RM elections

[LEP]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

[oneoff]

Pretty weak response.

Hope you're not a councillor but you would fit right in as reeve.

[sumdumguy]

Oneoff, run on the platform of open and honest
government. You will be surprised at how many
people feel the same way you do. Go for it, or
forever hold your peace.

[stubblejumper]

I suspect oneoff is known in the RM and couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

[oneoff]

And I would put my reputation up against yours any time.

[gregpet]

Yet you remain anonymous? If you at least ran and lost I can understand your
complaining, but to not run and have all that verbal diarrhea, scheesh.

[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.