IS LSAC BEING TRANSPARENT

IS LSAC BEING TRANSPARENT

On May 13, 2019 Lac Ste. Anne County published in the Lac Ste. Anne Bulletin yet another full page article entitled  "COUNTY PROVIDES FURTHER POINTS OF CLARIFICATION FOLLOWING MAY 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS".

One must ask the question 

“Is Lac Ste. Anne County being transparent” 

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

What is our county trying to accomplish with the jargon in this article? Who are they trying to convince that there is some sort of conspiracy to spread “rumors, conjecture and mistrust” as stated in the last paragraph of this article. What are they so afraid of when the Ratepayers challenge or question their own policies, procedures and new found ventures?

This is not the first time we have such a feeble attempt to stifle the ratepayers concerns. It's time that they stop the nonsense and start providing some answers.

The last paragraph in their article also seems to sum up what we as ratepayers would like to see our County Council and Administration do, give us the "FACTS".

It is a shame that with all the Election Promises to end such nonsense that we are still facing the task of fighting for Transparency. What happened to the LSAC Values as stated on their website:

www.lsac.ca   Our Values: Our decisions are guided by:

Accountability 

Transparency 

Collaboration 

Trust 

Respect 

Integrity 

Diversity 

Sustainability            

The following letter sent to LSAC was written by Clifford Cottingham.  The last point in the letter pretty much sums up what we have been up against with our past council and unfortunately, our new council.  

There is only one thing in common in both the councils and that is the "Administration" that is providing them 'Guidance"!

15 May 2019
County of Lac Ste Anne
Box 219
Sangudo AB T0E 2A0

RE: MCC ONOWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CLINIC

After attendance at the 9 May 2019 council meeting, and reading the information in response to recent questions and concerns related to the establishment of a MCC for Onoway Medical Clinic, a few questions remain unanswered that I had previously asked, and a question arises from decisions made by council at the referenced meeting.

• The response notes that AHS have been consulted and that they support the initiative to recruit a physician for the Onoway Clinic. Please advise who that AHS individual is that the county has had continuing discussion with about the plan for the Onoway Clinic.
• It has been clarified that the target for physicians is 2.5. Taking information from county documents, it is noted that in 2018 there were 1.8 physicians in practise accounting for a total of $194,200 in physician overhead or $107,888 per physician, with a slight increase in the physician overhead for 2019. It notes as well that there were 1.8 physicians in 2019 and the budget notes 2.5 in 2020. In year 2020 it projects $318,700 in overhead or $127,480 per physician, which is a 18.5% increase for each physician. Have the current physicians been made aware of this increase, and what is the rationale for the increase, presumably increase in patient activity and/or an increase in the base fee calculation per physician? What market analysis supports this increase in activity? One of the major concerns is that this increase will not be attained in 2020 or any subsequent year, thus putting the entire project’s financial viability in question, and thus become a burden on the taxpayers even though the County states there is virtually none. 
• No answer has been provided regarding the question of the budget noting a line of equipment loan repayment. What are the anticipated equipment items that will need to be funded in this manner?
• At the council meeting noted above, the Bylaw 11 for the Medical Clinic Facility was deferred by unanimous vote. What are the terms of such deferment? When will it be brought back to council and in what form, a new bylaw, or same bylaw?
• In the Lac Ste Anne Bulletin dated May 13, 2019, the county provides further points of clarification following May 1 public hearings. The last statement in the information is very interesting. Provision of accurate information is vitally important for all parties to understand what is planned and going forward. The county appears to have been less than forthcoming with detailed, well thought out and researched information. Dialogue about these initiatives before council is certainly encouraged. Dialogue is defined (Random House Dictionary) as a conversation between two or more persons, an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue. To that end, why doesn’t council have a two way dialogue with rate payers instead of the one way communication that happens now? Making presentations to council with no response by council members at the time, not allowing any questions of clarification at council meetings, is not a dialogue, but a method to control and shut out meaningful exchange. Perhaps an open meeting with council to hear concerns and other opinions may be helpful. Without this two way open communication, a vacuum occurs and rumour, conjecture and mistrust happens. 

It is encouraging that council might be listening to some of the concerns and issues raised and are maybe taking a second serious look at this and other proposals. Only by providing easily understandable information and responding to concerns will the best decisions be made by council on behalf of all the residents in the county.

Thank you.

Clifford B Cottingham

STAY TUNED 

LSARA will be reviewing this topic in the very near future 
and updates will be published.

PLEASE JOIN US WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

2019 LSARA Membership is only $10.00 Single / $20.00 Family
CLICK ON THE FORM AND IT WILL OPEN 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT

LSARA CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT YOU

PLEASE FORWARD THIS POST TO YOUR 
FAMILY AND FRIENDS