Craig Gammie's Commentary

nteresting !!!

From…… CKNX RADIO

MPP Thompson: Liberals Knew About Adverse Health Effects of Turbines

Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:11 pm

The Progressive Conservative Party has obtained documents that show the Liberal Government has been aware of adverse health effect of wind turbines since 2009.

Huron-Bruce MPP Lisa Thompson says the documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information request.
(Click for audio)
Thompson explains a lot of names were omitted and content blacked-out.
The documents show officials were working on an abatement plan to help residents affected by turbine noise, however the report from 2009 was never made public.
Thompson also explains the documents show that one power company encouraged the Ministry of Environment to take a “consistent position” with their company to support the Green Energy.
She says, “The Liberal government has systematically silenced rural voices to advance a misguided green energy agenda.”

The documents also show the Ministry of Environment received many noise regulation complaints.
Families were then told projects were in line with noise and distance regulations, but the documents show some projects were not in compliance.
Thompson says it’s difficult to combat this while legislature is prorogued.
(Click for audio)
Thompson is stepping up for families and says those affected by turbines deserve to be heard.
She promises to continue to fight for a moratorium on wind turbines when legislature returns.

CUVAVA

I found the following comment from TSBP councillor Janice Jackson on her website..  Kudos to Councillor Jackson for having the courage to speak out against the actions of the five councillors who rammed the indemnification by-law through.

Craig

——————————————————-

Having been elected by the people to look out for their best interests as well as their money, this Bylaw is of great concern to me. I feel this bylaw is unnecessary and in my opinion, could possibly be illegal. The town’s insurance policy (which we pay handsomely for) covers Councillors, staff and volunteers (ie members of Committees of Council) in all situations where coverage is appropriate and is allowed. However, the Town’s current insurance policy does not cover consequences of intentional harmful acts, and does not cover acts done outside of one’s duties. If a person is found guilty, our insurance will not cover you. Fair enough!

In contrast, the Town’s new Indemnification By-law covers almost all costs. The exceptions are the payment of any damages, fines or costs awarded by a Court related to Criminal or Conflict of Interest matters. This exception applies only to employees and Councillors, but not “volunteers”. However, the exception does not apply to one’s own legal costs. Subject to these exceptions, the indemnification bylaw pays all costs regardless of the outcome as long as the act is deemed to be done in “good faith” and “in the course of one’s duties”. But who gets to make that decision? Council does! So we could break the law and be guilty as sin and all our own legal costs will be paid out of the peoples’ pocket. In addition, it appears that if someone through a guilty verdict or an unfavorable court finding faces a fine, an order to pay damages or pay the legal costs of the other party (with only a few exceptions as noted above) these costs, no matter how much, will be paid by the people too!

By definition of “Employee”, this bylaw covers all ex employees as long as the action occurred while he or she was an employee.  It’s fairly clear to me that the by-law covers all previous employee’s legal fees to date and we still have ongoing cases. We’re even dealing with a counter suit for hundreds of thousands but through this new bylaw, the people will not only pay legal costs past, present and future, we’ll pay any judgment too! Of course this is as long as the majority of Council deems all actions as being in “good faith” and “in the course of one’s duties” at the time.   Currently, there are several legal proceedings against members of council, employees, and volunteers. The Mayor is facing an “Obstruct Justice” charge as well as a “Conflict of Interest” charge. Councillor Turner is currently fighting a “Conflict of Interest” charge. It seems to me both men could certainly benefit from this bylaw financially, as the by-law allows for payment of their legal fees (subject to a “good faith/ course of duties” decision by council).

As this bylaw has the potential to benefit all volunteers, employees and Councillors, to the detriment of the taxpayers, I felt very strongly that I had a pecuniary interest and therefore could not sit at the table during this discussion. If I did, I could be cited with a “conflict of interest” at anytime in the future. In my opinion, this bylaw financially assists Councillors. I couldn’t in good conscience sit and vote on it. My other issue with this bylaw is it passed all three readings in the very same night. This creates little chance for public input . When the issue arose at the end of the council meeting, I removed myself from the table refusing to take part in the discussion or the vote. Councillor Bowman followed then Councillor Standen joined us too. Councillor Thomas was absent. The bylaw unanimously passed with the remaining councillors.

(written by Councillor Janice Jackson – on http://www.jackson4saublebeach.com/ )

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52205

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52203

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.
——————————————-

Agenda Item 7.1 Carl Noble, Sauble Medical Clinic

There is a covenant on the Sauble Medical Centre Property. The covenant allows only medical services on the property. No commercial activity except medical is permitted.

The property was given by the town to the Medical Clinic Corporation with the understanding that it was given for medical services to be supplied to the people, and with the understanding that the covenant would be honoured.

Many people donated to the medical centre with the understanding that their donations were for medical services to the residents.

Now Carl Noble wants council to remove the covenant.

Carl Noble wants to add commercial operations completely unrelated to medical and health services.

This is wrong. If Carl Noble wants to add commercial activities then his corporation must pay back all of the donations made to them and also pay the town for the medical centre property.

The price for the property, from the perspective of this humble member of the corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, is two million dollars.

The medical centre corporation is bankrupt. The only thing keeping the corporation from complete insolvency is that the directors keep putting more money in, in the vain hope that council will force the residents of the town to bail them out.

It won’t happen. When the medical centre corporation decides to file for bankruptcy, the town can repossess the property and the buy the building for a song.

Agenda Item 8.1 SWSRAHC4-2012 Final Report to Council

In 2010 a 70 million dollar Sauble sewage treatment system was proposed to solve a problem that was never stated, and was never defined, and in fact did not exist. Because of concerns that there was no problem identified to solve, the 70 million dollar “solution” was put on ice while an ad hoc committee determined if there was a problem to solve.

So the committee set out to determine if there was a problem, and more specifically if there was a problem requiring the $70 million dollar solution.

To determine if there was a problem, the committee hired Hutchinson Environmental to do a pollution study. The results are in the agenda package as a report from the committee.

The results are clear.

There is no pollution problem associated with septic systems.

This should kill the $70 million dollar project.

But in spite of this good outcome, there is reason to keep up the scrutiny.

The consultant said in his report:

“Our detection of the tracer caffeine in 8 of the 9 flowing drains in August and 7 of the 12 flowing drains in September show that the beach drains have been in contact with effluent from human sources (i.e. septic systems). The most probable explanation would be a shallow groundwater connection between the drains and areas where there are septic systems.”

The consultant’s statement is preposterous.

Agenda Item 8.6 MLEO30-2012 Dynamic Beach By-Law

Currently the dynamic beach by-law applies to some private property, including the dunes between fifth and sixth at Sauble.

On December 4th a by-law that would have amended the dynamic beach by-law to make it not applicable to private properties was unanimously defeated.

Now some unnamed councillor is trying to get the defeat reversed by reintroducing the amendment through the by-laws officer as a “housekeeping amendment”.

“SUBJECT: DYNAMIC BEACH BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the house keeping of the Dynamic Beach By-Law from MLEO 30-2012 being changes required to exempt private properties be placed on the upcoming Council agenda for consideration.”

This is unacceptable.

First the amendment is not “housekeeping” at all. It is a substantial change that would allow cars to drive on part of the beach at Sauble, at great risk to the environment and to children and adults alike.

Second, the amendment, housekeeping or otherwise, must come before council properly, not through the back door.

If some councillor has a by-law to propose, that councillor must put the change before council himself or herself. It is improper for a councillor to ask or instruct the by-laws officer to bring the amendment before council.

It is also extremely cowardly. The councillor who did this knows very well that bringing his or her motion properly before council would make him or her very unpopular with the people of Sauble Beach and with all the people of the town.

So he or she took the coward’s route and got the by-laws officer to make the proposal (and take the criticism).

“The By-law Department was contacted by a Councilor and requested that the Dynamic Beach By- Law be brought forward in a house keeping matter and to only make the changes necessary for enforcement at Sauble Beach.”

Can anyone guess the identity of the cowardly corrupt councillor?

Agenda Item 8.13 FS63-2012 BCF Funding for Sauble Sewage System

Now that the Sauble sewers project is dead, all of the costs associated with the Sauble Sewers project over the past several years are now payable. It is not clear form report FS-63 how much is owing, but it appears to be somewhere between $700,000 and $1. 2 million.

What is clear is that all taxpayers will pay.

It is also clear that much or all of the costs were completely unnecessary.

Someone must be held to account.

Craig

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
(Walter Scott)

Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who influences or attempts to influence a municipal official, by deceit, to vote in favour of or against a measure, motion or resolution.
(from Criminal code sections 123 (1) and 123 (2))

An indemnification by-law was introduced in the December 4 agenda package. In the December 4 agenda and in the December 4 council meeting there was discussion of the proposed indemnification by-law. The proposed by-law is on the December 18 agenda for first second and third (final) reading.

In the discussion of the draft by-law there has been a lot of “influencing by deceit”.

The draft by-law is not standard as claimed by Ms. Cathrae

In Ms. Cathrae’s December 4th report she indicated:

“Our solicitor has indicated that it is standard in his practice to see that municipalities, local boards, private business, industries and interest organizations have indemnification by-laws for the protection of their employees and volunteers.”

This alone may not be deceit. But in the meeting Ms. Cathrae also indicated that the draft by-law is similar to that of Toronto and Kingston and many others.

The implication is that it is standard practice to have indemnification by-laws like the one presented by Ms. Cathrae.

The “Cathrae draft” is not standard practice at all. It’s nothing like standard practice.

Toronto it is true self insures along with purchased insurance. But Toronto does not have different rules for the self insured part as it does for the purchased part. The truth is that neither Toronto nor Kingston has different rules. Nor anyone else.

The City of Toronto insurance is not even close to the Cathrae draft. Nor is the Kingston policy even close.

Ms. Cathrae says “Our solicitor has indicated …..”. But of course we don’t get to see what the solicitor actually indicated, so we don’t know who initiated the deception. But even if the solicitor made the deception, Ms. Cathrae is still guilty for trying to pass it off as the truth.

The lie was outrageous and intentional deception.

There was another deception in the December 4 council meeting regarding duplication.

When asked by a councillor why we needed the indemnification by-law when we already have errors and emissions insurance Tracey Neifer responded that the purchased policy is for some situations and the bylaw insurance is for others. She declined to elaborate, saying that the details were for “closed”.

This was an outrageous deception.

In fact the by-law is designed to provide coverage where the purchased policy will not.

And Ms. Neifer could have and should have said so.

By not saying so Ms. Neifer deceived council into supporting the indemnification resolution.

Claims adjuster is not arms-length

All communities have insurance to cover employees and council members. Some larger municipalities, like Toronto and Kingston, who can handle fairly large claims, have very high deductibles, making them almost fully self-insured. But regardless of whether they are insured by an insurance company or whether they are effectively self-insured through a very high deductible amount, all claims must go through a third party, that third party being a claims adjuster.

This means that in Toronto and Kinston and everywhere else (except TSBP) the people making the claims (the councillors, employees, volunteers) are at arms-length from the people deciding whether the claims are valid (the adjusters). And that’s the way it has to be.

But the Cathrae by-law is different. The Cathrae proposed by-law has the same people that file the insurance claims, namely councillors and senior staff, deciding whether the claims are valid, and deciding whether the claims should be accepted.

Section 3 of the Cathrae draft says that councillors, employees, and volunteers and even past councillors employees and volunteers will be covered if:

“(a) he or she acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Town;
(b) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was acting in accordance with any applicable policies of the Town; and,
(c) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that his or her conduct was lawful.”

There is nothing really wrong with the three criteria in sections 3 (a), (b), and (c).

They are a bit looser than our purchased insurance policy, which says more clearly that intentional acts are not covered. But it’s workable.

But guess who decides whether the three criteria are met? Guess who decides whether the people asking to be indemnified, and making a claim for money, were “acting honestly and in good faith”, and were “acting in accordance with applicable policies”, and believed their “conduct was lawful”.

Council decides. Or senior staff. Or both.

The very people making the claim for the peoples’ money from the treasury are the ones who decide whether their claim to the peoples’ money is valid and legitimate. The very people who may be breaking the rules are the ones who decide whether they will be insured.

The very people who may be breaking the rules are the ones who decide whether they will bear any consequences arising from their breach of the rules.

The very people asking to be indemnified are the ones making and passing the by-law giving themselves the dual role of potential claimants and claims adjusters.

The fox is minding the chicken coop.

That’s not arms-length. That’s a recipe for corruption and fraud.

That’s complete lack of control.

This is not standard in Municipalities.

This is not done in any insurance situation.

To say that the Cathrae proposal of non-arm’s length claims adjusters is standard when it is not is a gross deception.

The by-law covers those found guilty

In the December 4 meeting Councillor Jackson indicated that council had earlier agreed that the indemnification by-law should say that if some one accused is found guilty then the proposed indemnification by-law should say that they are not covered.

Ms. Cathrae responded by saying that the draft policy reflected that, and she read from a draft policy that she had in front of her.

But Ms. Cathrae was not reading from the draft by-law at all. She was reading from a second document that she had prepared to answer the anticipated question. She pretended she was reading from the draft proposed indemnification by-law, but she wasn’t. The words she read were not even in the draft.

Even though the deception was very obvious, no council member caught it, or at least no council member said anything. All council members had the proposed indemnification by-law right in front of them, and Ms. Cathrae was reading from something completely different, and not one councillor noticed.

But no matter that all of our representatives were asleep.

It was still deception.

Ms. Cathrae a few minutes later confessed that she had “mistakenly” read from a different version of the draft bylaw than the one that was in the agenda and before council and the public. But then she said that the version in front of councillors and in the agenda package was in substance the same as the one she had “in error” read from.

In fact all of the stuff Ms. Cathrae read from her special version about legal costs not being covered if a claimant is found guilty are absent from the agenda version.

Her claim that the two versions were in substance the same was a lie. A gross deception.

The by-law in fact does allow for some payments even if the claimant is found “guilty”.

If the issue is criminal, the bylaw does not cover settlement cost, fines, or court costs (the other party’s legal fees). But the accused’s own legal costs are not excluded from the by-law coverage, and are thus covered. Same with Municipal conflict of interest.

And for anything else, all cost are fully covered even if found “guilty” as long as the adjusters (themselves) are willing to say it was good faith and they didn’t know it was illegal, even if what they say is untrue (discussed above).

Ms. Cathrae deceived council again.

—————————————
So we have a draft by-law that:

1. Has a different rules for the self insured by law coverage than the purchased insurance coverage.

2. Has no arms length control and as such is ripe for fraudulent claims at great and unwarranted benefit to claimants and at great and unwarranted expense to the taxpayers.

3. Improperly pays legal costs under many conditions even if the claimant is found guilty.

Any one of these should be sufficient to send the Cathrae draft straight to the shredding machine.

The three reasons together suggest that the draft should be shredded and those “practicing to deceive” should be held to account for their deeds, including trial for municipal corruption should the courts so decide.

The truth is we don’t need an indemnification by-law for any legitimate or proper purpose. Certain council members and certain staff need it so they are shielded from the consequences of their malicious bad acts.

Payment of legal fees regarding conflict of interest proceedings.

There is an issue that is not a by-law issue but is closely related and should be dealt with along with the draft by-law.

It’s regarding proceedings under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The Act is very clear. The town cannot pay a council or board member’s legal costs unless and until a court finds that the accused did not contravene section 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Rob Ford was accused under the act. The city of Toronto could not and did not pay Rob Ford’s legal fees.

In contrast, the legal fees for all seven named in Municipal Conflict of Interest Act proceedings in TSBP have their legal fees paid fully by the taxpayers. Those named include councilllor Turner and Mayor Close.

The law is very clear. The town is prohibited from paying.

The purchased insurance policy is very clear. The insurance company will not pay unless and until a finding of “non-contravention” (like a finding of innocence) is made.

The town is illegally paying Close’s and Turner’s legal fees, and also several others. With taxpayers’ money. And to make it worse, up until recently council did not even know or authorize the taking of taxpayer’s dollars to pay Close’s and Turner’s legal fees.

Resolution 792 from November 23 sort of made council aware and authorized it. It reads:

“R-792-2012
It was MOVED by P. McKenzie, SECONDED by J. Kirkland and CARRIED …. THAT the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula supports the indemnification and support of members of Council, committees, local boards and employees in the defense of legal claims and actions commenced;
AND FURTHER THAT an indemnification by-law be presented to Council for consideration”

In summary, we have a bad and unnecessary draft indemnification by-law and we have council illegally paying legal fees related to conflict of interest proceedings.

Why are they doing these things that are so wrong and are so unfair and unjust to the taxpayers?

Here’s a theory presented by a fellow resident:

1. A certain group of council members feel that now that they are elected and are in power, they can do anything they bloody well please, including helping themselves to the treasury, and including attacking any resident who dares to criticize.

2. Certain staff and volunteers and former council members, staff, and volunteers who are connected to those particular council members also feel that they can do anything they bloody well please.

3. These people have completely lost sight of their duty to the public, and instead of putting the public first they have put themselves first. For the worst of them, the public is the enemy.

4. These people have no regard for the law, and place their own “rules” above the law.

5. Several residents have complained that the abuses are not right.

6. The bad council members and their accomplices didn’t like that.

7. So the bad council members, and notably John Close, branded the residents who complained about the abuses as “blights on society” and “criminals”.

8. Then the bad council members told former CAO Rhonda Cook that if she sued the residents identified by them as “blight” and “criminals”, for defamation, the town would pay her legal fees and cover any costs assigned to her.

9. And CFO Tracey Neifer went around to committees and told them that if they are sued by a citizen not to worry because the town’s purchased insurance will cover it, completely failing to mention that there is no insurance coverage if a volunteer intentionally harms a resident (for example defamatory slander). She was encouraging committee members to intentionally slander and libel those residents that she and others consider to be “blights” and “criminals”. (I think she includes me in both categories.)

10. But something happened that the bad council members and bad staff did not anticipate.

11. Instead of Rhonda’s lawsuit shutting the residents up (as they anticipated), some of the residents turned and fought back.

12. For example, a counterclaim, still outstanding, was filed against Rhonda for several hundred thousand dollars.

13. I filed commencing proceedings (not lawsuits) against Jim Turner, John Close and several local board members under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

14. I filed applications to the courts to quash two by-laws.

15. I sued a committee member for defamation.

16. There are several more commencing proceedings against the town and or council members or staff or committee members, by me and by others.

17. John Close was charged with obstruction of justice, a criminal offense.

18. And I expect that there are many more in the making that I don’t yet know about.

19. There is a cesspool of corruption lurking just below the surface at town hall.

20. Every day that cesspool of corruption becomes a little more visible to the public.

21. The sole purpose of the Cathrae draft indemnification by-law is so that bad council members and bad staff members can make war on any resident that exposes their bad actions and maybe takes them to court, and to make war using the residents’ own money to oppose those residents, and to make war using the residents’ money in the defense of the bad council members and staff.

22. The purpose f the by-law is to pay Rhonda Cook’s defense of the $500,000 lawsuit against her for defamation. The draft by-law would cover her legal costs and any settlement. It could cost taxpayers $700,000.

23. The purpose is to cover the defense of any council member, staff member or volunteer against a lawsuit for damages for intentional defamation of a resident. That’s covered too by the draft by-law. Cost to the taxpayers? – Unlimited. It could be millions.

24. The purpose is to cover the defense against conflict of interest actions. That’s being paid for by taxpayers too even though it’s illegal and is not covered by purchased insurance. Cost to taxpayers. Unlimited.

Staff are not the town, council is not the town, and John Close is not the town.

We the inhabitants are the town.

As the inhabitants, we deserve and are entitled to by-laws and resolutions that are made for our benefit, not the benefit of council and staff to our detriment.

The indemnification by-law will come up on December 18.

Council needs to defeat it.

Council also needs to make a resolution to stop paying legal fees associated with Municipal conflict of interest proceedings.

We the inhabitants of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula have a web of laws to protect us from the bad actions of corrupt officials.

We are entitled to the protection of those laws.

Council must get the insurance by-law defeated and the conflict of interest legal fees stopped or we will have no choice but to ask the courts for more help.

We need people to attend council meeting and watch for and report deceptions, lies and other bad actions.

I cannot attend meetings. I am banned from town hall. I am banned from all meetings wherever they are held.

To be clear, I was not banned because of some recording device issue. That was a pretext, a complete red herring.

I was banned because “they” believe that every time I attend a council meeting I get more evidence of the massive scale of corruption at town hall.

They banned me to try to stop me from getting and using that evidence.

Their strategy has backfired. Council and committee meetings are still being recorded by others, and are being sent to me almost in real time. So it’s almost as good as being there. And because I am spending a lot less time travelling to attend council and committee meetings, I have a lot more time to do research and to write exposes of their lies, their deceptions, and their nefarious actions.

And I have more time to blow the whistle (ask the courts for assistance).

“I saw her today at the reception,
In her glass was a bleeding man.
She was practiced at the art of deception,
Well I could tell by her bloodstained hands.”
(You can’t always get what you want, Rolling Stones)

Craig

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51943

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51941

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.

——————————————-

Agenda Item 8.3 CLOSE08-2012 Ontario Municipal West Conference

Of the proceedings at the November 16^th Ontario Municipal West Conference, John Close indicated:

“some facts came out load (sic) and strong”.

One of the facts, according to John, is that:

“Municipalities can pass by-laws to assist in the operations of a BIA”.

That’s not really true.  The law is fairly constraining.  And it is constraining so people like John Close don’t rename the Chamber of Commerce as the BIA and then raid the treasury to assist in the operations of the BIA (Chamber).

Residents should watch for something to come down the pike regarding giving more of our tax dollars to the Wiarton Chamber of Commerce (disguised as a BIA).

You’re being watched, John.

Another “fact”, according to John, was that:

“Speakers also talked about the CAVE people (Councillors Against Virtually Everything) and how this hurts your community, council and staff relations.”

This is presented as a fact.  I don’t believe that any of the conference speakers would actually say this.  Unfortunately the presentations are not yet up on the conference website, so I can’t check.  But when they are posted, I will check and report.

It appears to me that opportunist John Close is using a stupid buzzphrase (CAVE people) to take an oblique shot at Councillor Jackson.

John Close can’t refute her arguments, because they are too solid.  So he goes after her by characterizing her, by subtle innuendo, as a bad “Councillor Against Virtually Everything”.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member who takes her oath of office seriously.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member dedicated to the people of TSBP.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member who consistently puts the public interest ahead of her own.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member with the guts to stand up to John Close.

Far from being “against everything”, she is “for everyone” and “for the public good”.

The things that Councillor Jackson is against are John’s nefarious schemes to cheat the people of the town, and his skullduggery, and his dishonesty.

In fact it is John Close, not Councillor Jackson, who is a member of the group “Councillors Against Virtually Everyone” (CAVE).

And as long as we’re on the acronyms, let’s have a group called RANS (Residents Against Nefarious Schemes).  Or how about Residents Advocating Some Honesty (RASH).

(Sorry John Close, but applicants will have to qualify to be accepted, and with your record you would not qualify for either group.)

Agenda Item 8.15 CLK145-2012 Indemnification By-law

CLK145-2012 proposes an insurance by-law that would make the town the insurer if council members, staff or committee appointees accidentally cause harm.

Sort of self insurance.

The only problem is that the town already has purchased insurance (from a real insurance company) that protects council members, staff or committee appointees if they accidentally cause harm.

And the coverage is virtually identical, at least on paper.

Claims under the Municipal Conflict of interest Act are not covered by the proposed by-law policy, just as they are not covered by the insurance company policy.

Claims arising from an act of intentional harm are not covered by the by-law policy, just as they are not covered by the insurance company policy.

It would be crazy for a small community like TSBP to replace their purchased insurance with self-insurance.  Because one big claim could bankrupt the residents.  That’s why we purchase insurance.

But what is being proposed is not to replace the purchased insurance with the by-law self insurance. What is being proposed is to have both.  What is being proposed is duplication.

Why would any municipality want to do that?

Why would council want to do that?

It’s really very simple.

It’s because the by-law insurance is not really the same as the purchased insurance at all.

The by-law insurance is really to cover something completely different than the purchased insurance covers.

The words in the by-law policy indicate that only consequences of accidental harm are covered.

So the by-law says the town shall indemnify against claims arising from an act if:

“(a) he or she acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Town;

(b) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was acting in accordance with any applicable policies of the Town; and,

(c) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that his or her conduct was lawful.”

In other words, if the “act” that caused damage was unintentional, they’re covered.

That’s fair. So far so good.

The problem is that with the by-law policy, it’s the same people wanting to be covered (council members) that decide whether the act is intentional or not. And this is a conflict of interest.

If a group of councillors wanted to remove a vocal resident from the picture, and decided to do that by deliberately using malicious slander and libel to discredit and shame the resident, and then one councillor (or a friend of a councillor) willfully and intentionally slandered the resident, and then that resident successfully sued that councillor for a million dollars, then the insurance company (the purchased insurance) would refuse to cover either the legal costs or the settlement (because the damage was wilfull).

But the fact that the purchased insurance would not pay would not be a problem for the councillor.  Because all the slandering councillor would have to do is to tell his council buddies (with a wink and a nod) that the slander was unintentional, and council would declare by resolution that the slander was unintentional, and council would declare that the settlement costs are to be covered by the by-law insurance, and then all legal and settlement costs would be paid out of the treasury.

And the malicious guilty councillor would walk away without any consequences.

But the resident would be bullied out of the picture.

We already have perfectly adequate purchased insurance that covers accidental harm.  Self insurance is completely unnecessary if we have purchased insurance.

The by-law self-insurance is really just another crooked scheme for council to go after anyone who criticizes.

Like Rhonda Cook’s stupid lawsuit.  Which council also paid for with your money.  (For fourteen months anyway.)

The insurance by-law is proposed solely for a sinister purpose.

The insurance by-law would be a license to steal from the treasury.

The insurance by-law would encourage councillors and appointees to do bad things to any residents who oppose them or who oppose council.

The insurance by-law would encourage slander and libel.  Or even worse.

The by-law must be defeated.

Clerk Cathrae’s report says:

“Our solicitor has indicated that it is standard in his practice to see that municipalities, local boards, private business, industries and interest organizations have indemnification by-laws for the protection of their employees and volunteers.”

This is a lie, a misrepresentation at best.  Because in the context of the draft by-law, the report implies that “municipalities, local boards, private business, industries and interest organizations have indemnification by-laws”, in addition to purchased insurance, “for the protection of their employees and volunteers”.

It’s the implied “in addition to” part that is the lie.

No private business, industry or “interest organization” would ever purchase insurance and then exactly duplicate it with self insurance.

The only municipalities that would duplicate coverage are those with sinister intentions.

The solicitor who prepared the draft by-law has a serious conflict of interest.  If this indemnification by-law goes through he automatically gets more business. Lots more business.

Note this in the draft by-law:

“Town shall have the right to select and retain a lawyer to represent a person referred to in s. 3 of this by-law. The Town shall advise such person of the lawyer representing him or her, and shall advise Council of the disposition of the matter (in camera, if aplicable).”

The insurance by-law will encourage bad acts, which will lead to court proceedings, which will mean lots of lawyers, which will mean lots of legal fees.

The lawyer who wrote the by-law that will encourage the bad acts will get rich because of the by-law and the bad acts that the by-law will encourage.

It stinks.

Why can’t council understand this?

Agenda Item 10.5 By-Law 138-2012 Being a By-Law to Regulate Dynamic Beaches in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula

I have two concerns about this by-law.  First it declares the dynamic beach by-law ineffective between fifth and sixth streets at Sauble.  This will mean that there will be cars on the beach, along with environmental damage, and a hazard to beachgoers, and especially children.  And the change is supported only by a ridiculous concocted report from the same lawyer who developed the self-insurance by-law scheme (Steven O’ Melia of Miller Thomson).

Residents, and especially Sauble residents, should know that their councillor Bowman is wholeheartedly supporting gutting the dynamic beach by-law so as to allow cars on the beach.

Secondly the amended by-law allows dogs on the beach during the summer between 6 pm and 9 am.  This will mean lots of dog poo on the beach.  This will mean children at risk of serious infections from parasites.  The policy and by-laws should protect the children, not put them at grave risk just to satisfy the demands of dog-owners.

The by-law needs to be defeated.

Craig

We have in Canada a system of rule-of-law.  When any citizen believes that someone has contravened the law, or committed a tort, our justice system allows and encourages citizens to ask the judiciary to consider their claim of the other party’s wrongdoing and to make a remedy as the court may deem appropriate.  Any citizen can ask the courts to do this through a plaintiff’s claim or an application if it is a civil matter, or through an “information” or a request to law enforcement officials if it is a criminal or provincial offenses matter.

In accordance with my rights as a citizen, and in accordance with my rights under the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights, I have submitted to the courts that the people of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula have been wronged by several people on several occasions.

I have brought applications before the courts to have Jim Turner removed from council, to have John Close removed from the Police Services Board and to have several members removed from the BIA Board of Management, all for alleged contraventions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

These are not proceedings against the Town.  They are proceedings against individuals.

They are very similar to the recent successful proceeding that removes Rob Ford (Toronto mayor) from office as of December 7 (barring a successful appeal).

Also in accordance with my rights as a citizen, on a different matter, I have submitted to the court that I have been personally wronged, and I have filed a suit for slander. It is against an individual, not the Town.

There was at November 20 one outstanding application to the court between me and the town, but that is not relevant to the current circumstances.

In addition to our right to accuse those we believe have wronged us, we also have the right to be protected from retaliation by those that we have accused.

On November 20, five Council members, namely John Close, Jay Kirkland, Karen Klages, Marilyn Bowman and Paul McKenzie, without any legal authority whatsoever, and without legitimate grounds, held court in closed session, charged me with an unspecified contravention, tried me, and convicted me.  The sentence, a total ban from town hall property, appeared to be in open session, but it was really decided in closed session, out of sight of the public eye.

The ban motion was made by Councillor Bowman.

Councillors Thomas, Turner, and Standen were absent, and Councillor Jackson voted against the ban.

I am not even allowed to use the parking lot, or to use the outside washrooms.

If the ban were a punishment for me bringing proceedings against the Town, it would be vindictive, malicious, repugnant, unjust, and illegal.

But the ban against me is not retaliation for a proceeding against the Town.

The ban against me is clearly a retaliatory punishment for my bringing proceedings against individuals.   This makes the ban even more vindictive, more malicious, more repugnant, more unjust, more improper, and just as illegal.

In spite of council claims to the contrary, the ban was clearly over my legal proceedings with individuals, and was for no other purpose, and was for no proper purpose.

I have requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, documents, including part of the minutes of the November 20 closed session, which I believe will clearly demonstrate the impropriety of council’s actions.

The ban was made not only to prevent me from participating in the public policy process, but also to send a message to all residents:

“If you commence legal proceedings against any of us, or against our friends, or if you dare to criticize us, or if you fail to bow to the tyrant dictators Bowman, Klages, McKenzie, Close, and Kirkland, you will suffer.”

There was a second and closely related resolution (792) decided in closed session on November 20.

In resolution 792 council decided to steal from the treasury to pay not only their legal expenses, but also any court settlement arising from any proceeding against them or their friends.

So if a councillor (or a friend of the tyrant dictators) willfully slanders a resident, and that resident successfully sues that councillor for a million dollars, guess who pays the million dollars and the councillor’s legal fees.  (The taxpayers.)  That would mean a 15 per cent hike in property taxes.

And guess who walks away without any consequences.  (The guilty councillor.)

You can’t buy insurance that covers you against a willful slander.  You can’t buy insurance to cover your legal costs or settlement costs related to a Municipal Conflict of Interest proceeding (at least not until the accused is found not guilty).

Yet six members of council (and Councillor Jackson supported this one) voted themselves access to the treasury to protect themselves from any consequences of their willful contraventions of the law and from any consequences of their willful torts.

Resolution 792 is so vaguely broad that it could even include using the treasury to pay Rhonda Cook’s legal fees and settlement in her defense of an outstanding February counterclaim to her January 2012 libel suit.  Legal fees to date are well in excess of $100,000 and the settlement asked for is $500,000.

Resolution 792 is as repugnant as resolution 793.  Resolution 792 is just another example of a bunch of councillors putting their own interests ahead of the public interest and ahead of the law.  (In fact for some councillors the public interest is not even on the list anymore.  For a few the public interest never was on the list.)

It was made clear almost two years ago that John Close and an easily duped council were using the treasury to come after anyone who criticized them.

In a February 2011 letter to the editor of the Owen Sound Sun Times, I indicated the following about John Close’s press release and interview threats of legal action against a blogger (not me – I didn’t blog at the time):

“Mounting a defense against a libel suit can be financially crippling, even if the defense is successful. By indicating that council is taking legal action against the blogger (“We fully intend to take this to its conclusion.”….. “Those who want to slander, that’s the end of it.”), council, in my view, is sending a signal – “if you criticize us you will suffer financially”.

In trying to silence critics with intimidation, bullying, harassment, and implicit threat of financial ruin, council has stepped way over the line.

Council in its arrogance is trying to deny us our democratic right to participate, and our right of free speech, and our right to criticize what we believe is wrong.”

I knew at the time that council’s actions were very, very wrong. But little did I know just how low council would be willing to go.

The smell of corruption at town hall is so severe it seems hard to believe.

But it’s there; BIG TIME.

The good thing about the ban is that I will not have to bear the smell for a while.

I am confident that the courts will strike down both the ban resolution (793) and the legal fees and settlement costs resolution (792).

The legality of the ban resolution will be heard in court January 31.

The legality of resolution 792 will be heard February 7 or sooner.

Craig

On March 22, 2012 I made a request under Freedom of Information legislation to obtain two January 10, 2011 letters that had been quietly sent by John Close and Rhonda Cook to TSBP committee and board members.

The release of the letters to me, on April 9, 2012, was completely and duly authorized by council, and was completely legal. The letters came with no restrictions or conditions.

The January 10 letters, exactly as I received them, are at:

http://craiggammie.com/Other Documents/2012 01 10 letter cook close to citizens.pdf

In the Police Services Board meeting of September 19th, 2012, I made a presentation alleging that John Close had interfered with police enforcement activities and had breached the Police Services Boards Code of Conduct.

Early in my September 19 presentation I showed and referred to the two January 10, 2011 letters, indicating that the letters falsely accused people of rudeness, slander, and harassment, and that the letters inappropriately threatened legal action, and that the letters were unacceptable bullying.

John Close rudely interrupted my presentation, accusing me of showing the two letters in contravention of some unnamed privacy rule, saying:

“This is a matter of personal, private, confidential information having to do with harassment policy, and has to be stricken from any presentation, because we have no indication from that person that the information should or could be released.”

In fact there was no personal, private, or confidential information in my presentation. There was only properly and legally obtained documents. And the documents had no restriction on use or distribution. And the information had nothing to do with harassment policy.

What John Close said was an outright lie.

John Close also said about the letters:

“It is under our harassment policy.” “..that was a matter of harassment”… “it was a matter of complaint filed under the workplace safety and healthy .. health ..” “it was a staff member who filed the harassment complaint”.

That was another lie.

Later in the Police Board meeting John accused me and another presenter of slander.

Another lie.

In fact there was nothing slanderous in either of our presentations. (Audio records were made).

I can understand why John didn’t want the January 2011 letters to be out in the public.

Because the letters demonstrate vindictive, threatening, devious bullying.

And because the letters could be harmful to John’s defense on a matter which I understand will come before the courts on December 13th.

John used the same “that’s classified – give it here” bullying tactic in the council meeting of October 2nd, falsely and groundlessly accusing Councillor Jackson of illegally having and disclosing documents containing sensitive personal information.

Once again his purpose was to bury issues and documents which could harm him or his supporters. On that one too he failed.

These situations are just two in a long history of bullying and deception by John Close, including (to name just a few):

1. The January 10, 2011 letters.

2. Threatening, deceiving, and bullying council (January 2011 to May 2012) into believing that the Town had to pay Rhonda Cook’s legal fees for her malicious, groundless, baseless, frivolous, vexatious, costly lawsuit against four citizens (including me) for slander.

3. Falsely claiming that bloggers were harassing people at Town hall or using violent or abusive language at Town hall, and that these actions were criminal offenses (May 24, 2011 press release).

4. From July to December 2011, condoning or participating in a false, malicious, libelous claim that I illegally offered professional engineering services.

5. Falsely claiming that Sauble septic systems were contaminating wells with E. Coli. (in an August 22, 2011 letter to Minister Bartollucci and in an OSST interview).

Some mayor.

It’s time for John to go.

Craig Gammie

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51735

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51733

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.
——————————————-

In spring of 2012 the Ontario Ombudsman investigated closed meetings at TSBP, and found 3 contraventions of the closed meeting provisions of the Municipal Act.

The clerk swept the Ombudsmans’s report under the table, claiming that it wasn’t a real investigation, and conveniently forgetting to mention the contraventions to anyone.

Councillor Kirkland was so adamant that “they” had done nothing wrong that he wanted to track down and punish the person that lodged the complaint.

Instead of correcting their unlawful behavior, Clerk Cathrea and Mayor Close, who control the meeting agendas, have contravened the closed meeting rules more and more.

Items which should not be in closed are in closed. The general description of items in the agenda consistently falls short of what is required by law. And Council has been illegally voting in closed.

All of these contraventions are because Ms. Cathrae and Mr. Close don’t want the public to know about their shenanigans. All the items are in closed to hide from the public the fact that money is being illegally taken out of the treasury. All the items are in closed to hide the fact that certain people are taking care of themselves first and the pubic not at all.

And if any councillor doesn’t approve of the contraventions and dares to challenge what is going on in closed sessions, they are threatened and intimidated to keep them from telling the resident all the bad things going on behind closed doors.

The November 20 agenda has seven items in closed. Most or all should be in open.

Agenda Item 4.5 Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose AND Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board (Sauble Beach Land Claim)

This should be in open. The residents need to know. So the residents can know, (because staff will tell us nothing and council members are gagged), I have a new web page dedicated to providing information about the Saugeen Ojibway First Nation Land Claim.

It’s at: http://craiggammie.com/

(and click the SOFN Claims tab).

The material on the website is mostly material that John Strachan and I got from the court files.

There is clearly something missing from the court files, namely the argument by the plaintiff (Saugeen Ojibway First Nation) of why the beach from main street North to seventh street belongs to them.

I will try to get that document.

I think the claim is groundless. And bogus.

Item 4.6 Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose AND Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board (Litigation and Insurance Considerations)

The title of a closed item is by law supposed to give the public an idea of what the item is about. Not even councillors have any idea what this one is about. Another contravention. Why can’t Clerk Cathrae comply with the law? (But then again, what do John and Angie care about the law?)

Agenda Item 7.3 Mike Davis, Cuesta Planning-Reconsideration of Parkland Dedication Fees

The Consultant Davis wants county parkland fees waived for his Sauble Beach client. The consultant wants council to make a resolution in support of his bid to have the county remove parkland fees.

There are two reasons to deny the request (for a supporting resolution). First, it is not within TSBP jurisdiction to lobby the county on behalf of some consultant or even some resident. The consultant needs to fight his own battles at county. TSBP council has better things to do. Second, it’s a bad idea. If parkland fees are waived then income to the county is less and the shortfall has to be made up with extra county taxes for the rest of us. That is not fair and it is not in the public interest.

Agenda Item 8.3 MLEO28-2012 Dynamic Beach By-Law

Currently the dynamic beach by-law applies to the public beach and to several privately held parts of the beach. Staff are recommending that the private properties be excluded from the by-law.

The staff recommendation relies upon two “legal opinions” regarding whether the dynamic beach by-law is enforceable on private property. Both of those opinions say it is not.

The two opinions are worthless. They are worthless because they were requested and paid for by the very people promoting non-enforcement of the dynamic beach by-law on private land, namely Angie Cathrae and John Close, with no control to ensure that the requesters did not influence the “opinions”.

The two opinions cannot possibly be considered objective.

It is clear that Ms. Cathrae influenced at least the O’Melia Opinion, and maybe even drafted it. It is thus a contrived “opinion”. It should carry no weight in the decision.

In addition, I submit that the O’Melia’s opinion letter is a poorly researched piece of junk. I believe that the O’Melia conclusion (that the by-law is unenforceable on private property) was predetermined and then an argument was hastily prepared to fit the predetermined conclusion.

A more complete critique of the O’Melia position is at:

http://craiggammie.com/My Documents/critique of omelai opinion of 2012 10 15 re dynamic beach law.pdf

The Greenfield Barrie opinion is similar. Requested and paid for by people who had already decided on the answer. And without any kind of control to ensure that staff did not influence the outcome. The Greenfield Barrie “opinion” is also worthless.

The only legal opinion that should matter here is the one done by Donnelley law. That opinion was done pro bono, with absolutely no outside influence, and can be considered unbiased and objective.

That Donnelley law opinion says the by-law is legitimate and enforceable on private property.

An alleged contravention of the Dynamic Beach by-law on private property will be heard in Owen Sound provincial court on Thursday November 22. This will give an indication of whether the by-law is enforceable on private property. Council should defeat the by-law, or at least wait until after the court case.

What is the rush?

Agenda Item 9.2 Notice of Motion-Councillor Turner-Equal Access to High Bandwidth Broadband (November 6, 2012)

Jim Turner wants council to support, by resolution, Uxbridge council’s resolution to the Ontario Government to change broadband licensing policies. This is a matter for the Uxbridge area MPP’s. It is outside Uxbridge Council’s scope. And it is certainly outside TSBP council’s scope.

Item 10.2 By-Law 130-2012 A By-Law to Implement a Sewage System Re-Inspection Program

Most residents of TSBP are very conscientious about making sure their septic systems are working properly. But there are a few who just don’t give a damn. These are the few that are willing to risk their neighbours’ health. It is for these few that a septic inspection program is necessary. It is unfortunate, but you can’t tell until you do the inspection, so you have to inspect everyone.

The proper inspection protocol is the March 2011 protocol developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

It doesn’t have to be, and it shouldn’t be, the expensive TSBP program. That program will cost residents $300 for the inspections, and no matter who does the inspections, it will cost residents tens of thousands in completely unnecessary “upgrades”.

And with Genivar doing the inspections the unnecessary upgrades will cost that much more.

Genivar are the people who tried to sell us and are still trying to sell us a 70 million dollar solution to a problem that does not exist. If they come on my property I will arrest them. Using whatever force is appropriate for the circumstances.

Item 10.3 By-Law 131-2012 Being a By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 44-2009 Being a By-Law to Adopt the Manual Governing the Policies and Procedures for the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Grants and Donations)

Grants and donations are governed in law by section 107 of the Municipal act, which is:

“107. (1) Despite any provision of this or any other Act relating to the giving of grants or aid by a municipality, subject to section 106, a municipality may make grants, on such terms as to security and otherwise as the council considers appropriate, to any person, group or body, including a fund, within or outside the boundaries of the municipality for any purpose that council considers to be in the interests of the municipality.”

The interests of the municipality here mean the interests of the Corporation, meaning the interests of the residents as members of the corporate body, meaning the public interest.

Yet the draft grants and donations policy does not mention the public interest, and does not even allude to the public interest.

Section 107 of the act should go in the policy. And “in the public interest” must be included in the decision criteria.

Craig

Over the summer there was a pollution study done at Sauble.  In several commentaries I expressed concern that the study contractor, Neil Hutchinson, would find both E. Coli. and caffeine in some samples and would make the ridiculous, unsupportable claim that positive caffeine test in a sample with positive E. Coli. indicates that the E.Coli. came from a septic system.

It seems my concerns were well-founded.

Neil Hutchinson’s draft report was circulated to members of the Sauble Sewers Ad Hoc Committee on Thursday November 15^th.  The report was discussed by the committee in a meeting on November 16^th.  Members of the public were allowed to be present, but were not permitted to see the draft report.

Here is what I learned from the discussion.

There were 100 private Sauble wells and sand points tested.

Two of the 100 tested positive for E. Coli.  (2% were positive, essentially the same as the 1.8 % in the 1996 survey.)

One sample tested positive for caffeine.  It was not one of the two that tested positive for E. Coli.

Ditches and beach drains were also sampled.  Most or all were positive for E. Coli, but all were below the provincial limit for recreational water use.  Most or all were also positive for caffeine.

In the draft report, author Neil Hutchinson concluded that there is no widespread pollution problem.

(This conclusion and the data put to a lie the Genivar Environmental Study Report (ESR) of December 2010 and must put the Genivar ESR and the proposed 70 million dollar sewers project straight in the garbage bin.)

It appears that in the pollution study report author Neil Hutchinson concluded that because there was caffeine and E. Coli. in the ditch samples, the E. Coli. in the ditches was from septic systems.

Several committee members pointed out that Hutchinson’s conclusion was groundless and invalid.  The committee agreed to have Hutchinson remove this invalid conclusion from the report.

With the report, as amended, showing no problem and certainly no problem warranting the 70 million dollar Genivar “solution”, the pro-sewer members of the committee, namely Jay Kirkland, Robert Ciprick, and chairman Gary Roberts, started damage control.

Chairman Gary Roberts suggested making the sewers decision based not on the pollution study data, but rather on Gary Palmateer’s claims of the problems of septic systems (Gary Palmateer is the buddy of Gary Robert’s who in a three hour presentation to the committee misrepresented the bad effects of septic systems).

Committee member Robert Ciprick went way out of the committee scope, arguing that the sewers decision should be based on economic benefits of sewers rather than on the data from the amended Hutchison report.

Committee member Jay Kirkland appeared to support that there was no problem warranting sewers.  But he knows that the December 2010 Genivar ESR showed E. Coli.  levels in the ditches at some times several orders of magnitude above the provincial standard (of 100 colony forming units per milliliter).

So when Mr. Kirkland said in the meeting “we don’t need sewers as long as the E. Coli. in the ditches is less than the provincial standard”, was he just waiting for the right time to pull up the Genivar data and say “oh my gosh …. look at these E. Coli. levels  … they’re way above the provincial standard … I guess we need sewers”?

I’m keeping an eye on those three.

The final report from Hutchinson should be available for public review the week of December 3^rd.

The committee owes their report to council by the end of this year.

An audio record of the November 16 committee meeting is at:

http://craiggammie.com/audio/2012 11 016  ad hoc re hutch draft report.WMA

Craig

Jim Turner E-Mail Shows He’s Unfit To Represent Constituents

Readers might be interested in a November 11 e-mail exchange between Councillor Jim Turner and a constituent regarding the controversial Genivar septic inspection contract.

The e-mail just below was sent by a constituent to all council members. It is the exact original e-mail except I (Craig) have replaced the constituent’s name with xxxxxxxxx:

———————————–

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: John Close ; Paul McKenzie ; Jim Turner ; Karen Klages ; Marilyn Bowman ; Janice Jackson ; Matthew Standen ; Chris Thomas

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:14 AM

Subject: Genivar

It was my understanding that Genivar was “fired” by the Town of SBP for lack of a better word “incompetence” during the Sauble Sewer Fiasco.  Can you please enlighten me then why on earth you would award them a contract for septic inspection?  This company has cost the taxpayers of this municipality dearly and should not be given another blank cheque.

I would like an answer to the above!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

——————————————————-

Councillor Turner’s reply to the constituent is just below.  It is exactly as sent by Mr. Turner to the “constituent”, except I (Craig) have replaced the constituent’s name with xxxxxxxxx):

——————————————————-

From: Jim Turner <jim.turner@southbrucepeninsula.com>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 1:50:55 PM
Subject: Re: Genivar

xxxxxxxxx

So nice to see you’ve put me back on your list of people to provide you with answers. I would have been unable to comment on a previous question you asked as to why a staff member was in attendance with me at court.  Had I been able to comment I would probably have told you that how she spends her personal time is none of your damned business so thanks for not putting me in a position to appear rude.

I have never before found you to be lacking any words  but please allow me to help!

“for lack of a better word “incompetence” ???”

A better word might have been “for completing a plan they were commissioned by previous council to prepare”

I know that phrase isn’t as catchy as incompetence but then truth seldom is!

“Fiasco?” 

Surely you meant Proposed Project!

“why on earth you would award them a contract for septic inspection?”

Maybe becausePryde Shropp McComb(division of Genivar) submitted the best bid based on a “blind” evaluation of the criteria in our RFP and council was looking after the best interests of the whole town.

Not wanting to lack a better word I chose carefully:Blind: noun –  unable to see (the name of the bidder before choosing)

“should not be given another blank cheque”

You should choose your words more carefully since a contract to do work  for a specific price is not a blank cheque and a statement like that illustrates a lack of knowledge on your part that would lead some to believe that attempting to “enlighten” you would be fruitless!

I hope  this fulfills your request to “enlighten me then.” and please feel free to include me in your next round of questions as I am more than willing to help you come to an understanding of the process and procedures at council.

Please make sure your questions have nothing to do with my court case as I am still diligently following the advice of the excellent lawyer you and the rest of the taxpayers have provided to defend me and offering only – for want of a better word – No Comment.

———————————————–

That “No Comment” was the end of the Turner e-mail.  From here on is my commentary (Craig), and is not part of the constituent and Turner e-mails.

Democracy is participation, by the people governed, in the policy process.  The only reason why we don’t put the whole assembly of the people in an arena to make TSBP policy is because it would be too unwieldy.  So we elect “representatives” to go to the assembly on our behalf, and to “represent” us.

We didn’t elect “representatives” to judge us, to harass us, to hurl snide, sarcastic, vitriolic remarks at us, to denigrate us, to libel us, to slander us, or to do anything else except “represent” us in accordance with their oath of office (“I will truly, faithfully and impartially exercise this office to the best of my knowledge and ability”).

So could someone please tell me (Craig) how Councillor Turner got elected?

And note Councillor Turner’s brag that he got staff to pay his legal bills – with our money!  (Maybe it’s also a subtle Jim Turner threat, namely:“if you come after me I’ll get my Chief Financial Officer to hire expensive lawyers to fight you – and we’ll do it with your money” ?)

Craig