Craig Gammie's Commentary

A pollution study was conducted at Sauble over the last several months by the firm Hutchinson Environmental.

The results will be presented on Friday November 16 to the TSBP ad hoc Sauble Sewers committee.

The study method is based on Hutchinson’s assumption that you can determine whether any E. Coli. found came from septic systems just by testing for caffeine.

That assumption is false.

Ad hoc committee members, council members and residents should be very wary of Friday’s report from Hutchinson.

If Hutchinson has detected caffeine and E. Coli in any samples, and tries to claim that the presence of caffeine shows that the E. Coli. is from septic systems, the report should be thrown in the garbage, and the Hutchinson people should be escorted out of Town, and Hutchinson should not be paid.

The Hutchinson scientists are not capable of determining E. Coli. sources, and should not be drawing any conclusions about sources of E. Coli.

A full critique of the Hutchinson testing proposal is at:

http://craiggammie.com/My Documents/Critique of April 20 2012 Hutchinson Proposal.doc

Craig

In my Commentary  43 I said that Genivar had a serious conflict as the contractor doing septic inspections, and I urged Sauble residents to send Genivar a no-trespass notice.

In the resulting dialogue on https://craiggammieblog.com/  I also said that the TSBP inspection protocol was ridiculous and unacceptable, and I indicated that no one will be allowed on my property to test to that protocol.

I also indicated that someone other than Genivar would be welcome to inspect my septic system if they used the very sensible protocol of the Ministry of Municipal affairs and Housing.

Several readers called or e-mailed to remind me that there’s more to the Town Of South Bruce Peninsula than Sauble Beach, and that the bad septic inspection protocol with Genivar at the helm is a disaster not just for Sauble folks, but for all residents in the Town who have a private sewage system.

The readers are absolutely correct.  And I needed that reminder. And I deserved the “nudge”.

If any company uses the stupid TSBP septic inspection protocol anywhere in the Town (not just Sauble) they will find “problems” that do not exist, and the Town will order “upgrades” that are not needed, and residents will suffer unnecessarily.

And with Genivar doing the inspections, it will be that much worse.

My apologies for ignoring  the residents of Oliphant, Red bay, Hope Bay, Allenford, Adamsville, Colpoy’s Bay, Hepworth, Hope Bay, Howdenvale, Mar, McIvor, Park Head, Purple Valley, Red Bay, Skipness, Tolmie, those parts of Wiarton on private systems, and all places between and around.

I urge all residents of the Ttown to issue a no trespass order to Genivar in Port Elgin.

There is a template no-trespass letter at:

http://craiggammie.com/My Documents/2012 11 08 generic to genivar no tresspass.doc

Craig

Genivar is the engineering firm that started the big lie that the E. Coli. in the lake at Sauble is from septic systems.

Genivar is the engineering firm that recommended a 70 million dollar Sauble sewer system “solution” and then contrived a phony “problem” for their 70 million dollar “solution” to solve.

Genivar is the engineering firm that was fired because their misrepresentations cost the people of the Town 1million dollars and produced nothing but headaches, grief, shady science, and a worthless report (which is on hold still).

There is broad agreement that we need some form of septic re-inspection program.

But in the search for someone to do the septic re-inspection program, it should have been clear to council that Genivar has a huge conflict of interest and thus should not even be considered.

In the November 6^th council meeting, Concillor Jackson clearly explained the conflict of interest concern.

I see the conflict as follows:

1. Genivar has a history of finding problems that do not exist.

2. Genivar has made it clear through their own actions that they need to be carefully watched.

3. Genivar stands to gain a $70 million dollar contract.

4. The more “problems” that are found in the Sauble septic re-inspection program, the more upgrades will be required, even if the “problems” are contrived.

5. The upgrades will be very expensive.

6. The more expense to upgrade septic systems, the more attractive the $70 million dollar “solution” looks.

7. The more attractive the $70 million solution looks, the better the chance that it will be implemented.

8. The better the chance that it will be implemented, the better the chance that Genivar will get the contract to build the $70 million dollar plant.

Council in this situation should have looked to the two Sauble councillors for direction.  They should have looked to the Sauble Councillors for insight on what the people of Sauble want.  They should have looked to the Sauble councillors for insight into what is in the best interests of the people of Sauble.

So what did council do?

Six of them, over the protests of the Sauble representatives Janice Jackson and Marilyn and their one supporter Karen Klages voted to give the re-inspection contract to Genivar.

Six of them voted for a phoney reinspection program.

Six of them voted to screw the residents of Sauble.

Six of them voted us into a process that could cost each resident $50,000, unnecessarily.

One councillor, Jay Kirkland, said to reporter John Divinski that the septic re-inspection program has absolutely nothing to do with the Sauble sewer project and needs to proceed.

Councillor Kirkland is correct about the “needs to proceed”.

But “the septic re-inspection program has absolutely nothing to do with the Sauble sewer project”??

C’mon Councillor Kirkland.  Do you really think you are fooling anyone?  The septic re-inspection program in the hands of Genivar has everything to do with the Sauble sewers project.

There is no way I am going to get screwed around again.

Today I sent a “no trespass notice” to Genivar and to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

In brief it says “you are forbidden to come onto my property to do a septic inspection, and if you do trespass you will be arrested and charged with trespassing.”

A generic version of the letter is on my website as a word file at:

http://craiggammie.com/My Documents/2012 11 08 generic to genivar no tresspass.doc

I encourage all Sauble residents to send in a similar letter.

Craig

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51506

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51504

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.

 Agenda Item 4.5 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board (Dynamic Beach By-Law)

Can’t say for sure, but I’ll bet this is about the lie in the press release of October 17, that lie being that:

 “Council had given direction to staff earlier in 2012 that the Dynamic Beach By-Law would not be enforced on private property until such time a second legal opinion was received.”

Some litigation against one or more individuals has in fact been initiated.  But there is no “litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality”.  “Litigation or potential litigation” is not a valid reason for this to be in closed.  There is no legitimate reason for this to be in closed session.

The only reason to have it in closed is so John Close and his accomplices can try to dupe council, out of sight of the public eye.

Agenda Item 7.3 John Tennant-Wiarton South OPA 30, Bruce County OPA 157 (10 minutes)

John Tennant is a planner representing the developer of what is commonly known as the proposed Wiarton South Adult Lifestyle Community.

I am in favour of council considering the Wiarton South Adult Lifestyle Community proposal.

But Mr. Tennant seems to want much more from council.

Mr. Tennant wants council to raid the treasury to pay for all the studies he needs to do  and especially the expensive Environmental Assessment (“EA”).

Mr. Tennant wants council to bypass the EA law and allow him to construct Phase 1 without an environmental assessment.

Mr. Tennant wants council to ignore the fact that none of the issues raised December 15, 2011 by the Bruce County planning department have been addressed in the least, those issues having been summarized as the county recommendation:

 “[that the Official Plan Application (“OPA”)] is premature in the absence of supporting information related to sewer, water, and storm water management services and should be refused or deferred.”

Council must decline all of Mr. Tennant’s requests.

Mr. Tennant says:

“As the Town is aware, the EA process and infrastructure development can take years to complete. In the interim, there is nothing imperative to complete the EA prior to the phase one development.”

This is false.  Infrastructure capacity has not been addressed by the proponent.  And the proposal cannot proceed without infrastructure capacity. And an EA is certainly required to address capacity.  So in fact, contrary to Mr. Tennant’s claim, it is imperative to complete the EA prior to the phase one development.

 Mr. Tennant says:

 “The Town’s existing servicing capacity can be utilized to accommodate new development and to help facilitate future infrastructure expansion.”

 This is a total lie.  The proponent Mr. Tennant is ignoring all of the comments made by individuals and by the county.  Individuals showed that there is no capacity for sewage treatment, and that existing infrastructure is not even adequate for phase 1.  In fact there is no existing excess servicing capacity.  And the county advised against the proposed OPA and made very clear that the capacity issue has not been adequately considered.

Mr. Tennant is trying to scam council.

The proponent is a commercial entity, in business to make money.  The EA and the OPA report are costs of doing business, and should be paid for by the proponent.  It is not in the interest of the taxpayers to be paying for the EA or for the consulting firm Cuesta to be preparing the OPA report. The town should not be paying for the EA.  Forcing taxpayers to pay a developer’s costs is theft from the treasury.

Mr. Tennant says:

“It has been a very long time since this process began. There have been several public meetings and processes underway for over four years. Yet, we are not officially any further ahead than we were four years ago.”

I believe Mr. Tennant is trying to say that “the town dragging its feet on the project.”

The quote from Mr. Tennant above is just a guilt trip vested upon council in an attempt to get the council to open the treasury to Mr. Tennant and to look the other way while the EA rules are bypassed.

In fact the town is not slowing the project.  The reason why “we are not officially any

further ahead than we were four years ago” is because the proponent has not done any of the required work and has not prepared a comprehensive and viable plan.  The developer is to blame for the lack of progress.

The proponent expects the people of the town to pay for the project, while all gains accrue to the developer.

The people of the town do not want to pay, and do not want to be forced by council to pay, and will not under any circumstances tolerate council forcing them to pay.

All six of Mr. Tennant’s requests must be denied.

Agenda Item 8.5 EDO20-2012 Significant Event Designation Request-Wiarton Willie and 8.6 EDO21-2012 Significant Event Designation Request-Winterfest

The chambers are requesting that the town designate Wiarton Willie and Winterfest as

“Significant Municipal Events”.

As these events are big, and as they suck a great deal of money from the treasury, there may be a case for calling them “Significant Municipal Events”.

But a declaration that they are “Significant Municipal Events” does not get them any closer, at least in the eyes of the law, to a liquor license.

To get a liquor license council must designate them not as a “Significant Municipal Events”, but rather as “Events Of Municipal Significance”.

It sounds the same.  But it’s not.

So council, if it is going to do any “designating” must use the proper “Event Of Municipal Significance” designation.

And council should not be designating any event as an “Event Of Municipal Significance” unless the event really is an “Event Of Municipal Significance”.

Because to designate an event that is not really an “Event Of Municipal Significance” as an “Event Of Municipal Significance” just so the chambers can get a license would be fraudulent.

Agenda Item 8.7 EDO22-2012 Strategic Plan Implementation Steering Committee Terms of Reference Strat plan

Danielle Mulasmajic is recommending the following structure for the Strategic Plan Implementation Steering Committee

“A minimum of three (3) Members of the Public (Voting Members)

These members will be representative of the ‘community as a whole’ as follows:

– Private sector (commercial/industrial)

– Community organizations

– General public”

This is unacceptable.

“Private sector commercial/ industrial” organizations are not members of the corporation of the Town Of South Bruce Peninsula.  “Private sector commercial/ industrial” organizations cannot represent the true members of the Corporation. “Private sector commercial/ industrial” organizations should have no say and should not be represented on the steering committee.

Community organizations are not members of the corporation and cannot represent the members of the corporation and thus should have no say and should not be represented on the steering committee.

There should be three members of the general public and the three public members should be people who can leave their personal, and private, and organization’s interests at the door.  This means no members from the chambers and no members from the Economic Development Committee (EDC).

Ms. Mulasmajic’s proposal is just another attempt to stack the committee with members of the EDC and the chambers of commerce.  The strategy is clearly another attempt to get the EDC and the chambers of commerce or business community in control of taxpayers’ money and in control of the strategic plan.

The strategic plan is not about the EDC or about the chambers of commerce or about the business community.  It’s a strategic plan for all the people.

And staff do not belong on the committee.

Council should reject Danielle’s proposal.

Agenda Item 8.8 CBO41-2012 Septic Re-inspection Program

Chief Building Official (“CBO”) Carol house wants to contract Genivar to do septic inspections.  Genivar is the engineering firm that recommended a $70 million dollar Sauble sewer system “solution” and then contrived a phoney problem for the “solution” to solve.

Fortunately council was not fooled and fired Genivar and got the project put on hold, to be resumed only if a clear problem warranting the $70 million dollar “solution” is found.

The town should not even be talking to Genivar.

Of course this all happened before Ms. House’s time.

Someone should tell her.

Agenda Item 8.11 CLOSE07-2012 Municipal Grants

Mayor Close wants staff, instead of council, to make the decisions about who gets grants. This is unacceptable.  It’s the peoples’ tax money.  Only the peoples’ representatives can decide who gets grants.

This is just another attempt by John Close to remove from public scrutiny the illegal giving of over $100,000 of the peoples’ money to the chambers of commerce.

The attempt is ridiculously transparent.

Agenda Item 8.12 BOWMAN43-2012 Meetings Re Amabel-Sauble Water Rates

Councillor Bowman’s report documents the many ways the committee has found to reduce costs.    The group should be commended.

But then Councillor Bowman had to spoil the report by recommending that water users’ costs be shifted onto the general taxpayers, and that costs of having service available to empty lots be shifted onto those with occupied lots.

The report says:

Consideration should be given at budget

deliberation to transfer [the costs to truck water from Wiarton to Oliphant] for 2013 to a separate account number, be tracked separately and funded through general tax revenues.

Councillor Bowman attempts to justify this shifting of costs from the users to the taxpayers as:

“the water users should not be penalized for something beyond their control”.

Whaaatt?

It would be nice if water users weren’t penalized.  It would be nice if water users didn’t have to pay anything at all.  But the bills have to be paid.  And there is no excuse to arbitrarily shift the water supply costs onto the general taxpayers, people who also should not be penalized “for something beyond their control” and who in addition don’t even get the service.

You can’t make the water costs disappear but paying for them out of general revenues.  That just shifts the costs around.

And besides, it’s illegal.

Councillor Bowman, without justification, has just pitted the Sauble Amabel water users against everyone else.

“Everyone else” (those not on the amabel sauble water system) needs to tell Councillor Bowman that her proposal is illegal and unacceptable.

Councillor Bowman wants to set the vacant lot rate well below cost at $35 per month.  But this would force occupied lot users to subsidize vacant lot users.  At an extra cost of $18 per month for occupied lot owners.

That also is illegal.  This time Councillor Bowman is pitting vacant lot users against occupied lot users.

Occupied lot owners need to tell Councillor Bowman that her proposal is illegal and unacceptable.

Agenda Item 10.3 By-Law 126-2012 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 (Raking and Maintenance of the Sand Beach at Sauble Beach)

Raking of the beach is harmful and costs the taxpayers lots of money.  This by-law is contrary to the public interest.

Whose interests are being catered to?

This by-law should be defeated.

Agenda Item 10.4 By-Law 127-2012 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 (Reporting Absences and Sick Leave)

The policy for Reporting absences and sick leave is unacceptable.  Comments from an human resources (”HR”) professional and others are at:

https://craiggammieblog.com/2012/10/26/new-tsbp-policy-gives-staff-right-to-get-an-employees-personal-medical-information/

In the October 16 meeting, Clerk Cathrae indicated that she had checked policies of several others and determined that the proposed TSBP policy wording was very similar.

According to my friend the HR professional, this is false.

According to the HR professional, only a shady outfit with shady intentions would write a policy like the one proposed by Ms. Cathrae.

Clerk Cathrae should be directed to document the policies of the so-called “others”, so council and the public can assess for themselves whether the proposed TSBP policy is similar to others and so council and the public can assess whether Ms. Cathrae’s proposal is acceptable or not.

Craig

A few weeks ago a newsletter purporting to be a TSBP document and purporting to report on the accomplishments of the Economic Development Committee (“EDC”) was delivered to most residents’ mailboxes.

The newsletter is an absolute fraud.

The accomplishments listed in the “newsletter” are excellent accomplishments, and include the following:

1. Wayfinding Signs
2. Market trade area studies
3. Wiarton Gateway Sign
4. Façade Improvement Program
5. Downtown Wiarton revitalization program
6. Festivals operation

The newsletter implies that these are accomplishments of the EDC and the EDC chair.

But in fact none of these are accomplishments of the EDC, and none are accomplishments of the chair of the EDC.

The accomplishments listed above and described in the newsletter are accomplishments of the taxpayers (who paid for them), and for the most part are accomplishments of the Economic Development Officer (“EDO”) Danielle Mulasmajic, (who implemented all but one).

Neither the EDC nor the EDC chair had any part in the “accomplishments”.

The EDC has accomplished absolutely nothing since the start of the term in October 2010.

So if it’s a big lie, why would the chair of the EDC falsely claim all those “accomplishments”?

My guess is that the newsletter is the early start of a campaign to try to elect the EDC chairman to council in 2014.  The newsletter implies not too subtly: “Hi.  I’m chair of the EDC.  Just look what I have accomplished already. Just look what I’ve done for the town. Vote for me in 2014”.

The newsletter bears the Town Of South Bruce Peninsula logo, implying that it was endorsed by the council.  In fact it was not.  Council did not even see the newsletter.  Council Policy A.3.2., which governs Town communications,  was breached.

In the “chairman’s message” on page 1 of the newsletter, the chairman talks about economic development being “actions that will enhance the lives of the citizens in our community” and efforts to “help the Town of South Bruce peninsula towards a better future”.

No problem there.

Yet by wasting Danielle Mulasmajic’s valuable time, and by preventing her from doing her job, and by wasting taxpayers’ money on the false propaganda newsletter, the EDC chairman and the EDC are draining tax money from the treasury, and are making the citizens of the town not richer, but poorer, and are making the future not better, but worse.

Even the claim about providing “valuable input into our Town’s newly adopted strategic plan” is questionable.  And arrogant.  (“Valuable input”?  In whose eyes is it “valuable”?  And if the EDC input was so “valuable”, why was most of it not adopted?)

The newsletter purports to be a service to the residents. It’s not.  It is instead false partisan propaganda, a service to the EDC chairman, paid for with money swiped from our treasury.

I try not to judge people by the company they keep.  So please think of my inclusion of the picture below as a moment of weakness on my part.

Craig

Mike and John

Many places in council minutes and elsewhere TSBP residents saw the promise of “2012 tax rate down 1.17%”.

Residents of TSBP cannot be faulted for believing that they had been promised a 1.17 per cent tax decrease.

So when some took a close look at their final tax bills, and did a bit of math, they found a big surprise.

They found that TSBP Municipal taxes did not go down 1.17 per cent.

Instead, they found that Municipal taxes went up more that five percent (see the line  “Local Municipal Levy Change” on the tax bills).  Some residents saw an increase of slightly more than five per cent, some slightly less, but most were close to a five per cent increase.

How is this possible?

It’s possible because the implied tax decrease of 1.17 per cent was a fraud.  A complete scam.

The fraud is trying to pass a tax rate change off as a tax change.  In fact tax rate change has nothing to do with tax change.

The people responsible for the fraud are John Close and Tracey Neifer.

Both know very well that tax rate has nothing to do with taxes on the average residence.  Both know very well that it is a deception to even mention tax rate.

Both deliberately deceived the public, partly by omission, into believing that residents  were actually getting a 1.17 per cent tax reduction, all the while knowing full well that they were actually giving residents a 5 per cent tax increase.

They deceived the residents.  And they deceived council.

In a report in the September 4th council agenda package, Councillor Jackson questioned the significant increase in people’s Municipal tax bills given that council had promised a 1.17 per cent decrease.

In response, before and during the September 4 meeting, councillors were told by Mayor Close and CFO Neifer that the Municipal tax increase was a provincially dictated “notional rate”, and as such neither council nor staff could do anything about it.

That was an even bigger lie than the “taxes are going down” lie.

The 5 per cent Municipal tax increase had nothing to do with the provincial government.

The 5 per cent tax increase was a result of council bringing in a 2012 budget requiring 5% more tax revenue.  It’s that simple.

I don’t know which is worse – the 5 per cent tax increase or the attempts to hide it with lies about irrelevant tax rate and phony non-existent provincial mandates.

If you are as angry as I am about the tax increase, and about the fraud, please e-mail your concerns to Mayor John Close and CFO Tracey Neifer, and copy all of council.

Mayor Close and CFO Neifer should resign over this.  At very least they have some explaining to do.

Craig

The politicians make the laws, but they must stay out of the enforcement of those laws and the adjudication of alleged offenses.  The reason is obvious.  You can’t have some politician sheltering his friends from the law, and you can’t have some politician using the police to neutralize his critics.

This tenet of our society is set down in the Criminal Code as section 139 (2), that section called “Obstructing Justice”.

On Thursday October 18^th TSBP Mayor John Close was charged with Obstruction of Justice, (summons and affidavit of service on: http://www.saublesewer.com/Documents/20121012%20Close%20Summons.pdf), allegedly for instructing by-law enforcement officers, including the OPP, not to enforce the Dynamic Beach By-law section 4.1 (which prohibits cars on the beach at Sauble).

The story is on Bayshore Broadcasting:

http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=51672

and is also in the Owen Sound Sun Times October 23^rd print edition.

To me this is a fitting turn of events for a mayor who issued a press release in May of 2011 falsely accusing bloggers of being “criminals”, and calling on the citizens of TSBP to go vigilante and turn the bloggers in.  (The plea failed except for one councillor who turned in stolen information.)

Enforcement of the dynamic beach by-law was discussed in the October 16^th closed session of council.  John Close declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion.  Several have asked me what the “conflict” was that prompted his declaration.

I believe that in fact there was no conflict.

The press release, issued October 17, 2012, said:

“Council had given direction to staff earlier in 2012 that the Dynamic Beach By-Law would not be enforced on private property until such time a second legal opinion was received.”

The statement is a lie.  Council never gave that direction, not even orally.

I believe that before the October 16^th meeting Mayor John Close and his accomplices prepared the falsehood-laden press release in order to shift blame by making it look like council, not the mayor, had done the criminal obstruction of justice in the spring and summer.  I believe that John Close declared a conflict and sat out the discussion so that he would be less associated with the blame-shifting press release on the subject, and for no other reason.

The trick won’t work.  The people of TSBP are on to John Close’s tricks, and the courts will quickly catch on too.

I believe that the next part of the press release was also made to try to shift the blame from John to council.

It said that:

“Council … will not be enforcing the Dynamic Beach By-Law on private property [between fifth and sixth] at Sauble Beach.”

This is a clear signal to the enforcement people not to enforce the by-law going forward.  It appears to be in and of itself obstruction of justice by council.  I believe that it is nothing less than a second attempt by John Close to make it look like council is committing the (alleged) crime and not John Close.

It gets even more interesting.  Council did not see, and did not hear, and did not know of, the two quotes from the press release above.  And council did not vet the press release.  Only deputy chair Karen Klages saw the release and the quotes above.

So instead of tricking council into admitting to criminal obstruction of justice, John and his accomplices have only succeeded in tricking Karen Klages into admitting to criminal obstruction of justice.

Either way John’s tricks won’t work.  Again the people won’t be duped and neither will the courts.

It’s possible that Karen Klages will be charged, but in my view not likely.  In my view she is guilty of being easily duped, but not of obstruction.

I understand that some councillors are not amused by the Mayor’s diabolical tricks, and being falsely blamed for his (alleged) criminal actions.

The big surprise for me is that a few residents (besides his accomplices) are actually defending the mayor, saying he has a right to interfere with law enforcement, or even that he has a duty to interfere.

One person even said that the Mayor has a duty to intervene because it’s a Sauble Beach issue and those radical Sauble people need to be straightened out anyway.

It’s true that this particular alleged criminal obstruction of justice really does affect mostly Sauble people.  But that’s not relevant.  What’s relevant is that John Close (allegedly) committed a crime against all the people.  And anyway the next obstruction may be John directing the law enforcement people not to enforce the noise by-law in Allenford, or the property standards by-law in Wiarton, or the fireworks by-law in Oliphant, or all of those by-laws all over the town.

Obstruction of justice should be a concern for everyone.

I look forward to your comments.

Craig

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51286

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51284

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.

 Agenda Item 8.7 CLK125-2012 Raking and Maintenance of the Sand Beach at Sauble Beach

This past summer TSBP staff destroyed Piping Plover Habitat in contravention of the Endangered Species Act.  The MNR was lenient and did not lay charges.  Don Crain’s charm rescued the situation.

In report CLK125-2012, the Clerk indicates that the breach was a result of a vague Beach Raking Policy.  That’s rubbish.  The policy is wrong, but that’s no excuse for the breach.

That said, it is a good idea to clarify the policy.

And with respect to Plover Habit, the proposed policy revisions are in my view, excellent.

But I have other concerns about the proposed policy.

The proposed “purpose” includes taking into consideration:

“the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the sensitive eco system and the needs of the tourists and beach visitors.”

I don’t mind the tourists, at least the considerate ones.  But the beach is ours, not theirs.  So the needs of the tourists should have no standing.  It’s the needs of the people of the Town of south Bruce peninsula that count.

If raking were free and inconsequential it might be OK.

But it is neither free nor inconsequential.

Raking is very expensive.  Use of so much taxpayer dollars cannot be justified just with “taking into consideration the needs of the tourists”.

And raking also brings serious negative consequences.   More sand blows away, the beach becomes more of a wet beach, E. Coli counts in the sand increase, and the potential hazard to children and adults (including tourists) increases.

The beach needs to be cleaned of the debris left by the few inconsiderate cretin tourists.  But this debris can be removed easily and cheaply without the harmful mechanical raking.

There should be no raking.  Raking does no good. Raking only does harm.

Dr. Allen Crowe, who has studied bacterial levels in the Sauble sand, said as much in his presentation to the Sauble Sewers ad Hoc Committee on September 17.  (The audio wil be on www.saublesewer.com soon.)

It’s a shame so few councillors could spare the time to hear Dr. Crowe.

———————

6.1 Regular Council Minutes -October 2, 2012 item 28. NOTICE OF MOTION-COUNCILLOR JACKSON C1B ZONING

The October 2 council minutes say:

“Councillor Jackson indicated that we can make changes to the zoning by-law and that the developers should not have to pay to institute a mini-golf.”

That’s not quite what Councillor Jackson said.  Councillor Jackson actually indicated that the mini-golf park proposal can be accommodated by a simple zoning by-law clarification and that it does not need an expensive official plan change or zoning change.

On the other hand the minutes are correct in saying that Mayor Close ruled Councillor Jackson’s motion out of order.

For John Close that’s not an unusual action.

What’s interesting is the grounds on which John Close ruled Councillor Jackson’s motion out of order.

When  a member of council rises on a point of order, what they are saying to council is that some other member or a presenter has breached the council’s procedural by-law, or has breached the rules of an authority referred to in that same procedural by-law (which for council is “MEETING PROCEDURES by James Lochrie”).

The rule of council in that procedural by-law that governs a point of order around a motion is A20.4 , which reads:

“Whenever the Mayor is of the opinion that any motion offered to the Council is contrary to the rules of the Council, he/she shall advise the members thereof immediately and quote the rule or authorities applicable.”

Note “Contrary to the rules of council”.

What could be clearer?  The “rules of council”.

The minutes say:

“Mayor Close again indicated that there are procedures under the Planning Act. Mayor Close ruled the motion out of order.”

John Close ruled Councillor Jackson’s Motion out of order not because it was “Contrary to the rules of council”, but rather because it was “contrary to the Planning Act”.

The Planning Act is definitely not a “rule of council”.

 So the point of order was itself out of order. Yet John got away with it.

If John really believed that Councillor Jackson’s motion was contrary to the Planning Act, which I doubt he did, he would be required to point that out to council according to council rule A21.11, which states:

“It shall be the duty of the Mayor, Clerk, Chief Administrative Officer or any member of the Council, whenever it shall be conceived that a motion received and read, may be contrary (ultra vires) to the Municipal by-laws, Provincial or Federal Statutes to apprise the Council thereof, stating the rules, by-laws or statutes which are applicable to the case.”

 But the duty and authority here is clearly to apprise council and only to apprise council, not to rule the motion out of order and kill the motion and kill the project.

He’s pulled this stunt often.  Too often.

Whenever a councillor makes a motion that doesn’t fit with his personal agenda he cries “point of order” and references some Act that no one is familiar enough with to challenge him.  And he won’t ever name the section of the Act.

Or he cries “bill 168, bill 168, harassment, harassment!” (as in 2011 press releases about the blog).

Or he cries “you have stolen personal information, stop the deputation!” (discussion of John’s alleged breach of Police Services Board Code of Conduct September 19), or “you have stolen personal information, stop the discussion!” (WSIB discussion October 2^nd).

He pulls the stunt on anyone that pursues an agenda different than his, or that dares to criticize his actions, or even that simply disagrees with him.

Never mind that there was no rule of council breached by the motion,

What makes it even worse in this case is that there wasn’t even a rule of any government that was breached by the motion.   The Planning Act does not prohibit Councillor Jackson’s motion.  Nothing in the Planning Act even comes close to prohibiting Councillor Jackson’s motion.  Councillor Jackson’s motion was not ultra vires the Planning Act.  Period.

In my view John’s point of order had one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to punish someone for opposing him or his personal agenda or his corrupt behavior sometime in the past.

There is no room for that kind of vindictive behavior in council chambers.

What amazes me is that John seems to have no clue about how transparent his stupid, vindictive, self-serving, Machiavellian games are.

He may have fooled all councillors except Councillors Jackson and Thomas on this one.

But he’s delusional if he thinks he’s fooling the people of the Town.

The mini-golf park would have employed some people.  Not a lot, but any would be a help.  And all without taxpayer subsidies.  The mini-golf park would have been a good thing.

The net result of John’s vindictive actions is that there will be no new mini-golf park, and no new jobs.

I guess we’re not really quite as “open for business” as John claims.

John needs to resign.  Soon.  Before he does any more damage.  2014 will be far too late.

Craig

The following letter was submitted to the Owen Sound Sun Times, but was not published.

Editor, OSST:

Before June 12, 2012, E. Coli. readings at Sauble were routinely well below the Provincial limit of 100 cfu/100 ml (colony forming units per 100 millilitres). On June 12 the readings jumped to over 1000. After June 12 they returned to well below the limit.

Medical Officer of Health Hazel Lynn apparently said (Denis Langlois article June 15 OSST) that “faulty septic tanks in the area could also be to blame [for the high June 12 reading]”.

Dr. Lynn is wrong.

The 2001 Sauble Sewers Environmental Study Report indicated that 90% of the loading to the lake at Sauble comes via the River, and only 10% from the beach drains. The data suggests that 5% is from the drains North of Main Street. Assuming these numbers were valid for June 12th, and even making an ultra-conservative assumption that all of the E. Coli. in the beach drains was from faulty septic systems, it would mean that 50 of the observed 1000 count was from faulty septic systems.

That’s hardly grounds for “faulty septic tanks could be to blame”.

The only way faulty septic systems could cause such a spike is if a bunch of septic systems spread out along the Beach all plugged at the same time and all started by-passing their systems and sending raw sewage directly into the beach drains, and then about twenty-four hours later those same systems suddenly got fixed and started working properly again, all without anyone knowing about the illegal by-pass. Not quite impossible, but certainly a highly improbable coincidence.

So it was wrong and irresponsible for Dr. Lynn to say that faulty septic systems could be to blame for the high E. Coli. readings.

In the same article Dr. Lynn apparently also said that “heavy rain and waves can lead to higher bacteria levels in the water.”

Here Dr. Lynn is on more solid ground.

We know that much of the E. Coli. in the lake is attached to sediment, which on calm days tends to sit on the bottom.

We also know that a very gentle swell can deposit E. Coli. from the near-shore lake into the near-shore sand, and that birds contribute to E. Coli. in the near-shore sand.

When winds whip up bigger waves and a strong undercurrent two things happen. First the waves lapping onto the shore wash E. Coli. from the near-shore sand back into the lake. And second the turbulence below the water surface dislodges E. Coli. from the sediment. The result is a fairly sudden spike in E. Coli. readings.

June 11 had south winds 20 kilometers per hour and steady. June 12 had winds tending westerly and building to 25 km/hr., with thunderstorms in the early morning. Good for waves. Ideal for an E. Coli. spike.

Dr. Lynn needs to apologize to all those Sauble people she implicitly accused of by-passing their septic systems and of dumping raw sewage directly into the beach drains on June 12th. Dr. Lynn needs to make clear that it is completely implausible that the high readings were from “faulty septic systems”.

Craig Gammie
Sauble Beach