LETTER TO LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY COUNCIL
Reeve & Council.Lac Ste. Anne County.
P.O. Box 219, Sangudo Alberta. T0E 2A0
22nd. Feb. 2018
re: County response to L.S.A.R.A.’s invitation to Council to attend their A.G.M. as observers.
Support them or not, this organisation represents the rate payers of this County, and as such, asks questions of Council in order to keep the ratepayers informed and elicit information in answer to members’ queries. If they feel that something is out of order, they bring that to the attention of ratepayers and Council and Administration through their Facebook page and Blog.
The comment that you have ‘concerns about their process’, that ‘there is scepticism regarding the purpose of the last minute restriction imposed’ and ‘apprehension that there is a strategy to divide and conquer Council’ is ridiculous.
First – what process?
Second – my understanding regarding that e-mail was that it was intended to assure Council that the A.G.M. would not be allowed to turn into a grilling of Council members, nor to allow any Council member to turn it into their own soap box. What anyone did after the meeting adjourned would have been entirely up to them.
Third – the ‘apprehension’ that any person or group would have the ability to ‘divide and conquer Council’ – is ridiculous paranoia.
Re the accuracy of articles posted by LSARA, or anybody else, - Council has all of the tools it needs to swiftly refute any discrepancies publicly and set the record straight – which they SHOULD have been doing from day one. They have a website (which people find difficult to navigate) and they also have almost 20% of the Bulletin where they could easily post their points without any additional cost simply by utilising the wasted space – the oversize print, the irrelevant pictures and the unused space.
As to Council’s assertion that they should be given prior notice of questions in order to have an opportunity to ‘prepare effective answers’ - any such information should be readily available from Administration – that’s their job!! To suggest that questions should be submitted for inclusion on an up-coming meeting agenda is also ridiculous given that Council requires that anyone wishing to address Council on any matter is required to give at least 8 days notice – which means that they then have to attend the council meeting in order to receive a response. Firstly - for many people that is impossible given home, work and other requirements, secondly – that could mean they have to wait several weeks before getting a reply. And further – it appears that the agenda for the last Council meeting was not released until AFTER the meeting took place. An item on that agenda was a report on the old administration building which no one could speak to because they have to give at least 8 days notice AND no-one could find the agenda anyway. When it did appear, a link from the agenda to that report appears to have been not activated.
Most of the questions being asked are regarding “has Council been following the procedures that are dictated by law or their own policies”? Council has a fail-safe in the sense that they have a highly paid Administration whose primary job is to ensure that they do so. The taxpayers have to do their own digging. If Council feels that they are not getting that support from Administration – they need to take appropriate action.
Unlike private enterprise, who can ‘adjust’ their actions to suit the situation, Municipal Govt.s are bound by the regulations, Acts and policies that are in place at any one time and cannot act outside of those – even with the best of intentions, which, once again, Administration is duty bound to ensure they do or record, in writing, that they have advised Council appropriately.
I would respectfully suggest therefore that, before Council or Administration criticise LSARA, they first get their own house in order.
The Minutes of the 25th. Jan 2018 meeting list Mr. Peter Shokier, the Freelancer reporter, as being in attendance AND the time that he left – something that he was unaware of until I spoke to him. Both Municipal Affairs and the Privacy Commissioner’s office advised me that requiring attendees to ‘sign in’ or identifying them in the minutes is illegal!
Yours Sincerely,
David T. Chawner
Second – my understanding regarding that e-mail was that it was intended to assure Council that the A.G.M. would not be allowed to turn into a grilling of Council members, nor to allow any Council member to turn it into their own soap box. What anyone did after the meeting adjourned would have been entirely up to them.
Third – the ‘apprehension’ that any person or group would have the ability to ‘divide and conquer Council’ – is ridiculous paranoia.
Re the accuracy of articles posted by LSARA, or anybody else, - Council has all of the tools it needs to swiftly refute any discrepancies publicly and set the record straight – which they SHOULD have been doing from day one. They have a website (which people find difficult to navigate) and they also have almost 20% of the Bulletin where they could easily post their points without any additional cost simply by utilising the wasted space – the oversize print, the irrelevant pictures and the unused space.
As to Council’s assertion that they should be given prior notice of questions in order to have an opportunity to ‘prepare effective answers’ - any such information should be readily available from Administration – that’s their job!! To suggest that questions should be submitted for inclusion on an up-coming meeting agenda is also ridiculous given that Council requires that anyone wishing to address Council on any matter is required to give at least 8 days notice – which means that they then have to attend the council meeting in order to receive a response. Firstly - for many people that is impossible given home, work and other requirements, secondly – that could mean they have to wait several weeks before getting a reply. And further – it appears that the agenda for the last Council meeting was not released until AFTER the meeting took place. An item on that agenda was a report on the old administration building which no one could speak to because they have to give at least 8 days notice AND no-one could find the agenda anyway. When it did appear, a link from the agenda to that report appears to have been not activated.
Most of the questions being asked are regarding “has Council been following the procedures that are dictated by law or their own policies”? Council has a fail-safe in the sense that they have a highly paid Administration whose primary job is to ensure that they do so. The taxpayers have to do their own digging. If Council feels that they are not getting that support from Administration – they need to take appropriate action.
Unlike private enterprise, who can ‘adjust’ their actions to suit the situation, Municipal Govt.s are bound by the regulations, Acts and policies that are in place at any one time and cannot act outside of those – even with the best of intentions, which, once again, Administration is duty bound to ensure they do or record, in writing, that they have advised Council appropriately.
I would respectfully suggest therefore that, before Council or Administration criticise LSARA, they first get their own house in order.
The Minutes of the 25th. Jan 2018 meeting list Mr. Peter Shokier, the Freelancer reporter, as being in attendance AND the time that he left – something that he was unaware of until I spoke to him. Both Municipal Affairs and the Privacy Commissioner’s office advised me that requiring attendees to ‘sign in’ or identifying them in the minutes is illegal!
Yours Sincerely,
David T. Chawner
WE WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY
PLEASE SHARE YOUR VIEWS AND COMMENT ON OUR:
EMAIL @ lsaracares@gmail.com
STAND UP BE HEARD
0 comments:
Post a Comment