Quality of Life/ Community planning "Survey"

[oneoff]

It took some hard prodding; but finally there was a response from the side that has been closely following these threads for months. And all that can be challenged is an honest error reporting one detail that I thought I heard.

Had council or the writer provided a copy of the report given in open council session; that mistake would not have been made. But that sort of cooperation has never been forthcoming.. Anyone may challenge an error; and I will lose zero sleep over minor details that some may wish to become the focus of what should not become the central issue.
The fact is that agendas should be freely circulated; and reports read in open session should be provided to anyone interested. Secrecy, locked doors and closed strategy sessions turn me off completely. I've witnessed close a full year of being deliberately shut out on the other side of where the real council meeting is being held. And just for the record; what justification was there for those closed supper meetings or "closed" committee meetings or whatever they were billed under. There was never mention of one council report about what business was conducted within those meeting; or even that they were held..
Why is the public repeatedly and specifically "encouraged " to become involved; and then treated like mushrooms.....

As for the 3% commission; I feel it inappropriate that anyone should be given free reign to bring in grant money from any source they choose; and be paid a commission from tax dollars.

And as for anyone running for council; that hopefully will be determined by enough widespread popular support for conducting municipal business in a much different atmosphere (prior to close of nomination day this fall). I too hope that worthy female and male candidates can be convinced to consider that public service.

For any one person to think they could contribute in present circumstances is absurd.

Finally the survey referred to has zero validity. Close to twice as many women, as men, responded with their comments and concerns. There is not one women on council; and I have previously listed some of the reasons why they may not feel comfortable as council members. That should and must change.
In fact; there is no way to confirm that even one of the respondent is over the age of ten; or even has ever lived in the RM of Enniskillen. At the risk of being challenged again; I believe it was stated that most responses were submitted on line; and supposedly came from more than one continent. If that is true, how could anyone say for sure that they didn't all even come from one source.
And I'll let council's history of calling ratepayers meetings speak for itself. It will be a council decision to decide what the plan is and accept it. If the public can't develope the "plan" by speaking directly to the decision makers; then the whole process is a waste of someones or -$60,000.

I accept no responsibility for the "development officers" remuneration and terms of engagement. Most will believe that I have never been consulted on those matters.

[oneoff]

"In closing I would like to point out that information that is out of context is not appropriate to good communication."
I would totally agree; and even offer some common sense and practical remedies to preventing some occurances.
"That no electronic devices of any kind be allowed to be used during council/committee meetings without prior council approval" is not one of my suggestions.

Neither would I support the refusal of council to have "open" council/committeee meetings to be taped or broadcast both under council direction and by other persons present.
It isn't fair to not allow a person to double check accuracy; and in the next breath lecture them when they are deliberately prevented that recouse.
And for everyone's benefit; that first unanimously passed council resolution above had better not have been directed (with discretion) only at certain individuals; especially if they were just ratepayers or contractors.

[Shirl]

So what exactly is wrong with a bonus for the COMMUNITY Development Officer???

[Shirl]

This "One Off" person puts forth many negative ideologies under the cloak of annonimity. Ms. Solomon has put her name forth to address the accusations from "One Off" directly. She is not hiding behind a screen name. It is very easy to rant and rave, slander and liabel, swear and terrorize when no one knows who you are.

[oneoff]

Don't forgget Shirl what you just complained about after hiding behind you own pen name.

Any special conflicts of interest; grudges you might have; or maybe its just support for some special person.
Would you mind making at least some contribution in regards the points being argued about the "plan" or the process surrounding it. Its not yet time for any standing ovations.
And I resent unfounded accusations abot libel, slander etc. Thats all a really shallow attempt at diversion. Really old stuff.

[oneoff]

Too long a list of faults... "swear and terrorize" too. Those are pretty strong accusations to make and not provide any evidence.
Looks to me like there are some very uncomfortable people. Is this a case of not being smart to fight city hall?

[oneoff]

This "One Off" person puts forth many negative ideologies under the cloak of annonimity

Answer: Amongst my negative idealogies I would list; conducting public business in open sessions; having council and its members being accountable; approachable and enforcing policies, bylaws and decisions in a blind justice manner, consulting and listening to the wishes of the majority as well as any minority views and while attempting to set aside personal convictions vote in the manner that the arguments appear to be in the best long term interests of the ratepayers.
So far, how offensive is that to readers?

[oneoff]

So what exactly is wrong with a bonus for the COMMUNITY Development Officer

Answer: You asked so here is my answer. It is bad public policy. It is also not generally accepted public policy and there are good reasons why this method of remuneration in the public sector should not be used.
First, it makes the budgeting process much less functional; because it it allows expenditures to be tied to financial transactions that council has no control over.
Secondly, has either municipality contemplated who will pay for the bonus which is based on grants for projects which one municipality may not even be interested in.
and Third why should ratepayers be paying additional premiums (through their tax dollars) to individuals that the municipality has hired to perform specific duties. Pan handling and handouts and grants are repulsive enough in themselves; without making it absolutely clear that a fatter result is obtained with more grease.

I can recall a specific example where the municipality refused to pay a former administrator for collecting past due arrears. This is a very bad precedence and may even result in some substancial taxpayer expenditures where a large grant or possibly personal bequest is involved.

There....that is my reasoning. What can you add to this specific debate?

[grrrr]

oneoff-run for council

[oneoff]

Long ago I personally decided that council service should stem from substancial support and encouragement (or at least interest) that ratepayers showed to candidates they wished to represent themselves. Unfortunately; it is a sad fact that today few even know the issues at hand; and approximately all but 25% have tuned themselves completely out of any active involvement in democratic processes.
In short, my concerns don't appear to be widely shared; or even show on most people's radar screen.
Shouldn't one major component of governance be that people make their differing ideas and reasons known. There used to be ways to involve people in their public business; but maybe the traditional values and methods are just out of date. Its been so long that any method was tried; that we are probably testing new ground. There is zero percent chance of using internet for first hand live coverage of council business; and you can see how relatively little response even pretty shocking agriville posts have brought. It like trying but apparently very few care. All you do is make trouble for yourself; and the defensive measures keep getting more bold. The auditors; the municipal advisors, the press, the minister municipal affairs, the police and the common ratepayer all take the safest personal or business way out.
So the answer is that I'm waiting to be convinced by my peers. Also waiting for municipal boundaries to increase in size and municipal revenues to increase to larger than typical farm businesses. Then there is a better chance that ratepayers will be able to draw from a much larger pool of perhaps more qualified and understanding candidates who will see council service as coming first instead of coming unprepared for the meeting or baling some hay on meeting nights.

[checking]

Grrr.

You're repeating yourself, too soon. That's a sign.

Hasn't the angry councillor better things to do like throwing your weight against upstream ratepayers?

Personally, I want less governmental regulations and interference; the least, the better. Instead, there appears to be a desire for more and more.

I want less of those on the taxpayer payroll which includes community development officers, and especially the seven stuffed shirts that exist every 18 miles apart in every direction in Saskatchewan. This century old system is far too crowded.

I look forward to the day that indeed one farmer does control a township of land, and decides that he can and will look after himself.

[oneoff]

L....Sol: There was no intention to call any person on the RM payroll (officially as a Community Development Officer) as an "economic developer". Please direct me to the statement you claim I made which prompted your opening remark; and which you again repeated for emphasis.