RM elections

[oneoff]

Can everyone not acknowledge that some pretty serious examples of how the "Municicpal Act" and "Local Government Elections Act" have been violated have been made by various people in this forum?

Does it not seem suspicious that the elected officials have made no rebuttal to explain their side of the story; nor to deny the validity of what has been stated? And neither have their supporters or apologists. Neither am I am not prone to lying or exaggerating.

And does it matter if one person or a thousand exposes this corruption? Is this not more about attempting silencing the exposure of your own dirty dark secrets?
How could anyone possibly excuse sending private security into a polling station; or then allowing their public money to be used by a council to pay those councillors for their supposed presence as the equivalent of a legitimate police force?
How could any council get away with not applying the Municipal Act, the bylaws and the resolutions in an even handed manner to each and every ratepayer? Or deliberately making decisions, in secret, behind closed doors and conspiring to make it difficult for the public to openly discuss matters at ratepayers meetings.
And to think that anyone would support what has indeed happened means that the diarrhea you speak of; is completely filling human brain cavities.

And how can the rest of the ratepayers be so silent on such matters?

[oneoff]

And apparently many would advise to deliberately attempt to jump in that cesspool.

If there was any indication of some widespread support to provide a chance of survival; then that would indeed be a reasonable admirable public service.

[oneoff]

OK.... So that analysis is too deep for many. Maybe this is simple enough for those people.

A council passes a motion "All electronic devices of any kind are banned from council/committee meetings"

There is an objection brought before the next council meeting and the motion is recinded. But absolutely every argument supports the concluding council member's statement "that just because something is legal; doesn't mean that you should be allowed to do it"
And silly me; here I always thought that those things that were legal were what was permitted; and the corollary was that you don't attempt all the illegal things.

So just where does one have any common ground with such representatives?

[checking]

OY, but there are many more mathematically challenged farmers on this site than I realized. Either that, or they enjoy an ass kicking. Math doesn't lie, yet you offer the most silly notion of getting your name on a ballot.

The smaller the pool of voters, the easier the tally. It's a no brainer when it's a "family compact". Look that up if your history has gone the way of your math.

[oneoff]

The security cameras are in place.

I strongly suspect that there are individual files (on selected individuals); and that every piece of documentation has been collected. Please don't suggest going through the Freedom of Information process; although that would be the smart thing to do.
Is that at all bothersome to those of you who can see how sinister that can become?.

[wedino]

Oneoff, you mentioned in another thread you would post remuneration of council. What do you see your way? Looks like it is not included in the short synopsis they send with tax notice.

[oneoff]

Its called Schedule 10 and is usually on the condensed version of the audit statement that is typically included with the tax notices. It's possible that your audit hasn't been completed yet (and so no auditors report yet, but if you didn't get the previous years audit; then maybe a question needs to be asked); but there is no reason you can't contact the administrator for his/her figures. Thats what disclosure of your business is all about.

Moose Creek #33 cost us almost $82,000 for remuneration and Reimbursed costs (Three are $14,296 to 14,847 men).

BUT don't forget that the Boards they sit on and the provincial highways they build, their dental plan, teeth plan eyewear plan, disability plans, convention costs; meal tickets and on and on. These costs are most likely buried in other lines of the financial statements.

In fact you can count on it.

It is an accepted fact that the wages you pay an employee are about half the real total costs to employers once you pay for all the incidentals that you are responsible for.

The second RM that I am directly affected by (Enniskillen #3) has a municipal mill rate of 15 compared to 11 for the other one. For everyone's benefit; that means that an identically assessed quarter on one side of the township road costs an extra $120 in municipal taxes. I just checked with another adjoining RM and their mill rate is unchanged at 12.5. A further phone call revealed that Enniskillen increased from 12.5 to 15 mills. That newsto almost everyone; but there have been questions from tax paying early birds who noticed discrepencies in amounts due to different RM's in which they owned land. Good for those people to be awake. Too many sleep their whole lives.
Doesn't matter if you attended absolutely every open council meeting, or read the reports authorized by council to be published as newspaper council meeting reports; the increase probably wasn't mentioned to the public before the tax notices went out a couple of weeks ago.

Now beware, some RM's also use mill rate factors. This is typically used to stick it to particular classes of assessment. Thats how Moose Creek gets 88% OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS FROM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ASESSMENT.
So I guess compared to oil companies; farmers have no significant need to complain on the tax collector side of council's decisions. However there is some indication that oil companies do recognize that neglecting their right to be involved in municipal politics; does cost them big bucks. There will be a turning point where torturing the golden geese; results in unpleasnt ramnifications.

Another phone call to Coalfield #4 brings totals from 17,200 to 30,600 each (25,00 ,20,200, 17,200 ,21,200, 0,600, and 24,000). I'm pretty sure Partial term councillors were the 1,300 and 6,200 recipients.

Now there are also "tax tools" that some RM's employ. That allows everyone in the same tax class to be taxed at a different effective mill rate than any other classes. In fact council could decide to effectively lower "agricultural land" for example to zero taxes due. And I am told that at least one RM in Sask actually has made that decision.
Maybe more diarrhea to some; but maybe it's more informative than Blah!! Blah!! Blah!

Please tell the rest of us what goes on in your RM. It would be quite beneficial to everyone including the self interests that many are centered upon.

[ASRG]

It seems to me your councillors aren't getting very much? In Red Deer County (central Alberta) a councillor gets about 60K plus all the extras, including per diems for every committee they sit on, a full benifit package, 50 cents/km, meal expense, etc.!
It would take a fairly lazy councillor to take home less than 80K/year. Throw in some oil money into the old "re-election" account and you're looking at a pretty decent second job!

[checking]

"It seems to me your councillors aren't getting very much?"

Are you asking a question, or are stating an opinion?

If its your opinion then a county (a Mercedes) verses a municipality (a tricycle). Get with the math program. Please compare apples to apples before making a statement like "aren't getting very much". Saskatchewan municipal councillors are grossly overpaid for the work they do that any hired foreman is charged to handle. In other words "get to hell out of the way, and tend to your farm business", or "spend your billable time actually preparing for a monthly council meeting", so at least to make a thought out, informed dumb ass decision!

Our municipalities, now, are like what yours were like 50 to 60 years ago before you rightly realized your rural population was over represented and under funded to accomplish any planning and development for the growth that was on the horizon. You may not agree, but size does matter in the ability to afford to pay competent professionals to run county departments. We are just spinning our three wheels in Saskatchewan.

A Saskatchewan municipality is nine townships. Red Deer county is how many townships?

Scare me with the total Red Deer county assessment, and population, and I'll let you know how many of our wasted 50 to 60 years of tiny government it would take to match one of your years.

[ASRG]

Yea I was asking for clarification. I didn't realize the Saskatchewan RMs were so small.
RD county is about 44 townships, population 18,000 and total assessment around $5.5 Billion.

[oneoff]

It is a pretty lopsided comparison; but is further proof that our representatives have done an excellent job burying themselves in the sand. Thats why no one knows anything about what is going on.
Enniskillen#3 92 million assessment pop 452
Moose Creek #33 132 million assessment pop 372
One off the six divisions is mainly wldlife habitat and a reservoir; but still costs nearly $15,000 plus plus to represent. Of course one third of that is considered not taxable; so its almost like getting paid under the table. And councils are actually not supposed to be hiring themselves. In fact its quite against the law to be an employee of the municipality you are representing. But who cares anyway; we refuse to change nearly anything for going on 105 years.

[oneoff]

Most RM's are 9 townships; but some are short a couple townships or so. And just for interests sake there are many many downright poorer RM's than the ones mentioned. And it's even possible to get elected councillor with a margin of 3 votes wins over two votes; so it can be seen that the system has becomes quite a joke in some instances.