Craig Gammie's Commentary

Agenda Item 8.10 on the March 4 agenda is: ADM08-2014 By-Law for Delegation of Authority During “Lame Duck” Status

 On September 12, 2014 this council will become a “lame duck” council.  That means that pursuant to the Municipal Act they will not be able to spend over $50,000 on items not in the approved budget, and they will not be able to dispose of any asset worth over $50,000.

 The lame-duck law is there so that councils at the end of their term and for which a majority will not be coming back can’t give their friends huge bonuses and contracts, or sell town assets to their friends (such as the old Wiarton high school) at a fraction of the value.  The law is there to protect the residents and their assets from unscrupulous elected officials.

 Administrator Jacquie Farrow-Lawrence is proposing a detour around the Provincial lame duck law.  The Administrator is proposing a by-law that delegates authority to a staff member to do exactly the things that the lame duck council cannot.

 And who is the Administrator proposing that this power be delegated to?  The administrator is proposing that the power be delegated to  ….  TSBP Adminstrator Jacquie Farrow-Lawrence!

 With this by-law Administrator Farrow-Lawrence and CFO Humble will be able to:

 ·       Sign a $100 million contract with Genivar to put sewers in at Sauble

·       Sell our share of the airport to their friends for $1

·       Sign a $2 million contract to repair the airport runways

·       Give our beach to first Nations

·       Sign a $3 million contract to expand the wiarton sewage treatment plant

·       Anything else they want to do.

And all of this she will be able to do without any council input, without Environmental Assessments, without any public input, without any control whatsoever.

 This could bankrupt the town, and all the residents too.

It is council’s role and it is only council’s role to make policy decisions.   Delegating spending and giveaway authority to Farrow-Lawrence and Humble puts decision making and policy making in their hands.  Delegating authority to Farrow-Lawrence and Humble to go on a spending spree or on a giveaway spree with our money defeats the purpose of  the lame-duck provision of the Municipal Act (section 275), and is contradictory to the Act.

In her report Farrow-Lawrence said:

 “By-laws respecting delegation of authority during “lame duck” status were referenced from smaller and/or regional municipalities (Town of Arnprior, Town of Collingwood, Township of Russell, Municipality of Red Lake, Municipality of Meaford) as well as larger municipalities in which the wording was likely vetted through a municipal solicitor (City of Oshawa, City of Hamilton, City of Greater Sudbury). (emphasis added by CG)

 Translation:  No solicitor has reviewed the proposed TSBP by-law for legality.

Because the proposed by-law is contrary to section 275 of the Municipal Act, it is illegal.

Will the illegal by-law be used improperly?

 The proper rule is that Farrow-Lawrence takes direction from council as a whole.  No one council member, including the Mayor, is permitted to give instructions without the express consent of council.

 Is the rule followed in practice?

 It appears to me that Farrow-Lawrence completely ignores the rule, and treats Mayor Close as her boss, and not council.

 This makes the proposed by-law even more of a concern.  Because if the by-law is passed, John Close will be able to get his previously opposed pet projects carried out just by giving Farrow-Lawrence instructions to proceed.

 I do not know who thought up this by-law, but I would be interested in readers’ theories.  If you have a theory please go onto http://craiggammieblog.com and share your theory with other readers.

The proposed by-law is just another in a long series of manoeuvres designed to get around the few council members who are there to serve the residents, and to protect the residents.  The proposed by-law ranks right up there with the illegal indemnification by-law, and the illegal resident code of conduct provisions in the procedural by-law, and the new defamation rules, and all the other illegal by-laws passed by council.

The proposed lame-duck by-law must be defeated.

 Craig

In my commentary 4-3 of yesterday I talked about some items on the February 18 council agenda.  I neglected to comment on item 8.1 (Jackson Paid Parking at Sauble).  Here are my comments on that item:

 In a December 3, 2014 resolution, parking fees at Sauble was reduced from $15 a day to zero.  This cost the taxpayers at least $240,000 in lost revenue.

 Councillor Jackson is proposing to reinstate paid parking at Sauble, with rates as follows:

 Recommendation: That Council reinstates  the  Paid  Parking  program;  And  further  that  the  Paid  Parking fee will be $10 per day maximum in addition to supplying each tax paying household in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula with one free parking pass.

 This is not perfect as we will still lose some revenue, meaning higher taxes.   But going back to $15 a day has virtually no chance of being passed, whereas this proposal should get passed if council members are willing to be open to good ideas.

 I fully support Councillor Jackson’s motion.

 I know my timing is not great, but it would sure be helpful if some residents could get to the February 18 meeting (today) to support Ms. Jackson’s motion.

 Craig

Agenda Item 7.1 Roberta Brignall, Community Foundation Grey Bruce

Mayor John Close in October 2010 promised a 17 per cent decrease in taxes, but he failed to deliver, and instead brought us a twenty per cent increase in his four year term.  That brought the increase in property taxes in the last three councils to sixty-two percent.

Many residents saw their water rates go right through the roof, a problem completely attributable to the shenanigans of John Close and Carl Noble while John Close was a councillor from 2002 to 2006.

I understand that there are neighbourhoods where half of the homes are for sale, in good part because the residents cannot afford the combined load of high taxes and high water rates.   And because of the high taxes and high water rates they are finding it very difficult to sell.  They are trapped.

The last thing these residents need, in fact the last thing any residents need, is another well-meaning but ill-informed campaigner coming before council, looking to get her hands on what must sometimes appear to be easy-to-get taxpayers’ money, and asking council to increase taxes and give her the proceeds..

On February 18, 2014 Roberta Brignall will come before council to do just that. She must be told that it is the taxpayers’ money and council has no right to give it away.

There is no doubt that she has a noble and worthy cause.

But taxpayers have a right to make their own decisions regarding which charities they want to donate to, and how much they want to donate.  Giving to charity must be a private decision.   For council to “give” a grant to any charity would be forcing each and every resident in the town of south bruce peninsula to donate to council’s favourite charities.  That would be very wrong.

If council members want to have the warm feeling that one gets by donating to charity, then by all means they should donate.  But they should do it with their own money.

Agenda Item 7.2  John Tennant and Paul Shaw-OPA30

This item is about the proposed development south of Wiarton. I support this development.  But not the way the developer is acting.

John Tennant is a “marketing consultant” with a group called “the community advocate”.  They are the developers proposing the development south of Wiarton.  John Tennant has been before council many times.  His message is always the same.  He always says: “Our proposal is a major benefit to the community.”   Then he implies that the Bruce County planners are dolts.  Then he says that what the county planners are asking is ridiculous.  Then he asks TSBP council to help him detour around the county planners.

John Tennant should be sent packing.

Contrary to Tennant the development will not be a “major benefit to the community”.  It may be a detriment to the community.  The only benefit is to the developers.

Contrary to Tennant, Bruce county planners are doing their job properly.   John Tennant must do a lot of things before approval to proceed is granted.  He has not done those things. He thinks he should be given the green light anyway.  The Bruce County planners should be applauded for not bowing to the pressure being applied by John Tennant.  The Bruce County planners should be congratulated for considering the residents’ welfare ahead of the developer’s.

John Tennant is trying to get as much of the cost of the project as possible on the backs of current residents.   Council should make sure that doesn’t happen.  The developer must pay his own costs including an EA for water and sewer capacity.

John Tennant is looking for short cuts around the process.  He wants to start building without even knowing if there is available water and sewers capacity. (He has been told over and over again there isn’t.)

He has incorrectly labelled council’s stance as a “reversal”.  Council did not reverse on anything.   Council very early said “we support the project”.  Council did not say or mean “you have approval to build”.  Council meant “we encourage you to go through the proper process”.

Tennant is asking council “That  a  first  phase  of  our  development may  still  proceed  subject  to  available  existing  servicing  (capacity)”.

There is no available capacity.  So Tennant should be told that phase one cannot proceed.

 Agenda Item 9.1 CLK12-2014 Items Referred-OPA30

This item is also about the proposed development south of Wiarton.  County planners recommend a deferral of all proposed zoning changes until the servicing issue is addressed.  TSBP staff seem to support the county position.  But the MPW wants to use $100,000 of taxpayers’ money to do the servicing study.   This is wrong.  If the developer wants to develop, the developer must pay for the servicing study.  It doesn’t matter that the $100,000 was “earmarked” for an EA.  We the taxpayers should not be paying for an EA either.  There is no justification for taxpayers to be forced by council decision to pay for something that is of absolutely no benefit to them or to the town.

And if someone suggests that the benefit to the town is all the new taxes that will be paid, they are not looking at the whole picture.  You have to look at not only the extra taxes but also the extra costs.   And I believe that for this project the extra costs will far exceed the very modest extra tax revenues.   We should not be paying for service studies or EA’s.  The developer should pay.

 Agenda item 8.2 CLK11-2014 Procedural By-Law Update

Contrary to the item title, this item is not an “update”.  Several significant changes to the procedural by-law are proposed.  Many are of concern.

 “reconsideration”

The marked up version of the proposal includes the following:

Reconsideration at same meeting at same meeting

A22. 7 After any resolution, question or matter has been decided except in those  situations described in (a)  – (h) below, any member who voted thereon

with the prevailing side may move for reconsideration within the same meeting within the same meeting.  The Mayor shall confirm with the member that the member voted with the majority on the issue in question.

Reconsideration at a future meeting is not permitted. Any member wishing revisit a decision must put forward a notice of motion in the manner outlined in this by – law for Council discussion, consideration and action.

The first two (identical) changes make no sense, as they simply remove text and then add back exactly the same text in exactly the same spot.

The second paragraph (which starts with “reconsideration …” ) is confusing, ambiguous, and totally unnecessary.

The whole reconsideration issue was discussed in the January 21^st and February 4^th meetings.  I will comment further on the “reconsideration saga” in a separate “commentary”.

 “Staff” reports

 The bylaw currently says:

Staff reports shall include reports from staff, Committees of Council, Local Boards, and members of Council.

The proposal is to take out “and members of council.”

This is a proper change.  Council member reports should never have been classified as “staff reports”.  Neither should reports from committees of council or local boards be classified as staff reports.

But I am concerned that the real purpose in removing “councillor reports” from the staff reports category may be improper.  It seems to me that the removal of “councillor reports” may be to stop councillors from submitting reports.  It may be that the purpose is to stop councillors and residents who may disagree with staff from being heard.  If that is the purpose, then it is improper.

Councillors are the representatives of the residents.  In order to properly represent and serve the residents, councillors may from time to time need to submit reports to council, especially when they wish to use the reports to support motions.  They need to be able to submit reports without staff (or the mayor, or other councillors) running interference.   And they should have a lot of latitude in terms of format.  Staff should not be able to stop a councillor’s report for any reason, and certainly not because they feel that some “t” has not been crossed or “i” not dotted. Staff should have no say on the content or the format of a councillor report.  Staff should never dictate what council members can and cannot do.  Staff need to be gently reminded that they are the employees, not the governors.

A provision for councillors to submit reports in support of proposals or motions or for any other proper reason needs to be added to the procedural by-law.

Committee reports

A new duty is proposed for committee chairs:

B.2.5 To prepare and sign staff reports for presentation to Council and whenever necessary, attend Council meetings to discuss the contents of the staff report with Council.

Committee chairs should not be signing “staff reports”.  They should only sign committee reports.

A role of staff is proposed as:

 B8.1.4 Assist the Chair in the preparation of staff reports.

Staff can assist the chair in the preparation of committee reports.  But it should be a chair’s report.  A committee Chair should not be preparing staff reports.

“Defamatory”

Proposed additions are in blue and are underlined:

A1.8           “Defamatory” means attacks of character , attacks of reputation, name calling,  injurious to reputation, slanderous or libelous

A12. 4 Correspondence or any material  containing obscene or  defamatory  language , as determined by staff, will not be directed to the appropriate department for action or response and will not be placed on any Council  agenda nor will the correspondence be read at any public meeting.

Staff are not qualified to determine what is defamatory and what is not.  Nor are they  impartial.  And they have it all wrong.  For something to be legally “defamatory” it must be false.  The proposed definition of defamation, in contrast, would include words that are true but are also injurious to someone’s reputation.  The proposed definition of “defamatory” would make most or all criticism “defamatory”.  This would mean staff could exclude all criticism.

And that appears to be the intent. It appears to me that the proposed changes (and the original text) are a blatant attempt to shut out any resident or councillor who disagrees with or criticises any staff member or certain council members, or who is perceived as a political opponent.

This defamation provision is a direct attack on freedom of expression (which is guaranteed in the Canadian charter of freedoms and rights), and I fear the defamation provision will be used to curtail that freedom.

The defamation provision is just another step away from democracy and towards tyranny, a change that included John Close calling bloggers “criminals”, getting rid of schedule “B”, Rhonda Cook’s tax-funded lawsuit, allowing three readings of by-laws in one meeting, a draconian code of conduct for residents, the indemnification by-law, and much more.

The “defamation” proposal should be soundly rejected.  And the current defamation provisions need to be reconsidered.  Staff should not be deciding what is defamatory.

Agenda item 8.5 PW2-2014 South Bruce Peninsula ATV Club Request for New Trails on Town Land

The parking-at-Sauble issue is this:  Tourists get free parking, and free use of our beach.  We get to pay the cleanup costs. And pay $300,000 extra taxes – annually.

The ATV proposal is similar.  ATV riders get free use of our land.  The residents as a whole pay the costs.  The residents as a whole pay the maintenance and lose use of the land for their own less intrusive and less destructive purposes.   The request should be rejected.  The ATV club should come up with a proposal that includes user fees to cover the cost of repair and the value of the loss of use.

Agenda item 16.5 Delegation- Colin Dobell, Stop  the  Drop-Summer  Campaign  (Unfinished business)

This proposal has staff and Mayor running around tilting at windmills.  On our dime.  It needs to stop.  If the administrator wants to be involved she should do it on her own time.

Everyone wants council members and staff to drop everything town related and take up their pet causes.  Council should learn to say no.  Council is having enough trouble meeting their proper duties to the residents.

Craig

I have been having a conversation with Councillor Turner about mail-in voting and about his treatment of certain residents.  I posted the conversation to this blog because I thought readers would be interested in knowing how one sitting TSBP council member (and possible candidate) treats residents who challenge or criticize a council or staff action.  Warning: some readers might find the conversation petty.

—————————————————-

 Mr. Turner:

 Thank you for your response of February 8, which is included below.

 To try to get above the sniping, I will confine my comments in this letter to only the following issues:

 1.     Your responsibility to apologize to good residents John Strachan and Doug Jordan,

2.     Your allegations of me chasing people through parking lots and accosting them on the streets,

3.     My promise not to raid the treasury if I am elected to council.

 I will address other issues from your letter, including your comments on the town as corporation, in another forum.

Apology

I say again that no council member is authorized to berate any resident, and no member should berate any resident, no matter what they believe that resident has done.  You owe John Strachan and Doug Jordan an apology for your comments to them or about them regarding voting-by-mail.

Allegations of chasing and accosting

 Once again you have made allegations that I have “chased people through parking lots and accosted people on the streets”. The allegations are false and unsubstantiated.  The allegations are malicious.  The allegations are getting rather tiresome.  Please stop.

 My promise regarding legal costs

Your hypothetical situation of a deranged person suing a council member on a groundless claim has not happened, is not going to happen, and is not useful.  If, while I am mayor, or deputy, or councillor, I am sued for defamation, I will consider it a private matter, and I will not bring harm to the residents by raiding the treasury to cover either my private matter legal fees or settlement costs. That is a promise.

Craig

————————————————————————————–

From: JET <jet@bmts.com>
To: ‘CRAIG GAMMIE’ <cgammie@rogers.com>
Cc: ‘Jay Kirkland’ <jaybeck@bellnet.ca>; ‘Matthew Standen’ <matt.sixtwenty@gmail.com>; ‘Janice Jackson’ <janicejackson92@gmail.com>; ‘Paul McKenzie’ <paulwmckenzie@bmts.com>; ‘Marilyn Bowman’ <marilyn.bowman@southbrucepeninsula.com>; ‘Karen Klages’ <kklages@bmts.com>; ‘Chris Thomas’ <cthomasbroker@gmail.com>; ‘John Close’ <John.Close@southbrucepeninsula.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:17:36 AM
Subject: RE: Voting by mail

Mr. Gammie

It would be very easy to respond that you just don’t get it but you would surely consider that “pompous, bombastic, arrogant, condescending, scolding behaviour”!

My problem is twofold in that that I have no assurance that my emails to you are not edited then forwarded to anyone you choose and that I feel, not that you’re too stupid to get, it but that you choose not to get it for reasons unknown. The former dictates no further communication with you and the latter suggests I’m wasting my time with someone who can’t recognise the difference between serving and representing. If you care to learn the difference I suggest you ask the next waiter or waitress you encounter what their job is.

I will answer your “misconception” argument in the event you are passing this on unedited and because it’s so simple even you should have to agree.

“The Town” is not “the residents”! Neither is it the staff or the council.

“The town” is a corporate entity with audited income and expense statements, a board of directors, a CEO, and responsibilities to its governing authority (the Province) and all its shareholders equally. As a director of that corporate entity I share with my fellow councillors the duty to see that it runs efficiently and fulfills its responsibilities. So I repeat I serve the town!

Residents are the shareholders of the town. They elect councillors to represent them at board meetings (held on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month) and to inform and assist them in solving any difficulties they have with the town.

You may not see the critical difference between serve the town and represent the residents Craig, but council can’t serve you and serve a resident whose needs are in conflict with yours at the same time. In spite of your contention that you are always right and we have to do things your way to be right, there is seldom one right answer and most often there are 3 or 4. The best we can do is represent the concerns of both sides at a meeting and decide what best serves the town.

You previously ran for council and I believe you have indicated your desire to run again, which I fully support although I wouldn’t consider voting for you. If you’re successful this time, you’ll find there are a few people out there like you who can’t be told to go to Hell without giving them written directions and remembering the standards you’ve set for the job, I have to ask if you really want to end up as a waiter serving people you’re afraid to tell the truth to because you might be accused of “pompous, bombastic, arrogant, condescending, scolding behaviour”?

And don’t tell me that would never happen Mr. G. You’ve told us that you are never wrong, all evidence and court decisions to the contrary, that covers pompous.

When things do go wrong and you blame everyone but yourself, that would be arrogant.

Chasing people through parking lots and accosting them on the streets qualifies as bombastic.

Claiming you’re smarter than the rest of us, once again all evidence to the contrary, because of your level of education is certainly condescending.

Dare I equate suing people with scolding people!

Why Craig, I believe you’re qualified to be as bad a councillor as you say I am!

As for your final claim that council is at fault for your lawsuits costing the taxpayers all that money, let’s pretend you actually win a seat at the table. Then some resident you say you were elected to serve decides she doesn’t like the service. She goes off her meds and takes a notion to sue Councillor Gammie on some meaningless, trumped up charge that rings up a legal bill of over $50,000 for the town in your defence. Should I expect you as the councillor elected to serve the residents no matter how obnoxious their behaviour, to remember what you said in your email and tell council: “NO, no, fellow councillors, even though I did nothing wrong and the one who sued me for doing nothing wrong is as crazy as a bedbug, I demand that you ignore town policy and bylaws and remind me that to best serve the taxpayers I must pay the $50,000 from my own pocket”?    

Yeah, right!

The rest of your letter is so off the wall and weak it isn’t worthy of comment and only the chance to show people the depth of your ignorance keeps me typing.

That said Craig, I will not respond further to any of your “letters”. I don’t care to give you a forum to bash people or help you boost the readership of your blog.

Bruceonthebruce found itself a Martian and readership quadrupled.  Find one of your own – you don’t get me!

Mr. Turner:

 I have received your e-mail of  February 5^th which is attached below.

 You say my belief that councillors are elected to serve anyone is a “misconception”, yet in the next paragraph you contradict yourself by saying that councillors were elected to serve the town.  It is a contradiction because the residents are the town.  Staff are not the town.  Council is not the town.  Staff and council together are not the town.

 Your role as defined in the municipal act is “to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality”.  That “municipality” in law is the “inhabitants”, and assuming that “residents” is equivalent to “inhabitants”, your role is then to consider the well-being and interests of the residents”, which means that in law and in fact your role is to serve the residents.

 When you announced your candidacy in 2010, you were in effect promising to serve the residents.  You confirmed that promise when you took your oath of office.  You may well have had your fingers crossed, and it is clear that you never had any intention of serving, but the fact remains that you did promise to serve the residents.   It is also clear that you broke that promise.

 It is not the role of a councillor to sit in judgment of any resident.  Nor to puff up your chest and pretend to be lord and master.  Nor to berate, nor to brow-beat, nor to scold.  And contrary to your arrogant stance, you were not elected “leader”.  You were elected to serve the residents, you collect a paycheck to serve the residents, and you are expected to serve the residents. For someone whose role it is to serve it is just not proper to attack any elector who happens to criticize staff or council, regardless of whether that criticism is warranted or not.

 You say your “pompous, bombastic, arrogant, condescending, scolding behaviour” was well known before the 2010 election.

It clearly was not that well-known.  You got elected because a lot of people were fooled.  Many, having been fooled, are now embarrassed, and won’t be fooled again.

 You say you told residents in your ward what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear.  You have completely missed the point.  There is nothing wrong with providing truthful information.  There is nothing wrong with correcting someone.  The problem is in your pompous, bombastic, arrogant, condescending, scolding manner. 

 It’s nice that as a citizen you want to protect your fellow citizens from physical harm. I guess we must both be saints, because I do too.  But in your role as councillor you are neither competent, nor authorized, nor required by law, to judge whether someone is threatening staff or members of the public with physical harm, or to judge at all, and you are certainly neither authorized nor required by law to ban anyone, or to apply any other remedy.  In viewing yourself as supreme magistrate and chief enforcement officer you are delusional, and dangerous.

 As I have indicated in my Commentary 3-26 and also in replies to comments regarding 3-26, council had a choice of whether to pay your legal fees, and unfortunately for the taxpayers council made the wrong choice.  In fact council and council alone is to blame for all litigation costs being put on the taxpayers.  Each time legal fees were considered, (including yours and John Close’s and Marilyn Bowman’s and Mike McMillan’s and Rhonda Cook’s), council had a choice, and clearly and deliberately chose to harm the residents.

 Please give my regards to Diana May.

 Yours truly,

 Craig

————————————————

From Jim Turner JET

To Craig, Jay Kirkland, Matthew Standen”Janice Jackson”Paul McKenzie”Marilyn Bowman”Karen Klages”Chris Thomas”John Close’

Feb 6 at 4:03 AM

Craig

Thank you for your best regards but given your position on this and many other issues, I find your sentiments, especially where I am involved, to be somewhat gratuitous and self-serving.

Thanks though for recognising telling the truth as “Classic Turner” – I’m flattered.  

I have always enjoyed the banter you and I traded between us, both before and after the election that saw you defeated in your bid for a council seat. The voters, more often than not, show a much higher level of intelligence than you or Mr. Strachan or some of your former council pals give them credit for having. I should say, I enjoyed the banter before your unsuccessful, and very costly to the taxpayers, attempt to have me unseated by a court of law – for doing my job! For all your talk Craig, you don’t seem to believe in democracy as a valid way to choose our leaders.

As a side note and just between us Craig, I told my wife about your attempt to invite yourself into our home for drinks and conversation. She is well known to have a very long fuse and having put up with me for more than thirty years she is certainly qualified as long-suffering, so I was quite surprised when she threatened to divorce me if I let “that ****ing moron” into her home. Also surprising was the number of people who offered to testify on her behalf that I had subjected her to cruel and unusual punishment had I let you through the door.

I don’t want this to devolve into a philosophical debate but I’m compelled, as you knew I would be, to correct your misconception that any councillor is elected to serve anyone. We are elected to represent the residents while serving the Town. That means Craig, I can’t sell you water for a dime that costs a dollar to produce. I can’t refuse to plough the road in front of your house just to keep you from appearing in court when you sue the town. It also means I ‘m required by law to protect Town staff and innocent members of the public from physical harm by banning those who threaten them.

I find it interesting that you and your friends “lash out gratuitously and wildly”;  encourage others to do the same, refer to it as a “wee bit of overreaction” and then act indignantly when I point out there was never anything to lash out at!

I’m wondering how it could be possible that the way that Bylaw 15-2014 was presented, confused “many, many residents…. one former councillor” (actually two)….and John Strachan – but, according to your Craig’s Commentary, it didn’t confuse you!

By the way Craig my, according to you, “pompous, bombastic, arrogant, condescending, scolding behaviour” (others call it telling it like it is) was well known before the election. Yes Craig I told “residents in my ward”, “residents in other wards”, “you” and “John Strachan”  not what they or you wanted to hear but what they needed to know!  Do you think once I was elected I was obligated to tell them they were right when they were wrong? I guess I’m not a good politician because I won’t lie or pretend to be someone I’m not just to get a few votes.

As for the 2010 election and the good people of Ward 1, are you saying that in my first attempt at council I was good enough to have fooled them – or do you just consider them a bunch of idiots easily taken in?

You have no idea what my intentions were! I never promised anything to anyone beyond a change from what we were forced to put up with from your old pals. I think I’ve delivered on that!

I’ve told special interest groups they weren’t special. I’ve told people they were wrong when they were wrong – friend or foe. I’ve fought to maintain what few property rights we have by helping deny Town staff the right of entry to your property without your permission and yes I’ve defended town staff when they got blamed and attacked for doing the job council told them to do.

I’ve given you lots more meat to feed your endless bitching Craig but I’m going to stop now because just like you I’m starting to sound like I’m campaigning and I haven’t yet decided if representing the 98% of people in our town who are good is worth spending the time to “beat up on” the 2% like you!

Mr. Turner:

I must say that I am not at all surprised at the letter you sent to constituent John Strachan (below). It’s classic Turner.

You were elected to serve the residents, not yourself, and not staff, and not council. Yet every time a constituent criticizes a staff member or a councillor, you hoist your little councillor badge up the flagpole, ring the town-hall bells, and lash out gratuitously and wildly at the very ones you are supposed to serve. You’ve done it several times to residents in your ward, you’ve done it to residents in other wards, you’ve done it to me, and now you’ve done it to John Strachan.

It is irrelevant whether or not the February 4 agenda item (by-law 8-2014) was actually trying to remove mail-in voting. The fact is that the item was presented in the agenda in a manner that made many, many residents, including at least one former (and future) councillor, believe that someone was trying to eliminate mail-in voting. It was clearly not just John Strachan who read it that way. The people that voiced the concerns are the residents, the electors, the constituents. They had every right to voice their concerns, and they were right to voice their concerns. Some, like John Strachan, may have overreacted just a tad, but under the circumstances that reaction was perfectly understandable and reasonable.

In any case, a wee bit of overreaction on the part of a few good citizens does not make your pompous, bombastic, arrogant, condescending, scolding behavior the least bit acceptable.

You owe John Strachan an apology. And anyone else you beat up on this issue.

And you owe all the people in ward one an apology for promising in the 2010 election that you would serve the people, when in fact you had absolutely no intention of doing so.

My very best regards,

Craig

——————————————————————

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Jim Turner <jim.turner@southbrucepeninsula.com> wrote:

Mr. Strachan

Re. “Angie cannot be trusted with something that should be a council decision!”
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Take a minute from your email writing career and re-read the legislation that empowers the Clerk/Returning Officer, NOT the council, to run an election!
It has escaped your notice that once council has decided by bylaw, (67 & 68-2006) what the voting method will be, it is then the legal responsibility of the Clerk to run the election by the rules specified by that method of voting!
Any further action by the council such as instituting an election policy, or any interference by a candidate such as trying to get council to institute such a policy, would be viewed legally as an attempt to influence a vote and could nullify the election results!
Is that your goal? Do you want to be able to challenge the election results if you don’t like who the people vote for?
If so, let me assure you the Clerk/Returning Officer and this council will not give you the opportunity to replace democracy with what John Strachan wants!

All your assumptions about the 2014 election have been proven wrong – in law!
Every straw man you raise has been knocked down!
Your desperation to salvage something rather than admit your mistakes is showing as you’ve been reduced to baseless personal attacks on staff members.

It’s time to stop now John – before you lose all your credibility!

J. Turner
Councilor TSBP

I would like to change my assessment to “moderate concern”.

In her January 22 report, Clerk Cathrae recommended updating policy CO 13.2 to remove references to the 2010 election.  She did not recommend removal of mail -in voting.  In fact she left these words in the policy:

But there was a second decision.  That was whether to leave the amended policy CO13.2 in the policy manual or remove it from the policy manual and just keep it as an informal clerk’s policy.  The Clerk made it clear that council had a choice.  On January 22 council chose the latter, namely to remove policy CO 3.2 from the policy manual and have it only as a Clerk’s policy.  There was no dicussion of the matter on January 22 – council just chose.

I now think that was the wrong choice.  If CO 3.2 becomes just a Clerk’s policy, it will not be visible to the residents like it would be if it stayed in the policy manual (which is on-line). And if it is no longer in the policy manual, any future changes might not be so apparent to residents.  The policy, and any future changes, would become less visible, and less transparent.  For the sake of openness and transparency, an for resident peace-of-mind, the amended policy CO 3.2 should remain in the policy manual. This means that by law 15-2014 needs to be defeated or amended.

Craig

Agenda Item 7.1 Chad Gale and Gabe Metron, Asset Management Plan)/8.2 FS03-2014 2013 Asset Management Plan (AMP)

It is right that we are doing an asset management plan. It is long overdue.

A draft asset plan is in the agenda package, for council consideration.

I have not had a chance to really get into the report, but I have identified two issues.

The first is that the Sauble area water systems and the Wiarton water system are lumped together as if they are one. That’s the wrong approach. The Sauble area systems must be treated as separate from the Wiarton system. Otherwise users of one will end up being forced to subsidize users of the other. That’s not fair to the ones who end up paying the subsidy, and it’s also illegal. And it’s a good way to divide the community.

The second is that in some cases it is proposed to use tax money to subsidize users of rate based systems (water and sewers). That’s also wrong, and unfair, and divisive, and illegal to boot.

The bottom line in the report is that we are not putting enough tax money into reserves for roads, bridges and culverts, and storm sewers, and we are not putting enough from water and sewer user fees into water and sewer system reserves.

According to the report we will need to increase taxes by 12.9 per cent over the next ten years to properly fund the reserves for roads, bridges and culverts, and storm sewers. Most of that is for roads. That’s doesn’t mean your tax bills will go up 12.9 per cent over ten years. It means your taxes will go up 12.9 per cent more than they would have if we stayed at our current (inadequate) rate of putting money into reserves for roads, storm sewers, and bridges.

Water and sewer systems are a little different. Water and sewer infrastructure reserves are maintained and built with money collected directly from users rather than with taxes. Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. But here again not enough is going into reserves.

The report recommends that sanitary sewers user rates be increased by 37.6 percent over the next ten years. It is not clear whether this is a 37.6 per cent increase in total bills or an increase in 37.6 per cent only on the part of the sewers bill that is going into capital reserves. Either way it’s still a big number.

For water systems, the report notes that reserves are seriously underfunded, and recommends a rate increase of 21.7 percent over ten years to properly fund reserves. This is the average for Wiarton and Sauble area systems combined. There is no data on the separate systems. And once again it is not clear whether the required 21.7 per cent increase is a 21.7 per cent increase in total water bills or a 21.7 per cent only on the part of the water bills going into capital reserves.

I would come to town hall to get this all clarified, but I am banned. I would call staff to get clarification, but I am prohibited from doing that too. And I would call the report authors for clarification, but their contact information is nowhere to be found in the report, so I can’t do that either.

10.5 By-Law 15-2014 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 (Remove Municipal Election Procedures for the Alternate Voting Method Known as Vote by Mail and for the Use of Vote Tabulators)

This agenda item caused a lot of hand wringing, as on its own it appeared that mail-in voting would not be available for the October 27, 2014 election. It needn’t have caused any stress. The item was actually raised in the January 22 meeting. A January 22nd report from Clerk Angie Cathrae made it very clear that the item is not about getting rid of mail-in voting, and that mail–in voting is here to stay. Many of us missed that report. We may have at the time been too focused on the plan to raise taxes by three per cent so that the tourists could have free parking at Sauble. Agenda item 10.5 with by-law 15-2014 is not really an issue.

10.9 By-Law 19-2014 Being a By-Law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign an Agreement with the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for the Provision of Police Services

The plan is OK but I don’t think the Clerk has the authority to sign. It’s not within the scope of a Clerk’s duties as set out in the municipal act.

16.6 Delegation-Colin Dobell, Stop the Drop-Summer Campaign

Mr. Dobell is trying to get staff and council members to drop everything and join his campaign to stop water levels from dropping. Staff and council members should decline the invitation. The water levels issue is either federal or provincial or both. It’s not municipal. Staff should not be involved in any water levels campaign. It is not within their duties and it could or will result in them neglecting their real jobs, to the detriment of the residents. Council members should feel free to join the campaign, but not as elected officials and not as representatives of the people. It is not the role of mayor or councillors to be the voice of the residents to the provincial legislature or to the parliament. We elected Larry Millar and Bill Walker to do that. We are paying council members to run the Municipal Corporation. Not to go on campaigns, and not to go to meetings on every interesting provincial and federal issue that comes along. Local policy making is clearly more than enough of a load for this gang.

Craig

The 2014 budget was supposed to be voted on at the January 7, 2014 council meeting. That meeting was cancelled due to bad weather. Now the budget will be voted on at the January 21st meeting.

The budget includes the more than $240,000 extra costs that all TSBP taxpayers will have to bear as a result of having free parking for tourists at Sauble Beach.

The draft budget is a 2.7% increase over 2013. If pay parking for tourists were left in place, then instead of a 2.7% tax increase, there would be a year-over-year reduction in taxes of about .3 %.

Rumour has it that several council members are opposed to the draft budget. Rumour also has it that if Paul McKenzie could be persuaded to vote against the budget, the budget may be defeated. Councillor McKenzie has already voted against the free parking proposal.

I urge all readers to phone Paul McKenzie and convince him to vote against the budget, and against free parking for tourists. Paul is at 519-534-0792. If he doesn’t answer you can leave a message. He isn’t on the computer that much, so e-mail is less certain, but here is his e-mail address anyway –

paulwmckenzie@bmts.com

Also it would help if some readers could go to council and ask to address council and then speak out against the free parking for tourists and against the 2014 draft budget. But remember that you would have to ask permission to speak.

John Close has apparently been leading people to believe that there is a zero tax increase this year. That is false. There actually has been no increase in tax rate, but tax rate increase is not the same as tax increase.

Tax rate (also called mil rate) is calculated by taking dollars of total tax levy required and dividing that by total assessment (in thousands of dollars).

Tax rate varies with the budget levy, but it also varies with other factors. Which means that sometimes tax rate will go down as taxes go up. This makes tax levy or tax levy increase a totally unreliable and irrelevant indicator of how well council is doing, or of how good or bad a budget is.

The relevant indicator is the total tax levy.

And that total tax levy is set to increase by 2.7 percent for 2014.

The total tax levy increase for the term of the current council is 19.7 percent if the budget is passed as is.

Just before the 2010 election, in an all candidates meeting, John Close made a promise about tax rate that was stated in a way that led residents to interpret it as a promise of a 15% decrease in taxes. Instead we got a 19.7 % increase in taxes over his term.

I cannot understand why anybody believes anything John Close says.

And he wants to be mayor again!

Craig Gammie

Editor, OSST:

What really bugs me about the Sauble parking discussion is the false propaganda coming from Dale Robinson of the Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce, and also from Councillors Jim Turner and Marilyn Bowman, among others.

Turner and Bowman, and I believe Close, Klages, and Kirkland claim that the cost to the residents (of free parking for outsiders) is very low. Turner and Robinson even claim that free parking for outsiders is good for the residential taxpayers because costs are low and the benefits outweigh the costs.

Their claims are all false, and they know it, or ought to know it.

Daily parking rate at Sauble has been $15 for four years. For those four years, average net revenue, that is gross revenues less costs, was $240,000. If parking is made free for outsiders, that $240,000 will have to be made up with extra taxes on all TSBP residents. It really is that simple.

That’s a $32 annual hit on the average TSBP taxpayer. That’s about a $60 hit on the average Sauble taxpayer. Many TSBP properties will pay an extra $200 a year. Some Sauble properties will pay an extra $220 a year. $220 a year so outsiders can park free!

And $240,000 is only part of the costs to residents. Costs like policing will go up. Some Sauble residents will be out as much as $300 annually just so outsiders can park for free.

And non-cash costs have to be added to that. Like the time spent by residents picking up the garbage that the outsiders throw on the beach, on the roads, and on the residents’ own properties. And another cost of the free parking for outsiders is the value of the loss of enjoyment of our properties and our beach.

For Sauble residents the real cost of free parking for outsiders I value at $350,000 per year cash and $100,000 per year worth of lost enjoyment of property.

Taxes have gone up in TSBP a whopping 45% in the last seven years.

Today on CFOS radio news there was a report from the Grey-Bruce Poverty Council saying that it costs $375 per month to feed a family of four.

Elsewhere it has been reported that more than 50% are below the low income cut-off, commonly known as the “poverty-line”.

Many in our TSBP community, already taxed to the hilt, are barely scraping by.

For Council members Turner, Bowman, Kirkland, Close and Klages to take another $350,000 out of the residents’ pockets for the exclusive benefit of outsiders and the chamber of commerce is nothing short of reckless, cruel, and irresponsible.

Councillor Turner is accomplished at creative accounting but has no education or equivalent training in finance. He should know that he doesn’t fool many residents, if any. The others should know that too.

Dale Robinson’s chamber of commerce propaganda is even more dishonest.

She gathered names on a petition. The people who signed were mostly outsiders and chamber members, not residents, so the results are invalid right from the start.

The proper question for residents would have been: Which would you prefer – beach maintenance paid by extra taxes on all TSBP residents or paid by a $15 parking fees for non-residents? The question asked was only whether people, mostly non-residents, supported free parking.

Of course the outsiders support free parking for themselves!

Contrary to Chamber President Dale Robinson, free parking for outsiders is not at all popular with the TSBP residents. Just check out all the e-mails and letters and calls coming into town hall from the residential taxpayers. The residents who write in clearly understand the costs to taxpayers of free parking to outsiders, and overwhelmingly oppose free parking for outsiders.

Council’s role is to develop and implement good policy. Even if the free-parking-for-outsiders policy were popular with the residents (which it isn’t) it would still be bad policy, and so should not be implemented.

The whole chamber “petition” was bogus.

Free parking for outsiders will cost the residents at least $250,000, and probably much more, with no benefits. It is absolutely false for Robinson (and Turner and maybe others) to say that free parking for outsiders is good for the residents.

Several of the free-parking-for-outsiders gang have had the audacity to say that taking $240,000 to $350,000 out of the pockets of TSBP taxpayers helps the economy. That’s absurd. Taking $240,000 to $350,000 out of the residents’ pockets leaves them with $240,000 to $350,000 less to spend, and that hurts the economy. Big time.

Here’s what I find most astounding about the Chamber of Commerce stance.

Many of the chamber members’ customers are outsiders. But not all. Many customers are local.

Dale Robinson and the Chamber support a policy (free parking for outsiders) that is very harmful to the residents, and is reckless, and is irresponsible, and have the gall to insult the residents by telling them that they will actually benefit from giving outsiders free parking.

You may not understand it yet, because you are not smart business owners like us, but the free parking for outsiders is for your own good, and someday, when the least dumb of your dumb lot catch on, you will thank us. (Chamber propaganda in my words).

(Which is about what the chamber said in support of the 100 million dollar Sauble Sewers proposal in 2010:

Trust us. This is for your own good. The benefits far outweigh the costs. And the $50,000 up front sewers cost and $600 annual costs are “very affordable”. When the least dumb of your dumb lot catch on, you will thank us. Oh by the way, seasonal residents should not run for office or participate in the public policy process. Leave all that to the permanent residents who actually have a stake in the community. (Their propaganda – in my words.))

What I find astounding is that the chamber doesn’t seem to understand or doesn’t seem to care that some of their local customers might just want to reward the members of the Sauble chamber for their “benevolence”.

I for one will so reward them. I am sick and tired of the residents paying almost all the bills and the chamber reaping the benefits.

Some of the propagandist council members say that they will get the $240,000 plus from reserves, and so there is no tax implication. This is wrong. More creative accounting. That $240,000 reserve belongs to the residents. If it is available for beach maintenance then it is surplus and should be returned to the taxpayers. Not returning the surplus reserve is exactly the same as taxing the residents the extra $240,000. New taxes or from reserves, it is still an increased $240,000 plus annual burden on the beleaguered taxpayers.

Speaking of rewarding people for their stances, I encourage all TSBP residents to identify any candidates in the October 27, 2014 election who supports or supported the disastrous policy of free parking for outsiders, and reward them with a resounding “get lost”.

Watch for Close, Turner, Bowman, Kirkland, and Klages to be in that screw-the-residents camp.

It is not too late to change council’s harmful policy.

Express your concerns to “TSBP council” at sbpen@bmts.com

If you want your comments to be included on the town’s website, you must include words like “permission granted to post to town website”.

To read what others have posted, go here:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=56972

(Only one of the several letters that I submitted was posted. The others were censored as “defamatory”, even though they were not.)

Craig Gammie
Town of South Bruce Peninsula