hides my current geographic location; I leave it up to others to report the actual and perceived connections between the buyers-sellers-"elected" officials involved in these done deals.
The point being for those "cynical and disengaged" persons (as well as all the investors and speculators and entrepreneurs out there) is that this is already a "done deal" and a person such as myself should not have to be the be the one to draw this to your attention first. And my thought is that when the new owners do very well at Northgate Sask.; it will be yet another instance of public assets and public long term interests being decided in private and with the knowledge of a very few people who could at least be perceived to have done very well for themselves.

[sumdumguy]

If thy acted on insider information,they should be
punished. No different than securities.

[toe]

The problem is that there are a fatal flaws in how municipal politics is designed to function.

First you are dealing with relatives-neighbors-"elected officials" that in todays terms are all within an extremely small community. And those actual farmer numbers are rapidly shrinking.
Secondly "disengagement" is real and widespead.
And most importantly there are not the same checks and balances afforded to municipal government, ie; opposition parties whose job it is to hold those governing accountable though every means including elections that give the electorate the opportunity to choose a representative who may more in tune with the electorate. That presupposes there is enough interest to muster up at least two candidates; and that is a real problem when there are multiple calls to even fill a vacant council position.

There are continuing rare examples of using open "Letters to the Editor"; confronting council meetings; petitioning for referendums; putting alternative forth; discussions at coffee shops and even agri-ville; but seldom are many aware of both sides of an argument or debate... let alone the alternatives and facts of an issue. And issues can't always be explained in 30 seconds; let alone hours where needn't even repeat the punchlines.
Newspaper columnists steer clear of reporting the "ugly, ugly, ugly" ventures of council and their subsiduaries. You don't ever find out the details of why the auditor didn't give the "clean bill of health"; why the cost overrun was millions of dollars, what councils direction is for the log term; and what council believes are the wants and needs of those they are supposed to represent and so on. And those same decision makers may very well do the exact opposite of a sensible suggestion to avoid an obvious pitfall on a different future mega project.


And has anyone checked to see how fast an auditer will backpedal; or how reluctant legitimate facts seem to be considered by those responsible. On this count, the failure of the ratepayers comes to mind first; followed by the police and judicicial system; and especially municipal affairs and the provincial government who is responsible for delegating local governance to the third level (urban and rural municipalities).


It is correct that everyone, including especially our local officials should be given credit when it is due; and held to account in all instances. The problem is with electorate apathy; self interesst at the expense of others; fence sitting and cowardice that is rampant. The extent of the group now publically referred to as the "cynical and disengaged" has not been yet delineated. My guess is that it is widespread and growing.

[SASKFARMER3]

After all the Shit we put up this year
with our new Councilor, I wish
saskatchewan would get rid of the RMs and
go with a County system. Seems a few can
screw alot of people.

[carebear300]

Just one little comment for the present moment, many more to come. Getting rid of municipalities and shifting to the county system will not guarantee any better people in positions of authority. And another misconception is that if you pay out more money in renumeration to these people you will attract better people. If that were the case we wouldn't have as many dingbats in our other senior governments. Just my opinion for what it is worth. The ratepayers must take a more proactive role or the present inadequacies will just get worse.

[oneoff]

one hundred percent valid comment carebear. BUT if something is approaching being totally dysfunctional,or is being abused with no reasonable way to remedy the problems, is it not incumbent to make changes that have a reasonable chance of being considered an improvement over the current status quo.

[grrrr]

Toe and Sask 3 and all the others that criticize local councils. You sit back and complain but you don't have the balls to put your name forward. Sure, sometimes the criticism is deserving. Somtimes not. Councillors can't see into the future. Sure, maybe somthing would have been done about that road if council knew 40 inches of rain were coming the following year. Sure, something would have been done about those culverts if council would have known that the new landowner upstream was going to drain all those wetlands. Sure, a spring ratepayers meeting would be held if more than a dozen raterayers would buy tickets. It goes on. If you have a beef about local government the best thing to do is become a councillor and change things for the better.

[toe]

Many are not aware of a new twist that some RM's started using last summer. There were many examples of flooding problems in the southern prairies. Lack of contigency plans, as well as actual emergency situations necessitated some immediate responses. Some municipalities took advantage of the requirement to renew the emergency declaration within a seven day period. Then drainage and dredging and whatever else could be continued with no scutiny from watershed authorities. This went on for months and for all anyone knows may still be in effect in some places.
What is known is that one councillors actually received $44,000 in council remuneration last year. Don't overlook the additional eyeglass and opthamologic plan, the dental plan, the diability plan, the "make work" plan, the additional committees who pay outside of council authorization, the life insurance plan, drug plans, the free meals, the convention expenses,hotel rooms; the leather jackets, junkets to the Champion road grader gear factory near Niagara Falls and believe me I have not run out of examples. I have not even begun on the potential "inside information" benefits; the ineligable remuneration, the ways to create subtle advantages for yourself; or the down right dirty tricks and offensive abuses of power available on a selective basis to really bring someone down to the desired level.
Neither assume that anyone stays at the Super 8; nor that the plans are the same as the Council has enrolled their legitimate workers in.
This activity has no where to going but "snowball"

[toe]

grr et al .... You may have overlooked the examples of elctions that have been won by a margin of one vote ( where there were 5 actual voters and maybe maybe not more eligable voters) Then it comes down to how may kids you had, if you are married, how many relatives etc.





What I'm saying is that in today's world; the council members are subject to influence from a lack of impartiality in a growing numbers of cases.
As for balls; that is no measure of a persons courage, or ability to stand up to any number of people.
You have given the worst possible measure, and offended at least 50% of the population. One of the solutions to the problems that have been identified; is to make sure that women are on councils. Then I assure you that many of the problems and attitudes would disappear. Do you consider that women have a place in municipal politics and governance; or have you obviously disqualified
them because they don't have the balls for it.
What a gaff. I'm talking about real problems and better council decisions; and you appear to be supporting examples of disgusting inappropriate behavior. And yes I do give full credit where it is due. Do you subscribe to supporting change where it should be obviously necessary?. First you must acknowledge factual problems.

[toe]

As for ratepayer's meetings and theire low attendance.
Think outside the box. You don't have to sell tickets. Try for an "appreciation" supper; fire the chairman if that's the problem; get rid of your dictatorship attitudes and make people want to be involved in their business. Find a way to involve the majority. Make them want to be a part of the THEIR long term goals and needs. You are looking at your council and your money, and your ratepayer meeting.
Look at the meeting from a non-council perspective and acknowledge that if ratepayers won't show up; that they are sending a loud message that you are totally ignoring.
This deemonstates a complete lack of real leadership. You may be getting; kIf so then you are getting what you and that council wants; but only amongst that group will you sell that rationalization.

Cheers to grr et al. There are problems that desperately need fixing.

[grrrr]

Toe: I must now assume that you are on council or will be running for council very soon. That way you can change things for the better.

[wd9]

And i thought this was a commodity forum, not a bitch fest for the dysfunctional political structure of SK RM's.

[toe]

I am resigned to the fact that people such as yourself would never agree with even one of my ideas. And because you have much company; that I seriously doubt I could ever get on any council locally. However if there were 1000 or more potential voters I trust I could give a very good account of myself; and might well be an asset if so chosen in an election.

. FYI I have been a councillor in the past and could point to some enduring accomplishments which I would still proudly take credit for.

There would be a chance to sneak in by acclamation; but council would actively search until some one was arm twisted in having an election. That scenario actually did happen. One party deliberately withdrew the nomination papers; the then acclaimed candidate would not sign his "oath of office". The story and twist circuated by council was that "Council had sure lost a good man; because he feared someone would take the matter to court".

Now you know the rest of the story; but probably missed the obvious "Moral and legal" point being made.
And don't forget that a solitary councillor should have no more impact on a council motion than a "cynic and disengaged ratepayer" without majority support from the other council members.
And that brings up an interesting couple of comments made about "the reeve be able to do whatever he chose to do" and another comment about "an automatic no vote on any matter that a certain businessman might approach council with). More comments later.
Cm'on. Lets get this out in the open."

[toe]

Some may involve themselves in solving problems as long as they are secure and unnoticed more than 100 miles from home. Its a lot more dicey keeping your friends and relatives happy and still do the right thing locally.

Must everyone keep their heads in the sand?

[$short]

Sounds like a crappy RM in which you live.
Run for council and encourage others who see things the way you do to run as well.
I have not seen evidence of problems in our RM.