ll necessary information is now published above. Separate who is obstructionist; defiant and unreasonable at each step.
Initially the RM made it abundantly clear they would not be forthcoming in allowing inspection of adopted minutes during regular business hours. Nor would they willingly allow the staff to disclose documents that any person; upon proper application; or through provincial legislation is entitled to obtain.
Upon advice from municipal advisors; and the responsible Provincial Ministry and with reliance on Provincial legislation requiring the production of such documennts (and even the office staff within the RM Office). This is known as the "process". That isn't immediate; requires expenditures of time and money and generates recommendations. Which can; and we now know; are able be rejected for any arguable reason; as well as all other excuses or even ignoring. The final decision remedy is an application to the Courts; probably followed by appeals and unknown open ended potential costs and even being judged as losing the case. And potentially paying both through RM tax increases and personal legal bills. Readers might as well know that even winning a court case may cause the winning side to not be fully reimbursed for anything exceeding the "tarrif" schedule awarded by the court.
The precedent for this is the $2701.01 shortfall in costs awarded some years ago regarding an RM#33 Court of Queen's Bench Chambers. Council asked for "direction" and the judge obliged in "record time" by ruling the Council must "Hold the "damned" vote as required by a "sufficient petition"". And now that is out in the open (or no doubt on CANLII website too) I disclose that years later (as in about a couple of years ago) the council of the day did cut a cheque to the petitioner's representative for $2701.01. And all the numerous petitioners who had kicked in to pay the final installment were reimbursed. Well there were a couple of estates involved by that time...but it did bring smiles to every last standing patriot; if you get the drift.
That does work when you have a case that defies comprehension...and they have no choice in responding to legal documents to "appear represented by a lawyer" because a group such as petitioners; when served with court documents must be represented by legal counsel. Its a learning experience and of more value to democracy than any other party. But back to what is happening today....
And two sets of Ombudsman recommendations (and evidence of every last recommendation being "flipped off") are posted on the government sites for all to see. Not only that but the Office of the Privacy Commissioners recommendations posted above.
And it's a fact that the council members unanimously agreed or weren't present or miight have abstained; but those who voted were unanimous in their position of "flipping off"" those bodies charged with investigating valid complaints. Just as Council flipped of and even threatened those who asked for information required to be disclosed in the first place.
Observant readers and faithful council members should all agree that documents and adopted minutes required by law to be produced MUST be produced ASAP and should be simply provided willingly without any discussion, deliberate delay or impediment. OR NOT. Or a "big lie" or stonewalling or "attempted coverup"
The evidence shows council wishes not to be at all forthcoming; and resists any disclosure even to the point of not publishing the adopted minutes.
They even scrubbed the internet of all past minutes and documents for information available previously.
And someday "soon" I predict the Provincial Government will have to respond....because you can be assured that the Municipal advisers; and the Ombudsman and Ombudsman Annual Report and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; meet; maybe even as often as every Friday (in some cases) with the Ministries who consider the issues that need addressing though legislative CHANGES.
Initially the RM made it abundantly clear they would not be forthcoming in allowing inspection of adopted minutes during regular business hours. Nor would they willingly allow the staff to disclose documents that any person; upon proper application; or through provincial legislation is entitled to obtain.
Upon advice from municipal advisors; and the responsible Provincial Ministry and with reliance on Provincial legislation requiring the production of such documennts (and even the office staff within the RM Office). This is known as the "process". That isn't immediate; requires expenditures of time and money and generates recommendations. Which can; and we now know; are able be rejected for any arguable reason; as well as all other excuses or even ignoring. The final decision remedy is an application to the Courts; probably followed by appeals and unknown open ended potential costs and even being judged as losing the case. And potentially paying both through RM tax increases and personal legal bills. Readers might as well know that even winning a court case may cause the winning side to not be fully reimbursed for anything exceeding the "tarrif" schedule awarded by the court.
The precedent for this is the $2701.01 shortfall in costs awarded some years ago regarding an RM#33 Court of Queen's Bench Chambers. Council asked for "direction" and the judge obliged in "record time" by ruling the Council must "Hold the "damned" vote as required by a "sufficient petition"". And now that is out in the open (or no doubt on CANLII website too) I disclose that years later (as in about a couple of years ago) the council of the day did cut a cheque to the petitioner's representative for $2701.01. And all the numerous petitioners who had kicked in to pay the final installment were reimbursed. Well there were a couple of estates involved by that time...but it did bring smiles to every last standing patriot; if you get the drift.
That does work when you have a case that defies comprehension...and they have no choice in responding to legal documents to "appear represented by a lawyer" because a group such as petitioners; when served with court documents must be represented by legal counsel. Its a learning experience and of more value to democracy than any other party. But back to what is happening today....
And two sets of Ombudsman recommendations (and evidence of every last recommendation being "flipped off") are posted on the government sites for all to see. Not only that but the Office of the Privacy Commissioners recommendations posted above.
And it's a fact that the council members unanimously agreed or weren't present or miight have abstained; but those who voted were unanimous in their position of "flipping off"" those bodies charged with investigating valid complaints. Just as Council flipped of and even threatened those who asked for information required to be disclosed in the first place.
Observant readers and faithful council members should all agree that documents and adopted minutes required by law to be produced MUST be produced ASAP and should be simply provided willingly without any discussion, deliberate delay or impediment. OR NOT. Or a "big lie" or stonewalling or "attempted coverup"
The evidence shows council wishes not to be at all forthcoming; and resists any disclosure even to the point of not publishing the adopted minutes.
They even scrubbed the internet of all past minutes and documents for information available previously.
And someday "soon" I predict the Provincial Government will have to respond....because you can be assured that the Municipal advisers; and the Ombudsman and Ombudsman Annual Report and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; meet; maybe even as often as every Friday (in some cases) with the Ministries who consider the issues that need addressing though legislative CHANGES.
Comment