Why can't Ramara?
Congrats to Innisfil's council for the following document, outlining their goals and priorities for their 2007-2010 term. It's like the "Speech from the Throne", used to open parliament, or like the American President's State of the Union Address", delivered at the beginning of the year.
Woundn't it be nice if Ramara's council had the courage to disclose their goals and priorities, for their term. Unfortunately my councillors don't want to have something concrete, on the record that could be used to hold them accountible to their electors.
So who do we blame? Mayor Duffy? CAO Bates? We should ask, who benefits the most when an organization doesn't define its' goals? I would have to say township Sr. staff, as they can just put their feet up, spend the $$$, and provide poor customer service for ratepayers.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Council's Closed Meeting Passes Smell Test
I came across this article about a closed meeting by the council of the Town of Fort Eire, ON. Under changes to Ontario's Municipal Act, ratepayers now has the means to challenge the validity of their council meeting behind closed doors. This right is something I'm fairly sure I'll be putting to the test with my own Ramara council.
This provincial act limits when, and what get's talked about when they meet away from prying eyes of electorate. In the case of the meeting in Fort Eire, it was determined that all was correct, as they were meeting "for educational purposes" (ie training). As long is they did not talk public business. But the Ontario Ombudsman also noted there was from for some improvement in how they undertook their meeting. He suggested that maybe next time they could provide just a little advanced warning to ratepayers, just to aleve their suspicians that nothing untowards will be discussed.
If I know my council, I know that they will try to duplicate a positive (ie a meeting where their free flow of ideas will result in their own performance improvements) into a negative (ie the public found out they met unannounced, at an undisclosed locale, for no specified reason).
One thing the Ombudsman did not mention, is that I would be nice that at the conclusion of their meeting that council release a joint statement documenting "these are the things we plan to implement as we feel they well provide the best approach for us to achieve the stated goals, which is the reason why we met in the first place".
Publishing a joint resolution is not mandated by the Municipal Act, but its' something I feel should be required, if for nothing more then justify to ratepayers the monies spent on the closed meeting were justified.
This provincial act limits when, and what get's talked about when they meet away from prying eyes of electorate. In the case of the meeting in Fort Eire, it was determined that all was correct, as they were meeting "for educational purposes" (ie training). As long is they did not talk public business. But the Ontario Ombudsman also noted there was from for some improvement in how they undertook their meeting. He suggested that maybe next time they could provide just a little advanced warning to ratepayers, just to aleve their suspicians that nothing untowards will be discussed.
If I know my council, I know that they will try to duplicate a positive (ie a meeting where their free flow of ideas will result in their own performance improvements) into a negative (ie the public found out they met unannounced, at an undisclosed locale, for no specified reason).
One thing the Ombudsman did not mention, is that I would be nice that at the conclusion of their meeting that council release a joint statement documenting "these are the things we plan to implement as we feel they well provide the best approach for us to achieve the stated goals, which is the reason why we met in the first place".
Publishing a joint resolution is not mandated by the Municipal Act, but its' something I feel should be required, if for nothing more then justify to ratepayers the monies spent on the closed meeting were justified.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Victory for a Good Guy
I first came across the name Ted Cooper when I googled "McNabb Drain". A became interested in this project when in Feb. 2007 the township tabled a bylaw to recover, from users, this projects cost overruns. A cost overage of almost $500 000! That flagged my interest.
If you ask township staff about this drain, your virtually stonewalled. They are unwilling answer my questions to my satisfaction. The township never tabled a post project brief that explained what the f#$k went so horribly wrong. Maybe some legal action is pending against the township and for that reason the township is taking the "hush-hush" approach.
Back to Ted Cooper. From my google search, I found that he gave a deputation to a provincial committee where he referenced the McNabb Drain. Mr. Cooper is employed by the city of Ottawa's Planning Dept., and a specialist in ground and surface management. He has been waging a war against a planned development in Ottawa. Because of his actions, he was railroaded by the city of Ottawa. He felt this one development was a pending disaster, and was vindicated this week, when it was determined the developer's data was flawed.
Well done Ted.
If you ask township staff about this drain, your virtually stonewalled. They are unwilling answer my questions to my satisfaction. The township never tabled a post project brief that explained what the f#$k went so horribly wrong. Maybe some legal action is pending against the township and for that reason the township is taking the "hush-hush" approach.
Back to Ted Cooper. From my google search, I found that he gave a deputation to a provincial committee where he referenced the McNabb Drain. Mr. Cooper is employed by the city of Ottawa's Planning Dept., and a specialist in ground and surface management. He has been waging a war against a planned development in Ottawa. Because of his actions, he was railroaded by the city of Ottawa. He felt this one development was a pending disaster, and was vindicated this week, when it was determined the developer's data was flawed.
Well done Ted.
Ramara Choses To Look the Other Way When It Comes to ByLaw Enforcement
As usual, I left last night's meeting more confused then I was before I arrived. A ratepayer group requested the township enforce a bylaw that prohibits parking larger school buses, on residental properties, within a village settlement area. The township's planner gave evidence that such a prohibition is clearly stated in the township's zoning bylaw. Clear as mud, you would think! Green light for the bylaw enforcement officer to move! Wrong! This is Ramara, and if the action doesn't generate a positive cash inflow, Ramara will look the other way!
My confusion therefore is as a ratepayer what bylaws should I respect, and which bylaws can I now ignore? Given the actions (or more specifically) the inactions of this township to enforce its' own laws, who knows for sure!
Ramara council does not enforce the laws it creates. The township (over)pays Richard Bates to enforce laws. Last night the decisions of council should have been to direct Richard Bates to get off his ass and enforce the bylaw. This never happened. I'm not sure exactly what was decided.
This is the council you voted for, so you shouldn't get upset when your taxes go up, and your services go down.
My confusion therefore is as a ratepayer what bylaws should I respect, and which bylaws can I now ignore? Given the actions (or more specifically) the inactions of this township to enforce its' own laws, who knows for sure!
Ramara council does not enforce the laws it creates. The township (over)pays Richard Bates to enforce laws. Last night the decisions of council should have been to direct Richard Bates to get off his ass and enforce the bylaw. This never happened. I'm not sure exactly what was decided.
This is the council you voted for, so you shouldn't get upset when your taxes go up, and your services go down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
