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

[LEP]

There are two kinds of people who will allow their name to stand on a ballot - those who think they're going to make a difference, and those who want a shot at the trough.

And guess who usually ends up having the most influence?

Like I said before I don't see it in my RM or surrounding RM's.

But if you want to offer change, and think change is needed. Then take up the opportunity to shine a light on these matters and offer an alternative. If you lose then the public must be happy with the present council or apathetic.

But to do nothing means you pretty well have to turn your bullhorn off.

[burnt]

There are two kinds of people who will allow their name to stand on a ballot - those who think they're going to make a difference, and those who want a shot at the trough.

And guess who usually ends up having the most influence?

Like I said before I don't see it in my RM or surrounding RM's.

But if you want to offer change, and think change is needed. Then take up the opportunity to shine a light on these matters and offer an alternative. If you lose then the public must be happy with the present council or apathetic.

But to do nothing means you pretty well have to turn your bullhorn off.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

You seem to be one of those who think that the most important part of a councilor is their mouth, when if fact, it is their ears.

And if what I described does not fit your local experience - and it might well be as you say - then you are among the most fortunate in all of democracy.

And furthermore, your RM is definitely swimming against the current of Agenda 21/2030.

Good luck with that.

But it could be as you say. However, I know for a fact that here in Ontario, the Provincial Policy Statement is treated more like law than policy. Hence, it virtually always overrules any local decision-making.

I have seen it first-hand with property owned by my family. And council was pissed because the County ended up overriding their decision. But no one had the balls to stand up and support what they said because the CAO and the planning department work hand in hand.

There is strong evidence that local councils are nothing more than a rubber stamp for providing a thin veneer of legitimacy to the intentions of those higher in the food chain.

I mean, why risk that free dental or medical...

And this type of "governance" is what gives rise to the likes of Donald Trump or Doug Ford.

Or Stalin.

[oneoff]

There are two kinds of people who will allow their name to stand on a ballot - those who think they're going to make a difference, and those who want a shot at the trough.

And guess who usually ends up having the most influence?

Like I said before I don't see it in my RM or surrounding RM's.

But if you want to offer change, and think change is needed. Then take up the opportunity to shine a light on these matters and offer an alternative. If you lose then the public must be happy with the present council or apathetic.

But to do nothing means you pretty well have to turn your bullhorn off.

Trust me; what I've done is not nothing. Give me credit at least for exposing what others want buried forever.

I worry about any bullhorn being silenced. It's already happened to "electronic devices of all kinds within the council chambers". That smacks of censorship of another of the rare "checks and balances" disappears. It probably isn't even legal in recognized settings such as open monthly council meeting sessions. Its a fact that rural areas run on second hand information that turns into running on gossip in the additional itenerations. We are "isolated" compared to urban areas and live in relatively scarcely populated RM's where everyone has heard of everyone else in one way or another. Few people even visit with others; and you certainly don't discuss the transgressions of close friends/elected officials with those close friends.

So I'll fight to keep whatever bullhorn available BECAUSE

-we don't have any real time accountability from most RM council's.. there is little input and open hostility and repercussions are quick to be turned on "troublemakers"
-we're missing the money trail by not having the disbursements and financial information at least in the minutes on a somewhat timely basis.

-there is a desire of most council's to perpetuate the staus quo
- entitlements and conflicts of interest are way to numerous...even if some can't see it or are blessed to not be affected by that which is a common problem elsewhere

And finally; it robs the satisfaction of someone being thoroughly trounced by some "base support" not open to "fake news". One must choose the time when the electorate is educated enough to know that they want change.

In my case that happened some decades ago during the "Sask city/urban health district boundary ". There were public meetings called where not even the wives of council members voted for supporting the resolutions their husbands made to only join a rural health district that basicically no member of the area had ever attended for health treatment.
I trounced an incumbent councillor with an 85%/15% vote margin. It was so bad that the papers never published the vote count. Polling would now make me believe that people are aware enough of the pending (25 year plan and 80 plus addition zoning bylaw changesfor example) for that "overthrow" to be remotely possible at this present time.. No one has ever read those documents fully....and I mean no one....not even myself. Its too painful...too futile...too onerous.. to wasteful of anyone'e time

Still waiting for any indication that that analysis is in error. Maybe its just more enlightenment of what is going on that is required. Also maybe I'm wrong...but not much evidence provided by the responses so far to prove that case.

Please respond; and refute any of the evidence (if you can) that has been published directly from the adopted minutes and facts that are true to the best of anyone's knowledge.


The solution isn't to try to bury these issues. They won't stay dead in any real democracy.

[LEP]

The nothing I refer to, is not taking the opportunity you are presented with, to try and make real change by running in the fall.

In fact, it should be relatively easy to have a public airing of the information that you have discussed here and for the last few years.

If the electorate isn't concerned, then all you can pursue are the items that are illegal, like not completing the conflict of interest disclosures.

Why not run? What are you worried about? Losing? I think you are trying to advance your goal of public awareness are you not? Winning is a bonus because you can work within the system to reform it. You don't have to fight for disclosure of the information on matters of concern, etc.

By having an election you would bring a heightened attention to the issues you are concerned about.

But by not running do you not look disingenuous?

[oneoff]

LEP:

You've always put a way too much emphasis on "running" prematurely when the public doesn't yet have much of a a shred of background information about about the issues with which they wish to remain to be blissfully unaware. That situation is largely due to lack of interest; lack of information; lack of will; and being brainwashed into knowing that all councillors get is shit and abuse for a thankless job. What has our council ever done to show openness? and what more could be done?
What a council must first do is want to be accountable; want the input of all ratepayers which all requires changes to the way things have been traditionally done through the status quo.

There has been some progress that has been made on these fronts...such as council minutes placed on the internet. That's a whole lot better than chasing people away with fees and outright forbidding using a cell phone camera to capture the image of that page of minutes. Tell me (LEP and others) what precipitated that change and then I'll tell you it was a few handfuls of people ( or maybe a thousand complaints to Ombudsperson about various council's in the span of a year or two) across the province (and it was the Ombudsperson who made that recommendation because of people such as myself (and perhaps LEP you could tell us what part of that progress you actively supported for less forward thinking RM's)


Again LEP I am not reporting on the council minutes reflecting the shortfalls of council's such as the one you are associated with. I would ask LEP to provide the link to their council minutes; even its just so others can learn how his council perhaps displays a different attitude than I see in certain other peer jurisdictions. And that point is going to be brought up as a challenge until it is received; or I get banned from this site.

How hard is it to say that repeating adopted minute resolutions and bylaws that even don't look good in your eyes ...are certainly not in your RM Bylaws and policies. And even be forthcoming enough so a person can check out a claim made.

I take the view that electors should be the ones to approach candidates that might better have better financial acumen; or think a little deeper into the wording of council resolutions; or would at every opportunity give chances for input from the public etc.etc rather than throwing out a red herring demand that anyone forfeit their comments if they are unwilling to prematurely go down to a humiliating electoral defeat.

The electorate isn't up to speed yet so on with an attempted education course. The "swamp" doesn't want immediate change and I know enough to not expect change until some critical mass is reached.


Patience. And show me where and prove to readers your SARM peers aren't enabling abuse of a necessary "Medical and Health Benefit Program" for employees (without purposely extending coverage to outside members of Boards and Committees (and even Council members themselves)).

[LEP]

A quick check shows posts regarding issues with your RM showing up on Agriville since mid 2012 at least. Almost 6 years. So I have to ask you how you plan to improve your education of the voting public in your RM. It appears your current method doesn't work.

Since that time there have been three possible elections to throw your hat into the ring. Apparently you have no intention of doing so.

In fact, I see that you prefer to whine, bitch, stir the pot and do nothing about it.

If you haven't converted the masses by now, it ain't happening. I vote we pass the hat a buy you a better satellite dish package for your entertainment.

[oneoff]

And I suspect that LEP may indeed part of the problems I have identified (By actual adopted municipal minute accounts). Indeed his council; when exposed may indeed be representative of poor judgement of the same kind.

[LEP]

So I think somewhere on here you said you have made hundreds of inquiries to the ombudsman, you contacted SARM, the auditor, the rm solicitor, written several letters to the RM council, mentioned things at meetings in the surrounding area and yet no groundswell of support to convince you to run.

Perhaps you are leading a parade of one.

[farmaholic]

In order to keep this thing smoldering I'll add this, our yearly tax notice package of the RM contains a condensed version of the financial statements. Also listed in that package was the yearly compensation for each division Councillor, but not for several years now. No one was getting rich in past. I suppose it's all available for public viewing in the minutes and full blown financial statements.

Our Reeve is a prudent no bullshit money man and has been said to be stingy. I still think the ratepayers of this RM are well served by Council.

Let's be careful not to use the same wide brush to paint all RMs the same color all at once.

[oneoff]

I suspect LEP is concerned that anyone has the raw data of adopted minutes and the ability and right to spread those public decisions in the first place. He believes (and is conveying to the readership) that there is no merit in attempting to change or mention any of "hundreds" of submissions I have supposedly made to the Ombudsman.

I would ask LEP directly ...if he were a member of a council that were about to vote on any of the matters I have brought forward....would he haveargued in the affirmative too...or would he even have cast even a dissenting vote in even one of those motions mentioned.

Also I could prove it's not a parade of one; and there are indeed a 1000 plus other complaints that I know of not one detail. All for the same reason. Not meant to know apparently..according to a whole lot of councils

[LEP]

I think I mentioned that I agree that councils shouldn't get health and dental benefits paid for by the taxpayer. But you keep throwing out that I must be trying to hide things. You comment without answering the real issue.

My point is you have valid concerns but aren't willing to take the logical action to try and correct it.

It isn't my fight to try and keep your council out of the trough. I deal with my own issues in my area. I am not elected by your ratepayers.

However, you have had several opportunities to take action on these concerns by running for councillor, yet choose not to. WHY??

Also if after all these enquiries to outside officials and agencies, why is there no action? Are they in on it as well? It is one big conspiracy??

[LEP]

In order to keep this thing smoldering I'll add this, our yearly tax notice package of the RM contains a condensed version of the financial statements. Also listed in that package was the yearly compensation for each division Councillor, but not for several years now. No one was getting rich in past. I suppose it's all available for public viewing in the minutes and full blown financial statements.

Our Reeve is a prudent no bullshit money man and has been said to be stingy. I still think the ratepayers of this RM are well served by Council.

Let's be careful not to use the same wide brush to paint all RMs the same color all at once.

For some reason ours doesn't disclose per diems and expenses anymore either. I am going to ask the question why. I am guessing it is a standardized format setout by the SARM or the Province.

I agree there are issues with some RM's and there are many that are well run. It is wrong to broad brush everyone.

[oneoff]

I wouldn't have ever disagreed with one word of your last post. Make the small concession that there are legitimate reasons for someone not to be seeking a council or reeveship seat at this time (and indeed in the past)...and we'd be have little to disagree with about in well run municipal administrations.

The electorate is key to moving forward where a council has lost its bearings. When people have tuned out and are content to not even hear of the issues (until their ox is gored); then the first matter at hand is to try to get people to the stage where they can make an informed decision. Those methods were scarce and dwindling in number until the days of "social media" and especially the ability to actually get a copy of the minutes without a cost or making yourself conspicuous to hostile council members. AND the recognition there are real serious conflict of interest problems by the provincial government. There were tens of pages of clarification directed to council members (52 pages I think; but apparently not specific enough to get desired results) on conflicts of interests and a monumental move forward to have the Ombudsman to have authority to handle municipal complaints in addition to their role that had been in place previously.

Just because no one sees no action immediately is a false assumption that no action is taking place. And just because someone may falsely wish that scrutiny is being directed in a hundred directions at the same time may be totally erroneous. Both in number and in accuracy.

I was once told that when out hunting with a bow and your "arrow container" may be full of "ammunition" (arrows)... doesn't mean the best course still isn't to take careful aim with one arrow and do the deed set upon. Such is the case with my single complaint to the Ombuds person; and I have dutifully kept the evidence in that file focused on that specific initial complaint. Months later I did launch a simple gross breach complaint when someone accidentally said some complaints are more complex in nature. We'll all see what happens (if anything)at the same time. I'm not prejudging; and someone who doesn't even know what the complaint was would be a fool to speculate on the outcome. You could however enlighten yourself on previous recommendation made on the Ombudsman's web site. At least one was rejected by the affected council...a whole lot like telling the judge to f***off.

It has been pointed out to me over a period of time (months) that this file is not forgotten...is moving forward but that doesn't frustrate me more than it should. I accept that there is much other work they have on their plate; ...and that there are similar complaints (from others with whom I have never heard of) which that complaints office may wish to consolidate in some way.

I am practicing PATIENCE and advise others to try to do the same before jumping to conclusions...and even advising to throw hats into a ring prematurely. Who knows; maybe that won't be necessary; but it is necessary to get the information out that is in the resolutions and bylaws. After all the minute a council engages the Commissioners...those $25,000 potential penalties (for both individuals and companies in this particular RM) become quite important. NOTE Typically the corporate penalty rate is set about two and a half times as large as for an individual's similar offence. Remember that one and check out if your RM comes down harder on typically larger corporate bodies.

[LEP]

Our general penalty bylaw is $25,000 max corporate and individual.

I wish you well in pursuit of justice.

I will say you are persistent.



Not trying to be sarcastic.

[RD414]

Hey One-off, if your still monitoring this thread, was wondering if you knew who one would contact, and what department would it be, on conflict of interest questions. I want to ask someone other than an administrator or rm elected officials.