Amalgamation... Bring It On

[oneoff]

Here's a little math done on the popuation and financial data provided lately for Red Deer County (Alberta) and several Sask RM's. The ratios for various Sask RM seem quite correlated when you take into account their widely varying assessments so I've chosen an RM that has an audited financial statement available; and the remuneratio broken out from reimbursed costs. I do thonk similar math results would be obtained for others if you provide the info.

Red Deer county.... 18,000 population .... 5.5 Billion assessment...a mayor& 6 councillors....and a$56,000 honorarium for councillors (no convention costs mileage etc included)....only meetings outside the county can be apparently in addition to the honorarium.


Compared to RM Moose Creek (Sask)...REEVE & 6 COUNCILLORS....poulation 372.... 132 million total assessment (not taxable assessment)which I beleive is about 100 million....about $8750 remuneration each (no conventions, mileage or other remuneration included). Opportunity for billing for all Boards and meetings attended and this is common practice.

Now for the math.

Alberta couny receives about 6.5 times what Sask RM councillor gets for attending to council business. A
Alberta county represents 49 times more persons than the Sask third level of government equivalent.

And the Alberta county councillor is responsible for about 42 times the financial public business of their "equivalent " in Sask.

Obvioiusly the scale of the county might bring in some additional interest in an elected position with a larger stipend; and the job has a completely different swcale of operation.

And just compare the website of each. I find it impossible to navigate the rmofmoose creek.ca but there is a wealth of information on the easily reached Red Deer county one. And to see the submitted expense sheets of each county councillor is a snap....unlike the billing for Moose Creek councillors on polling days May 2/2011 and the advance poll in late April 2011. (see previous threads for details)
Lets seriously look at bringing on some real "amalgamation". There are alternatives to secrecy, and councillors don't have to despise ther electors.

[oneoff]

Please go to rmof moosecreek.ca


Click on Minutes and take a quick look at the 2012 minutes from the beginning of the year. Now unless two of my computers are creating the same errors; I get official copies of a Petition for Highway 361 resolution reported as being adopted in every council meeting held for the next 5 months.
I ask what is going on?. Does anyone else have the same question?

[oneoff]

Also looks like the only business in the last half of 2011 concerned maternity leaves. Please see all the official copies of the minutes from August to Dec 2011 rmofmoosecreek.ca then click Meeting Minutes on left hand side...then the supposed meeting date. Not much new was reported.

I always knew there was very little new busininess (lol)

[BreadWinner]

Get a life oneoff, find something new to focus on!!!! All RMS have someone like you. The complaints you put forward are non issues as far as I'm concerned. I feel for the councillors in your area, they probably are sick of seeing your number on their call display. Start posting something that pertains to commodities in general not local politics.

[BreadWinner]

Amalgamation worked real well for our school divisions and our health districts, yea right. Costs go up and services are reduced, End of story!

[oneoff]

Fortuneately it is the beginning of the story.

You; and your numerous misguided supporters (whom you may be correct in believing represent an overwhelming majority); should be held responsible for the loss of a social government system that was once seen as the model for the rest of the world.

This will stay in your face for the simple reason that it disturbs you to see it brought up.

And when the majority does get the information and they come to see how changes and improvement can better everyone's lives (in general) such people as yourself will be left without any of your abuse powers whatsoever.

[sumdumguy]

Oneoff, if you are not prepared to put your
money and your effort where your mouth is and
run to make menungful change, how can we take
you as a credible source?

[fjlip]

Almost impossible to get someone to run for council here. Most are one term and get fed up with the distraction from farming and constant complaining. Try it.
You have to like the stress or not let it bother you.

[checking]

Breadwinner.

What are you pining for? A one room school in every division. A school in every village. A fully eqipped and staffed hospital in every settlement. I can't imagine the complaints and fighting over finite resources to want to return to that system.

Can you not see what fjlip has clearly identified?

This is a disfunctional system for the vast majority of 296 tiny government fiefdoms controlled by family units that don't give a rat's ass about "everyone will follow the same rules, and will be treated the same way on the same issue".

[oneoff]

Who says I haven't run for RM councillorship in the past.....and won by by a 85% vs 15% margin for the other candidate?

[oneoff]

Who says I haven't run for RM councillorship in the past.....and won by by a 85% vs 15% margin. And yes there was an opposing candididate.
And I could point out a half dozen accomplishments in that term of office which stand to this day.

[ASRG]

Oneoff: While I understand that there should be some amalgamation of Sask. RMs, holding up RD county as a shining example, probably isn't the best choice?

RD county privatized just about everything, which resulted in poorer service and rising taxes/fees.

RD county moved closer to the provincial government in Edmonton, to insure "grants", to the point Edmonton calls all the shots!

Because Edmonton calls the shots, RD county has become a mini-Petro state where laws and regulations don't apply to the oil industry!

RD county has become a poster child for neo liberal politics and Agenda 21......the local residents have no say! The Mayor (he changed the title from Reeve) and council are owned by the Progressive Conservative party and BIG OIL.

[oneoff]

Good points that are not often aired to those outside your local area. And the deficiencies you see have obviously not been corrected in your "local government".

The real question is if the attention becomes focused on the exposure of the problems and that you will be personally challenged as to your motives and how you fit into their society; or if the othe 17999 people have any desire to do something about any of the problems that exist.
Thanls for the comments. I see how what you say could happen; but the answer for Sask is not to drag the 105 year old system on for another bunch of decades.

[oneoff]

And more open fields and larger fields; and crop seed row spacing and sowing 7 pounds of seed as compared to thre to four pounds; and

a memory that has selectively fooled us into remembering what it wants to from decades past.

[oneoff]

It probably doesnt matter what size your county or RM; you are susceptable to the "grant" trap.

And your National Building codes and building inspectors that even the most rural RM may have enacted; will add an additional estimated $2000 to $5000 cost per residence built.

On your next highway approach; which you will pay for; the slopes will be six to one; and there will be a culvert installed (maybe 90 feet long) to handle the next one in five hundred year flood; whether or not it could possibly run any water even if that flood were to ever occur.
Up until this year there was some provision for common sense. That option has been removed.

Each subdivided parcel approved by a Sask RM must have a seperate access road. And yet we share public roads and are not forced to each have our own pathway to any destination we wish to head out for. And on the other hand, safety concerns would suggest and the Dep't of Highways prohibits one approach close to another approach to access a provincial Highway.

Someone has to be getting a kickback from the few culvert manufacturers. But more likely it is the inability to look at more than one factor, at a time, in more than a simple project.