Quality of Life/ Community planning "Survey"

[oneoff]

22 responses from RM
14 female 8 male
most responses had some secondary education
most have here longer than 5 yrs.
most had themselves volunteered
interest in funding a hall
more oil activity, no way to recycle, individual comments on air quality, road conditions, public plan for roads, damage to vehicles, more road graing, improved road to park, etc

Most considered negatively impacted by increased truck traffic
signage in RMm... considered good idea by most
"Summer roads"... didn't understand question
Mowing lanes at no charge ... not RM responsibilit except three who waned it
Most not aware of RM requirements for development permits for bins etc. and most thought it was an infringement
Most answered survey on line.
Suggestions: roads, recyclyling, pave road to park, make oilfield accountable, road maintenance, fix drainage, some comments taken out because they were "abusive" "bunch of idiots comment", increased road maintenance, easy fix to get information out;

Additional comments made this evening

Websites have to be moderated, stay on topic for facebook, track people, follow demographics, only caught computer lierate, how to engage rest, and get rest of ratepayers to say what they want, faciliting change, "speak up to get money", looking for 25% respose rate next time, zoning to be done under community plan, asked council members to get back to "development officer" by end of July, how do you draw people in, people don't understand about why things are done the way they are, people don't understand and even when explained to them tey don't get it, do everything to try to inform; and then "apologize", people don't like surveys, some kind of plan by July

Now my single comment:
Not a word about holding a public ratepayer's meeting. Why the fear of an actual public meeting where there could be some interaction and dialogue and idea development between the actual people who are supposed to be giving input.
The reasoning for that reluctance has been reported in a previous post. I've had council members outright call me a coward in a recent open council meeting.
Now please think of what characteristics real cowards possess.

[oneoff]

Banning illegal drainage resolution for SARM

Fed and prov gov't to enforce present and future illegal drainage


Object supposed to be to put out for discussion; some may not have understanding; but comment that drainage was a big part of last flood.
There was no coment about projects such as last years "emergency drainage " projects that RM's, province and their departments are fuly involved in.
Talk about hypocricy.

[oneoff]

Ray's Park belongs to SERM and has for a long tie. Dep't of Highways before that.

[oneoff]

A three per cent bonus to the "economic development officer " for all grants that are wriitten up and received. Any other RM's offering such incentives for such items as collectingoverdue taxes or items along the line of this approved bonus plan for contractors oe municipal employees??

Also a $5000 increase in annual pay approved.

[oneoff]

OK... so SARM will be debating a resolution about illegal drainage later this fall.

For the rest of you potential debators; consider these points:

There are councillors who don't realize that all drainage doesn't fall into the illegal category.
Secondly; none of the rest of Canada or the world has as few drainage improvements as Saskatchewan
And finally, there are Sask Water, Sask Watershed Authority, the Water Appeal Board; even Sask Environment who have jurisdiction.

And your SARM colleages are not up to speed on this debate; and certainly do not have the issues straight enough in their own minds to be making any decision impacting others.

[oneoff]

And as for paying a 3% commission for getting grants and subsidies......Its exactly the same as someone giving money and having some middleman skim off a commission.

I wonder how long it will be before the grant sources realize that not all the money reaches the purpose to which the application pertained. It was a 1% commission; and now we are paying 3% in addition to every dollar that comes in.

This is a bad precedence in my books. Is this a legitimate concept for public administration; or just a bad idea that should be stomped out before it gains much of a foothold?

[oneoff]

Missing from the grand plan is any mention of the development plans for our former Northgate property; the input from absolutely any business or industrial enterprise and the oil industry (through questions that pertain to anything except increased traffic); the demise and ultimate takeover of a village; the future of a hamlet that has taken huge resources during this last year of flooding; the extreme problem of road dust absolutely permeating the atmosphere; dereliction of public provision of new road constructuion and reconstruction though municipal taxes, concentrating on "gravel lock" and over generous applications of gravel spreading; inability to stay on top of noxious weed control, the slow process of rotary mowing of municipal ditches at this time of year, let alone being able to accept paid custom work for paved Dep't of Highways mowing, not having any idea that other adjacent RM's are using flail mowers rather than rotary mowers for top cut, not knowing that other RM's are using other chemicals than Tordon 22 (eg Grazon for leafy spurge noxious weed control; not being able to engage ratepayers in hand picking noxious weeds such as scentless chamomile; actually running from any forum where two or more ratepayers could discuss common municipal problems,

The council has no idea how disconnected they are from the public. They are resigned that there are no problems that they can't handle with easily passed bylaws and spending public money with zero input from the public at large.

As the council members reports attest to; in general, everthing is fine. No need for any changes in the way that our lives are being controlled.

[oneoff]

Maybe the insensitive (to say the least) comments made to the University of Sask rresearcher who attended the council meeting needs to be mentioned. It was embarrassing (or worse) to sit in the gallery and hear what was said during the introduction. Ask the council members so you get an accurate version of the actual comments.

Just as insensitive as a recent doctor recruitment report; where a prospective doctors name was referred to as a " a name that you would give to your dog" and then a whole chorus of "actually my dog was named that" and on and on.

No wonder we'll never see a live version of this council's meetings. Just imagine what goes on behind locked doors at the "trough".

But then again the real problems are the few cynical and disengaged/disgruntled ratepayers referred to in community planning documents and comments thereto

[LorriSolomon]

I am the person being referred to as the economic developer in this thread. First of all, I am not an employee of either the Town nor the RM of Enniskillen. Nor am I an economic developer. I am the Community Development Officer, and I am a contractor.My role is defined every year by the people who live here. I was contracted to work on projects that are in common to both the Town and the RM.

Beginning in 2010, I developed a Quality of Life Survey based on the FCM Quality of Life indicators to determine what the people who live here (both in the town itself and the farms) would like to see happen, and then I, along with the joint Council (an adhoc committee that works together to work on issues common to both the Town and RM) identify the projects that could address the issues identified in the survey.I develop a report, and that report is made public via facebook, online at our website, and through the local paper. We develop a strategic plan to address the issues and I coordinate and implement the plan. I submit monthly progress reports on these projects to both Town and RM, and at the end of the year, the projects are evaluated. In my first year, we completed 14 projects, now we are working on a list of some 32 projects.

In March, the RM Council requested I do a Quality of Life survey specific to the RM, because they wanted to a specific picture about the Quality of Life experiences of the people that lived in the RM. We asked several times in several ways for suggestions from the respondents, and we received some good feedback from a small but vocal group.

Regarding the notes about the survey itself--please note: where the writer says that "Most not aware of RM requirement for development permits for bins etc. and most thought it was an infringement". That statement is incorrect. Only two respondents indicated that development permits were an infringement.

There is no fear of any kind of public meeting that I can see. The Town and RM have jointly contracted a certified Community Planner (not me) to work both Councils through the process. The Community Planning process must, in order to be considered valid, include all kinds of opportunities for members of the community, both RM and Town ample opportunities to speak, and actively contribute to the development of the community as we position for growth. These meetings are in the planning process and should begin in the early fall. Times and dates will be made public, in the paper, on the website, and on our facebook page. People from both the RM and Town are welcome and encouraged to attend and be an active part of the process.

About my compensation: I am not, nor have I ever been an employee of the RM or the Town. I pay rent for my own office, supply my own equipment, receive no medical or dental benefits, no employment insurance, nor any other employee related benefits. We base the bonus on amounts funded, but it does not come from the funding that is brought in--it comes from the same place staff salaries are normally paid--their staffing budgets--only I provide an invoice. All funding that comes in, is paid out as it was proposed, directly to the projects for which it is intended. Having a bonus system further clarifies that this is not an employee/employer relationship. I negotiate and contract for an annual amount, plus bonus, for specific duties as outlined on the Quality of Life Surveys. That way, the people that live here are directing my work, and the scope changes every year. The cost of my position is split. The RM pays 1/3 and the Town pays 2/3. I am paid at the lowest end of a typical pay scale, and the bonus serves both as a performance incentive, and ensures that the Councils pay only for results.

In closing I would like to point out that information that is out of context is not appropriate to good communication.

[BTO_farmall]

Lori, What I Read There was ALOT of Nothing!!!!!! Why don't You and Yer Buddies Just tell us What The F#$K Yous Plan on Building There. Quit Beating Around The Bush Already. There is a Big Time Back Door Deal Goin Down, THAT I KNOW. So Tell US, er keep yer Window Dressing to yerself, Cause We's Aint Wanna Hear It!!!!!!!!!!

[grrrr]

oneoff-run for council.

[BTO_farmall]

Ya Jack, Run 4Council!!!!!!

[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???