Again to clarify;
July 12, 2012 22:37 was the post I referred to as calling me the 'economic development officer'. It is important to clarify somewhat, because the positions vary in scope and people reading this may make assumptions from the title alone.
You made the comment: "it took some hard prodding, but finally there was a response from the side that has been closely following these threads for months"
Please do not misrepresent me. I have not been following the thread at all until it was pointed out to me that I was being misquoted here. Nor do I represent the RM in this context.
As I stated at the meeting the report will be released publicly once it is complete--once the RM Councillors have had time to consider the content, make responses and come up with a plan. At no time did anyone present request a copy in its current form, and I left five copies of it on the table for anyone who would like to see it.
Also please note: I do not have 'free reign' to bring in grant money from any source I choose. I seek grant money based on the projects that were approved by my joint council with reps from both the Town and RM. Those projects are based on the Quality of Life Survey. Both councils are kept up to date on granting opportunities as they arise and both councils have the right to veto any grant application. Personal bequests are exempt, and the grants that we apply for come from our provincial and federal taxes--not from charities. They are highly competitive, have sustainability requirements and work to allow many of the non-profits in our community the opportunity to meet their goals and objectives.
Re: the validity of the survey
The purpose of the survey was to give people an opportunity to tell the RM what they would like to see happen in the RM. 22 people responded. As I said at the meeting, it wasn't a large enough number, but their concerns are still valid and do need to be addressed. By your own logic, there is no way to determine if anyone posting anywhere anonymously is of age, lives in the area or isn't the same person posting under different names. The concerns expressed are still valid. We collected some good information about what people think is important, and the RM intends to act on that information. It may not be the ideal, but it is a good start I think.
All but two responses were submitted online, and even though we ran an ad outlining the many ways a person could respond and left hard copies at the RM and Town Office, that is how the responses came in. We will be looking into ways to improve response, as we discussed at the meeting.
It is not true that the responses came from more than one continent. The survey program itself does not allow more than one response per computer, so although I suppose if someone was determined to submit more than one survey it could be done, it seems unlikely. I also used very few multiple choice questions, opting instead for open ended questions that allow people to tell us about concerns in their own way. It is unlikely I think, that a single source would write 22 very different responses when so many questions require long form answers.
You obviously have significant issues with the RM, but in the future, I would thank you to refrain from misrepresenting my role.
July 12, 2012 22:37 was the post I referred to as calling me the 'economic development officer'. It is important to clarify somewhat, because the positions vary in scope and people reading this may make assumptions from the title alone.
You made the comment: "it took some hard prodding, but finally there was a response from the side that has been closely following these threads for months"
Please do not misrepresent me. I have not been following the thread at all until it was pointed out to me that I was being misquoted here. Nor do I represent the RM in this context.
As I stated at the meeting the report will be released publicly once it is complete--once the RM Councillors have had time to consider the content, make responses and come up with a plan. At no time did anyone present request a copy in its current form, and I left five copies of it on the table for anyone who would like to see it.
Also please note: I do not have 'free reign' to bring in grant money from any source I choose. I seek grant money based on the projects that were approved by my joint council with reps from both the Town and RM. Those projects are based on the Quality of Life Survey. Both councils are kept up to date on granting opportunities as they arise and both councils have the right to veto any grant application. Personal bequests are exempt, and the grants that we apply for come from our provincial and federal taxes--not from charities. They are highly competitive, have sustainability requirements and work to allow many of the non-profits in our community the opportunity to meet their goals and objectives.
Re: the validity of the survey
The purpose of the survey was to give people an opportunity to tell the RM what they would like to see happen in the RM. 22 people responded. As I said at the meeting, it wasn't a large enough number, but their concerns are still valid and do need to be addressed. By your own logic, there is no way to determine if anyone posting anywhere anonymously is of age, lives in the area or isn't the same person posting under different names. The concerns expressed are still valid. We collected some good information about what people think is important, and the RM intends to act on that information. It may not be the ideal, but it is a good start I think.
All but two responses were submitted online, and even though we ran an ad outlining the many ways a person could respond and left hard copies at the RM and Town Office, that is how the responses came in. We will be looking into ways to improve response, as we discussed at the meeting.
It is not true that the responses came from more than one continent. The survey program itself does not allow more than one response per computer, so although I suppose if someone was determined to submit more than one survey it could be done, it seems unlikely. I also used very few multiple choice questions, opting instead for open ended questions that allow people to tell us about concerns in their own way. It is unlikely I think, that a single source would write 22 very different responses when so many questions require long form answers.
You obviously have significant issues with the RM, but in the future, I would thank you to refrain from misrepresenting my role.
Comment