Just mean spirited or Are these actions of actual or Wannabe dictators

[oneoff]

What the Hell

Might as well make it known what the benefits are for part time work for every council committee member. Of course its real tricky to get such an appointment as you have to get past the lineup of former reeves and councillors etc. And remember committee members aren't necessarily council members so its an easy way to get some serious medical coverage for "free"


Resolution No: 2018-0110 Shane Boyes


That we acknowledge the Policy change for 21) Council Benefits in the Policy Manual.

SARM Health & Dental Plan
SARM health and dental coverage is available to members of Council at the same level as employees. All Council members, as long as they are a member on Council or are appointed to a Municipal committee as per Committee and Appointments Policy, are members of the Group Medical and Dental, paid by the R.M. of Enniskillen through the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

Carried

Is this common practice; or it one of the reasons that our Municipal taxes for agricultural land went up a full 68% (across the board) for farm land....last year.....alone.

[burnt]

Wow. Free, they said...

[farmaholic]

I find the fact that health and dental benefits have been extended to your RM's council members interesting. I don't know if that is the case in our RM.

As mentioned before, I consider our taxes cheap. We have some pipelines, pumping stations, a spattering of oil wells and some other commercial enterprises in the RM who's taxes help subsidize the ag land taxes. As for council itself, I really don't have too many complaints, the Reeve is a real good money manager and his opinion and personality carries a lot of weight at the table.

There's even been some turn over of councillors in the last while, actual elections not just acclamations, with voter turnouts as best as can be expected for municipal politics. I'm not sure if a complete change of guard is ever a a good thing, especially if the current bunch is doing a decent job.

In my opinion, ours seems to be functioning quite well.

[oneoff]

Remember that what happens under the SARM umbrella is available to all Sask RM's.


And health, dental (and probably eye ball maintenance and almost certainly drugs) might all be under not only the cheapest plan available; but even better benefits under the chosen most expensive one. Also remember there are some very very expensive drugs that the rest of us don't get subsidized through some one else's payment of the premiums. I haven't checked but the 21) just might be the sum of employees; members at large appointed to committees, staff and councillors. If so that number is approaching 5% of the adult popuation of the RM...and that number is growing rapidly (the 5% but not necessarily the number of taxpayers) for such things as Board Commissioners, Water agency reps, maybe even recreation board directors; maybe development officers etc.etc. Somebody else should start asking these questions because when only a very few people are providing the necessary opposition; it gets to be too large a job; and it is truly a thankless job, the pay is non existant and the recognition is almost always negative. Think about that.

Is the question not simply; what in hell are they looking after; whose pocket does it come from and have those recipients no shame.

Some readers might be asking for more...and trust me there is so much more.

Like:
Billing under the quarterly supervision sheets for "1 day dealing with lawyers confirming my defence to right to privacy act, no km" $180.00 PAID

Can you imagine the lawyer bill for a whole day discussion your personal legal concern with a real lawyer. Where's the lawyer's bill for his actual time spent. Now that seems to me to going the step beyond recovering actual costs and taking the opportunity to make some money on your public position. Was what was learned shared with anyone else...or maybe a better question is what exactlywhat was the reason to be seeking legal advice at the ratepayers cost.


Might as well also mention a very recent drive to install cameras in the RM office (no I'm definitely sure that wasn't for the Council chambers) and I'd like to be proven wrong that the intent was not to survail those on the shit list and maybe council employees and their minute to minute movements.

[oneoff]

And every reader (and the world) now has access though those public records of the adopted minutes. Get busy and prove these quotes to yourselves. It's the only way to learn; when you won't believe others.

Anyone not yet surprised?

[farmaholic]

I did check our RM's website and our minutes are not posted to their website, although they are obviously ooen to public scrutiny at the office. RECORDED minutes are a bit of a joke, the bare minimum and massaged versions of discussions are probably the only thing written.

You want to see nervous accountability, install an audio and visual recording device in council chambers.

I still say the most effective council would be an adversarial not harmonious relationship between members, not a table of "yesmen". Not agreeing 100% off the time on 100% of the issues but not the opposite either.

[RD414]

Thanks for the explanation one-off, in my opinion that is out of line on the councils part and outing them on social media will have best response. Make sure your facts are right. Our council was offered the health and dental plan, same as our employees receive and it was only discussed as a plan that would have been paid out of the councillors pocket, not ratepayers. In the end it was turned down. I could be wrong but think it costs close to 2000$ per employee. Our council is definitely not " harmonious " Farma, makes for some long meetings. 3 councillors are semiretired acreage owners. They love raising taxes.

[oneoff]

Thanks for the explanation one-off, in my opinion that is out of line on the councils part and outing them on social media will have best response. Make sure your facts are right.

Nothing truer than "Make sure your facts are right. That's why it seems to me that repeating the adopted council minutes should be the most solid ground you can be on. Public business discussed at meetings open to public seems to me to be prima facia evidence that any expectation of privacy is lost (We'll see when the Tim Probe matter verdict comes down in June. As I understand it; anyone can "record" any conversation with another person as long as one of the parties consents to the "taping". It seem illogical that means in practice that you give yourself permission to tape your utterances and its automatically OK to include the other person(s) involved.

So what does that do to open public sessions of a council meeting. Our municipality passed a resolution some years ago that all electronic devices are forbidden, but their phones go off on occassion and whilst gallery members may respect that rule....what happens in practice...and what would a judge decide.

Other public meetings have been taped (Hell even transcribed ) by council. And no one was aware that was being done. Seems the precedence has been set long ago. Now it an issue because the effective coverups and lack of accountability are important to some of those involved

Thus the status quo of who cares, better to just have as little to do with the policies imposed with zero consultation beforehand or after. Still gives a person a slight chill to think that some (both public and decision makers) feel they have a expectation of privacy; right to secrecy and to be able to threaten messengers into silence on matter brought before open council.

That so few have the gonads to speak up for what is in the public interest does disturb me. It sure sure like the potential number of known bullies and cowards far exceeds those who are brave enough to express opinions

ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL IS TO DO NOTHING....so the saying goes

Another snippet. If you noticed the highway to Saskatoon more congested during the last SARM convention at Saskatoon....part of that traffic originated from our RM where almost everyone took their own vehicle. Perhaps part of the reason is that we reimburse at the rate of 75 cents per kilometer travelled. Now the CRA has determined the maximum rate allowed (without it being considered a taxable benefit is 55 cents/km) So there's now to be a slip (for tax purposes ) to report that generous excess amount as income. I say an example of cheapness and entitlement and picking ratepayer's pocket

[oneoff]

C'mon

I've stuck my neck out a fair bit more than certainly most people would.

If you agree or disagree at least have the courage to weigh in. Is is revulsion to what has been stated, disagreement, lack of courage, apathy; hiding what should be corrected, spinelessness or just cowardice that's holding back the responses.

I'm waiting

Opinions do matter...in fact they are taken as the licence to move forward; entrench or maintain the status quo.

[farmaholic]

Fret not one-off, there's been over 1400 views to 28 posts in this thread so far, some people are paying attention. That should be a bit of validation.