Council motion ammended ....

[oneoff]

Enniskillen Council just ammended the previous motion "banning all electronic devices of any kind from council committee meetings without prior council approval" It is my understanding that council members now stand on what the motion says was not the intent. You had to be present when the council discussion of the ammendment occurred. However there was a round of agreeing that while nothing illegal; a host of council members felt it was was none of the world's business.
There appeared to be a complete lack of understanding as to why a council's decision may very well impact people much more distant than a 36 square mile extent.
Anyway; my "constitutional" laptop rights have not been interfered with so far in this meeting.

[oneoff]

Some councillors appear to be thinking they have " no issue of increasing taxes" ; during the opportunity of very significant SAMA assessment increases anticipated for 2013. Preliminary increases upcoming SAMA assessment are in the order of 50% for farmland, near 100% for residential, 70% for commercial and a mere 15% for industrial.

[oneoff]

And everyone has a personal invitation to attend any council meeting.

[oneoff]

Information was read to council concerning "Municipal WiFi infrastructure. Not sure if there is much entusiasm from council members. A few weeks from now I'll check to see if even one councillor even asked for a copy of the very interesting and pertinent document. In my opinion; this issue is about the only hope for greater discussion and involvement in ratepayers municipal business. ...... Or do we just continue to allow 7 members to use their personal views to decide what ihe laws will be; and only rarely survey ratepayers though srveys.... to ask how we liked the decisions.

[oneoff]

Here's a new Council proposal to be put into a bylaw ammendent. Proposed 4 separate residential sites per quarter section zoning bylaw ammendment..... 2.5 to max 40 acres site size; specific bylaw standards may be stipulated.
And I haven't forgotten the clear message earlier that it is no one else's business in the world. Maybe the world is bigger than 36 square miles.


To be advertised as the next step

[oneoff]

Next meeting May 18/2012 Supper at 6:00 Meeting at 7:00pm

[cottonpicken]

As much as you hate my guts,did you ever hear about
the story of the moose jaw city council members who
bought up a bunch of land and then decided a big
new sports complex should be put up next to it?

[oneoff]

Forgive my short memory; but there are very few people (if any) that "I hate their guts." I don't even know whom you are. I try to be bigger than that sort of attitude.
Why not stick to verifiable instances of outright wrongs. Thats where the Law Society judges decisions web pages are helpful. And so to are accounts such as you have made about the alleged Moose Jaw insider wrong doing. But anyone needs some accurate leads to do some further investigating on one's own. (eg. newspaper reports, dates; legal descriptions and names or companies.)
The answer isn't for everyone to keep their secrets; and then bemoan how the police fail in doing their work; and the courts are impotent; and individuals can get no justice.
It's pure crap to have a valid, important argument; be vindicated (even though council proudly boasts that 99% of everyone are completely satisfied.)
Does anyone think that council saw their crude attack and wished to correct their gross mistake on their own? Or was it more a case of a very few people standing up for a very important principle.


If it were the former; then the matter should be laid to rest. But I'm afraid it is the latter......and the council message is still clearly that there are many things that are legal; but its "rude"; "arrogant" and on and on to justify the original motion; and its a matter of being very, very, very reluctant to change an outrageous attempt at throttling communication. There was no apology; and never will be.
What part of the original motion "That no electronic devices of any kind be allowed to be used during council/committe meetings without prior council approval" was not clear to council members. And more importantly how many ratepayers will side with council's handling of this very public matter; of the most grave importance to democratic principles.

[oneoff]

If any one notices or cares I will be the first to acknowledge that most Sask RM's are usually 9 times larger than 36 square miles. That is the size that individual farmer now aspire to grow to. A councillor has a fifedom approximately 50% larger. Councils who don't know better; all stick their hands up in unison so as not to interfere with a councillors "final" decision on what he permits within his division.

I can say he; because there are very few she's involved. Does anyone understand why women's lib and suffrage never extended as far as rural municipal politics? Then again; with the common situation as it is; it is a very smart women's move to distance anyone's self from any association with RM politics.
On the other hand; some significant female participation would cure the poor attitude problem.
But remember, all but less than a handful are near 100% satisfied; and that is why there are very few contested elections. That is the argument presented.

What complete rubbish and shallow thinking.
Now use the insider's words "cynical and disengaged" and words like ratepayer apathet and the tendency to concentrate on personal interests (family,me,and myself syndrome); and the power trip that you can see develop in new council members; and you can see why ratepayers get the councils that they deserve. That will only change when we reach true bottom.
First we go through this stage of making decisions behind closed doors (secrecy); hiding from the electorate (no or few public meetings or ratepayers opportunities to contribute ideas or direction); poor disclosure; bad attitude towards the masters (eg. cancelling paid private gravelling because ratepayers are too much trouble) and openly showing disdain for those paying the bills.
Now get ready for intrusions onto your private property; significant tax hikes; and council remuneration in line with competitive management positions. And don't automatically assume that all council members are worth their keep at any pay schedule. Take for instance the adjoining RM who completely failed on the record keeping and reading side; and didn't get one cent of PDAP (disaster assistance) funding stemming from last years flood.
So is everything 100% OK as stated in the Councillor's division reports OR NOT.

[jamesb]

I would encourage you to consider running for the rm council. RM's need people who have an interest in improving things. I believe many councils would benifit by a infusion of new people on a regular basis. Apathy by ratepayers usually results in councils that have a very low turnover. New ideas, new thinking are healthy things for a board or council. Unfortuatly many go on board or council expecting change to happen quickly and lose interest after a fairly short time when things dont move at a pace they would like.

[parsley]

"And everyone has a personal invitation to attend
any council meeting."

That dictum must absolutely NOT not apply to a
ratepayer of the RM.

Not.at.all.

Pars

[parsley]

I read that as my having to recieve a personal
invitation from somebody at RM council, for me to
be allowed attend a council meeting. Pars