IN CASE YOU MISSED IT!!!!


 

Knowing what they are paid:

Priceless! 

Now don’t be confused I am not suggesting anyone is depigted here! I am just thinking out loud my personal thoughts of government waste in general!

Town of South Bruce Peninsula COOK RHONDA Chief Administrative Officer $124,066.59

CPP for old wind bag $3,500.00 per year after 30 years work!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

And the Trough Gets Bigger!


Sunshine List Grey Bruce

Credit to Bayshore Broadcasting

Grey Bruce
by Kevin Bernard    

The Ontario government’s sunshine list is out for 2010, showing how many government workers were paid over 100 thousand dollars last year.

The total is 71,500 public sector workers on the sunshine list, up nearly 74 hundred workers from last year.

Canada’s new governor general, David Johnston, was the second highest paid public sector worker in Ontario last year.

He was one of only two people paid over one million dollars at his former job as president and vice-chancellor of the University of Waterloo.

The energy sector usually has the highest earners on the sunshine list, and Ontario Power Generation reports 7,786 of its 12,500 workers made the sunshine list for 2010.

The rest of the sunshine list includes Crown agencies, hospitals, municipalities, schools, colleges and universities and government-owned energy companies.

In Grey Bruce — the top earner was Medical Officer of Health Doctor Hazel Lynn at more than 290 thousand dollars, up from 268 thousand in 2009. 

Judges Julia Morneau and Robert Mackenzie were second at about 250 thousand.

At Grey Bruce Health Services — there are 32 people on the list.

President and CEO Maureen Solecki earned 253 thousand, up 10 thousand dollars.

Hanover and District Hospital also has eight people including President and CEO Katrina wilson at 162 thousand dollars.

At the South Bruce Grey Health Centre — four people made over 100 thousand dollars, including President and CEO Paul Davies at 212 thousand dollars.

At Collingwood General and Marine hospital — four people are listed including CEO Linda Davis 199 thousand dollars.

Among the politicians at Queens Park:

Premier Dalton McGuinty received 208 thousand dollars, Bruce Grey Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdoch 116 thousand, Huron Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell 164 thousand — up from 133 thousand in 2009, and Simcoe Grey MPP Jim Wilson 129 thousand.

28 people with the Bruce Grey Catholic School Board made the list including the Director of Education Bruce MacPherson at 166 thousand, up from 153 thousand in 2009.

76 people from the Bluewater Board of Education are on the list — including the Director of Education Mary Anne Alton at 139 thousand dollars.

Alana Murray-Lawrence, the Superintendent of Secondary Education, got 155 thousand dollars.

Just under 100 people at Georgian College are listed as making over 100 thousand dollars in 2009 including — the President and CEO Brian Tamblyn at 278 thousand dollars.

More from the 2010 Sunshine List….

Linda Thompson – CEO of Walkerton Clean Water Centre — 105 thousand

Judge Julia Morneau – $250,149
Judge Robert MacKenzie – $250,149

Justice of the Peace Bridget Forster – $114,893
Justice of the Peace Robert Gay – $115,111

Municipal employees:

In the city of Owen Sound 10 people are on the sunshine list — including Police chief Tom Kaye at 153 thousand dollars, and Deputy Chief Bill Sornberger at 122.

Acting City Manager Glenn Henry is listed at 129 thousand dollars and Fire chief Ed Nowak  at 102 thousand dollars.

City of Owen Sound COULTER PAM Acting Deputy City Manager  $104,234.29
City of Owen Sound HENRY GLEN Acting City Manager $129,348.66
City of Owen Sound JOHNSTON JOHN Director Of Operations $120,682.38
City of Owen Sound KAYE TOM Police Chief $153,142.21
City of Owen Sound KEILB STEVEN Police Detective Sergeant $100,765.23
City of Owen Sound MACKINNON STEVEN Police Inspector $108,490.11
City of Owen Sound NOWAK ED Fire Chief $102,516.96
City of Owen Sound RITCHIE WAYNE Director Of Finance $107,173.26
City of Owen Sound SORNBERGER BILL Deputy Police Chief $122,516.29
City of Owen Sound WURFEL VINCE Police Inspector $108,686.38

In the County of Grey — 10 people are listed including CAO Lance Thurston at 115 thousand dollars.

County of Grey FEDY BARBARA Director, Social Services $110,671.82
County of Grey HOGAN GEOFF Director, Information Technology $111,421.52
County of Grey JOHNSON LYNNE Director, Long Term Care $108,448.76
County of Grey MCLEVY GRANT Director, Human Resources $111,421.52
County of Grey PERSON SHIRLEY Administrator, Grey Gables $102,269.51
County of Grey SHAW GARY Director, Transportation and Public Safety $113,564.70
County of Grey THURSTON LANCE Chief Administrative Officer $115,388.00
County of Grey VOKES SHARON Clerk/Director of Council Services $111,421.52
County of Grey WEPPLER KEVIN Director, Finance $114,108.33
County of Grey WYATT ROD Director, Housing $111,421.52

In Bruce county — 13 employees are listed. CAO Wayne Jamieson is listed at 143 thousand dollars.

County of Bruce APOLLONI MARZIO Library Director $110,595.44
County of Bruce COBEAN BETTYANNE G. Clerk  Treasurer $110,607.94
County of Bruce ERNEWEIN LISA ANNE Registered Nurse, Brucelea Haven $104,475.98
County of Bruce HARRIS DOUGLAS Human Resources Director  $110,607.95
County of Bruce JAMIESON J. WAYNE Chief Administrative Officer $143,428.65
County of Bruce KNOX BRIAN Engineer – Highways $110,577.72
County of Bruce LAFOREST CHRISTOPHER Planning Director $105,523.07
County of Bruce MACEWEN ELEANOR Administrator, Brucelea Haven $114,828.62
County of Bruce SANDERSON TERRY Director, Social Services & Housing  $105,523.08
County of Bruce SMITH DOUGLAS F. Director, Emergency Medical Services $103,639.46
County of Bruce STROEDER LISA Registered Nurse, Brucelea Haven $100,327.57
County of Bruce TURNBULL CRYSTAL Registered Nurse, Brucelea Haven $105,864.66
County of Bruce YOUNG CHARLES Administrator, Gateway Haven $114,828.65

Town of Collingwood… 19 people on the list , mostly firefighters (11).
CAO Kimberly Wingrove tops the list at 150 thousand dollars.

Town of Collingwood BLAKELY KATHRYN Deputy Director of Finance $120,904.62
Town of Collingwood BOLT ROBERT Fire Prevention Officer $101,382.32
Town of Collingwood CAILES GARY Firefighter $108,201.08
Town of Collingwood DANCE WILLIAM Firefighter $112,440.47
Town of Collingwood DEE BRIAN Firefighter $125,421.82
Town of Collingwood DUNBAR PETER Director, Leisure Services $138,248.87
Town of Collingwood ELYEA TRENT Fire Chief $117,021.74
Town of Collingwood FARRER NANCY Director, Planning Services $108,169.23 Town of Collingwood FAWCETT RICHARD Firefighter $106,379.18
Town of Collingwood FRYER SCOTT Firefighter $110,171.29
Town of Collingwood GREEN DONALD Manager, Environmental Services $112,296.57
Town of Collingwood KOHUT JEFFREY Firefighter $111,546.76
Town of Collingwood LIVINGSTONE JODY Manager, Public Works $108,210.93
Town of Collingwood PARR ROSS Deputy Fire Chief $105,276.24
Town of Collingwood PLEWES WILLIAM Director, Building Services, Chief Building Official $100,040.18
Town of Collingwood ROBINSON KERRI Director, Library Services $108,018.11 Town of Collingwood SWITZER WILLIAM Firefighter $126,899.98
Town of Collingwood THURMAN DANIEL Firefighter $103,634.75
Town of Collingwood WINGROVE KIMBERLY Chief Administrative Officer $150,300.90

Town of Hanover DAVID TRACY Police Chief $117,819.46
Town of Hanover DUNLOP MICHAEL Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk $113,618.62

Municipality of Meaford KENNEDY DAVID Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/Director Corporate Services/Treasurer $108,942.05
Municipality of Meaford MIELE FRANK Chief Administrative Officer $119,086.20

Municipality of Kincardine DEROSENROLL JOHN Chief Administrative Officer  $116,494.59
Town of Saugeen Shores 3 people were on the list …. CAO Allison Lawrence earned 136 thousand dollars. Police chief Dan Rivett earned 117 thousand dollars.

Town of Saugeen Shores ALLISON LAWRENCE Chief Administrative Officer  $136,118.38
Town of Saugeen Shores – Police Services MCCULLOCH KEN Police Inspector $106,504.39
Town of Saugeen Shores – Police Services RIVETT DAN Police Chief $117,376.95
Town of South Bruce Peninsula COOK RHONDA Chief Administrative Officer $124,066.59
Town of South Bruce Peninsula MCINTOSH MALCOLM Chief Administrative Officer $101,634.00
Town of Wasaga Beach BELL MICHAEL Fire Captain $101,306.92
Town of Wasaga Beach HIGGINS WES Deputy Fire Chief $100,451.16
Town of Wasaga Beach MCGUIRE KELLY Fire Captain $113,843.35
Town of Wasaga Beach MCLAUGHLIN LARRY Fire Captain $101,593.84
Town of Wasaga Beach MCWILLIAM MICHAEL Fire Chief $104,798.76
Town of Wasaga Beach MORTON LYNN Treasurer $109,330.10
Town of Wasaga Beach VADEBONCOEUR GEORGE Chief Administrative Officer $147,603.31
Town of Wasaga Beach WILSON KATHERINE Deputy Treasurer $102,030.77

Who says Crime doesn’t pay!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

The Craig Gammie Commentary


 Volume 1 Number  10

28 April 2011

 Mayor Close Clinches A 7.2 Per Cent Tax Increase – Breaks Campaign Promise Of No Tax Increase

 In a September 29, 2011 all-candidates meeting, mayoral candidate John Close took the mike, casually walked among the audience, and confidently promised to deliver a 15% tax rate decrease over two years.  On October 25th the electorate showed their support.

The obstacle facing the mayor only one month later was that previous council had set staff to generate a 2011 budget based on a zero tax rate change, equivalent to an increase in taxes on the average residence of 7.2 per cent.

In an April 26, 2011 meeting, the 7.2 per cent increase budget came before council.

Few members of the public were present at the April 26th meeting.  None spoke in support of the 7.2 % tax increase budget.

 In the meeting TSBP citizen Rick Lyttle challenged Mayor Close to account for the fact that he had not delivered on his campaign promise of a 15% tax rate reduction, and to account for the fact that he had not even made any effort to get to the zero tax increase implied in his promise.

 Mayor Close responded that the budget decision is a council decision, and was not his decision alone, and that he was just following the wishes of council.

 That’s not much of an excuse for not even trying to convince council of a zero-tax-increase budget.  But fair enough, it is true that the decision is not the mayor’s alone.

 The irony is that not 30 minutes after the mayor lamely declared that the 7.5 % tax increase was not his decision, it became his decision.

 The resolution to pass the 7.2 % tax increase budget was put to a recorded vote of council.  (Mayor votes last on a recorded vote).     The vote was recorded  ….Bowman ..”no”, …Jackson……”no ”, …..Kirkland…..”yes”,…..Klages…”yes, …McKenzie ….“no”,…..  Standen….”no”,…..Thomas… “yes”,… Turner…. “yes””

 …uh-oh……..UH-OH……(Tie vote to that point.)

 If the mayor had not been there, the tie would have gone to the “no’s”, and the 7.2 % tax increase would have been defeated.  But the mayor was there. And the mayor at this point could not very well say council was forcing him to vote one way or the other.  The spotlight was on the Mayor, the decision at this point his and his alone.

 How would the mayor vote?  How would the mayor decide the question?

 Were there secret back room promises to special interest groups binding him to vote “yes” to the 7.2 % increase in taxes?   Would he be cast as a dishonest politician if he voted “yes”.  Would citizens petition for a recall?

 On the other hand, would there be complaints from the back room if he voted “no”?  And would the residents even appreciate it if he kept his campaign promise and voted “no”?

 I watched everyone in the room, sitting on the edge of their seats, the suspense palpable. 

 Then Clerk Cathrae popped the question.  “[yes or no], Mayor Close?”.  

 And without a pause, the reply…”yes”.

 Craig

The Craig Gammie Commentary Volume 1 Number 9


TSBP continues to push a 7.2 % tax increase as a “good budget”; who do they think they’re fooling?
The following will be presented to council on April 26th during the public meeting for budget discussions.  My objective is to cajole, embarrass, or shame council into reconsidering.  Anyone who agrees that the draft budget is a bad one should consider letting council know.
You can e-mail council at “council” <sbpen@bmts.com>

Council has a duty of trust – to protect the interests of the inhabitants of TSBP. The draft budget dated 26 April is in fact contrary to the interests of the inhabitants.  Council is therefore in breach of its fiduciary duty. Council should revise the budget to achieve a 7% tax reduction, or at minimum no tax increase.

 There are three misconceptions that have been used in support of the proposed 7.2% tax increase.  The misconceptions are:

 That the 2011 budget is a zero tax increase on the average property.

 That MPAC assessments are responsible for any tax increase.

 That past council not paying a $250,000 debt prevents council present from getting a zero tax increase budget.

 No matter how often these misconceptions are repeated, it does not make them correct.  They are all false.

  Misconception # 1 – That the 2011 budget is a zero tax increase on the average property.

 The table below is from a MRS Neifer memo to council of 1 April 2011.

row  

2010

2011

 

1

Tax Rate

0.00553558

0.00553558

2

Assessment Average household (Per TSBP)

$180,000

$180,000

3

Tax average household (row 1 times row 2)

$996.40

$996.40

               

                       source:       Neifer 1 April 2011

 The staff calculation of taxes on the average household is as follows:

 The tax rate for 2010 and 2011 stays the same at .00553558 (row 1)

 The assessment on the average household is listed as $180,000 in 2010 and is assumed to be $180,000 in 2011 (row 2).

 The calculated tax is the tax rate from row 1 times the assessment in row 2 which gives the taxes in row three.

 This would be all well and good if indeed the average household was assessed at $180,000 in 2010 and at $180,000 in 2011.

 But we know that in fact assessments went up 7.2 percent on average, meaning 7.2 per cent on the average property.  So the assessment on the average household in 2011 is in fact not $180,000, but rather $192,890.  So the assumption that the assessment of  the average household in 2011 is $180,000 is just plain wrong.

 And because the wrong average assessment for 2011 was used in the table above, the taxes on average (row 3) are also incorrect.

 A corrected table using the staff method with a correct assessment assumption for 2011 is below.

row  

2010

2011

Change

1

Tax Rate

0.00553558

0.00553558

0%

2

Assessment Average property

$180,000

$192,890

7.2%

3

Tax average household (row 1 times row 2)

$996.40

$1,067.76

7.2%

 The tax rate increase is zero, but the tax levy increase is 7.2 per cent and the tax bill increase on the average property is not zero but rather 7.2 per cent.

 Taxes in 2011 are 7.2 per cent higher. Even though the tax rate did not change.

 The same (7.2% increase) number can be calculated without using assessments at all (see below).

 Misconception #2 – that the tax increase (of 7.2%) is due to MPAC assessments.

 The tax levy, or the total to be collected from taxpayers in 2010 and the plan for 2011 are as in row 2 of the table below:

 

2010

2011

change
Tax levy

7,477,073

8,012,472

7.2%

Number of properties

7504

7504

 
Taxes average property

$996.41

$1,067.76

7.2%

 The 2011 levy comes from aggregation of all of the spending less revenues from sources other than taxes.  The 2010 levy was determined the same way. 

 The 2011 levy is exactly 7.2% higher than the 2010 levy.   This is the tax increase.  It is also the increase on the average property (row 4 above).

 Neither assessments nor MPAC nor tax rate was used or needed to calculate the 7.2 percent increases in taxes.  That’s because the tax increase is related to council’s spending only, and is totally independent of assessments.

 All you need is the budget spending less non-tax revenues to calculate the levy, then divide by the number of properties, to get the tax bill on the average property.  So if assessments are not needed to determine the tax increase, how can the increase or any part of it be attributed to assessment changes??

 The levy increase for the past five years is calculated in exactly the same way.  MPAC assessments or any assessments are not needed to determine the tax levy or the tax levy increase.  The tax levy comes from adding up the spending.

 

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Tax levy

6211491

6594979

6814489

7,477,073

8,012,472

Levy increase

0.4%

6.2%

3.3%

9.7%

7.2%

 From 2006 to 2011 the tax levy has increased 30%.

 The same data is shown in graphical format below.

 Despite TSBP claims that taxes have been fairly flat (blue bars), the fact is that taxes have risen dramatically  (purple brick  bars)

 Misconception #3 – That past council’s $250,000 debt for small water systems prevents current council from achieving a better budget.

 A third misrepresentation is the notion that past council’s failure to pay off a $250,000 loan that was taken out to cover the town’s share of the capital upgrade costs of the small water systems prevents current council from doing any better than they have with the budget. It is true that if net assets are reduced by selling assets or drawing down reserves or taking on debt, then taxes in the current year can be lower.  It’s not a free gain, as taxpayers pay for it later, but it technically does reduce taxes in the current year.   Conversely if net assets are increased by increasing reserves, buying capital assets, or paying off debt, all other assets remaining the same, then current year taxes need to be higher.  My preliminary analysis indicates that the draft budget before us actually decreases net assets (by selling properties and decreasing reserves by more than debt is paid off).   Further my analysis indicates that council past actually left the balance sheet so healthy that it made it easier, not harder, for current council to reduce taxes.  (I have asked for information from staff so that I can quantify the balance sheet changes, and their tax impacts, but I expect that I will have to submit a Freedom of Information request to get it).

Some of the negative implications of the draft (taxes up 7.2%) budget are:

 Some $400,000 or more will be callously taken from those who worked hard to earn it and deserve to keep it, and will be arbitrarily given to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it and are not entitled to have it.

 Some who were near the edge and in danger of losing their homes will lose their homes because of the extra tax burden.

 Some who were near the poverty line will be pushed below the poverty line, with associated implications.

 Is Council Fulfilling Its Role?

 The role of council from Municipal Act  s. 224.  (paraphrased) is:

 “It is the role of council to consider the well-being and interests of the inhabitants.”

 Council wants to:

 1.  callously take more than $400,000 from taxpayers and give it to someone else,

2.  push everyone closer to losing their homes, and,

3.  make everyone poorer.

 Is that what council feels is “consider the well-being and interests of the inhabitants”???

 Far from being ”considerate” of the inhabitants, the draft budget is callous and cruel to the inhabitants.

 By pursuing a 7.2 % budget increase, council is not fulfilling its fiduciary duty to the inhabitants of TSBP.

 If council is really interested in considering the well-being and interests of the inhabitants, council will set a budget target of  a 7.2 per cent reduction in taxes on the average property (with no budget change in net assets). There is ample room in the budget to get it down to at least a zero tax increase.  The April 26 draft budget needs to be rejected and redone. 

Craig

Fast Facts: Mental Health/Mental Illness


I lost my friend and Brother this week to an invisible killer!

Who is affected?

  • Mental illness indirectly affects all Canadians at some time through a family member, friend or colleague.
  • 20% of Canadians will personally experience a mental illness in their lifetime.
  • Mental illness affects people of all ages, educational and income levels, and cultures.
  • Approximately 8% of adults will experience major depression at some time in their lives.
  • About 1% of Canadians will experience bipolar disorder (or “manic depression”).

How common is it?

  • Schizophrenia affects 1% of the Canadian population.
  • Anxiety disorders affect 5% of the household population, causing mild to severe impairment.
  • Suicide accounts for 24% of all deaths among 15-24 year olds and 16% among 25-44 year olds.
  • Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in both men and women from adolescence to middle age.
  • The mortality rate due to suicide among men is four times the rate among women.

What causes it?

  • A complex interplay of genetic, biological, personality and environmental factors causes mental illnesses.
  • Almost one half (49%) of those who feel they have suffered from depression or anxiety have never gone to see a doctor about this problem.
  • Stigma or discrimination attached to mental illnesses presents a serious barrier, not only to diagnosis and treatment but also to acceptance in the community.
  • Mental illnesses can be treated effectively.

A Tribute to Steven Schnurr My Brother, My Friend!

A truly great person is a person that understands where he is, how he got there and when it is time to go home.

My brother Steve was such a person!

 Steve use to say that he was the only lone child in the world with  three brothers and four sisters!

Steve was the youngest in our family, arriving as I was leaving the nest. I never really got to know Steve until the last few years.

 I recall when I was courting my wife Lynne, Steve, took a shiningto her. When I brought Lynne to the house  Steve would not allow me or anyone else to sit beside her or be anywhere near her. He proclaimed that he was going to marry her and that was that!

 Steve was a creator! His writings touched my very soul! Steve had depth about him that was unknown to most. He was very guardedwith his inner thoughts.

 My Brother Steve could build anything he put his mind to, he was a master of wood. He custom designed and created all the wood work in my home, a gift from him that I am reminded of every day as I look about my house.

 My brother Steve, became my friend over time. True to his familyname,  emotion was never displayed. It was guarded and kept from view, but it was there, you could feel it in his air. 

No one knew his torment, all he displayed was his charming smile, we never saw anything except what we wanted to see, never his inner pain.

Family was the foundation of Steve’s very being. He being the youngest of our brood, was always the one we had to take with us under the orders of Mom. We all had our turn at baby sitting Baby “S” whether we liked it or not.

 Steve often wrote of “the invisible thread that binds the fabric of a family”.  Steve is part of that thread in our family and will remain within the tapestry of our lives forever.

 God, through my brother Steve brought my family the greatest gifts in the world. If not for Steve we would not have been blessed with Teresa, Jordyn and Brock.

Think how barren this world would be if not for these three gifts from Steven. Steve lives on in their very presence.

Thank you Steven for Teresa, Brock and Jordyn.

Steve was totally dedicated to his wife Teresa, she was the center of his universe, his love for her never failed, he would and did anything necessary to protect her from pain.

 Steve was so proud of Jordyn and Brock. He never missed an opportunity to brag about them. The very sight of them was music to his soul. He would smile, his eyes would sparkle and he would give the  “Royal Nod”  he was famous for.

Over the last few months Steve and I would talk about Jordyn and Brock and I marveled in his joy at the very sound of  their names.  Again Steve would and did anything necessary to protect them from pain.

Everyone here shared a relationship with Steve, thoughts  and regrets of mistakes made and of things done and said are nothing more than time wasted and lost forever.

 There is no single reason that makes any sense why Steve was chosen to fight a losing battle. It was and is a mystery we will never solve or understand.

Take comfort in knowing that Steve is free now! He is going to live forever! 

He lives in the hearts and minds of his brothers and sisters. You can see him if you try,  in the twinkle of  Teresa’s eyes, in the spirit of Jordyn and the determination of Brock. He is there! You can hear him laugh in the whisper of the wind if you take the time to listen.

I know that Steve has gone home now, on his terms, protecting all of us from witnessing the deterioration of a great man over time.

 We shall all remember Steven as Great Friend, a wonderful brother, a loving father and husband. A man that has touched our lives and made the world a better place.

 I offer you a feather in remembrance of Steve, when you see a feather floating in the wind know,  that it is Steve dropping by,  making sure that you are ok and just to say Hi!.

 John Schnurr

April 22, 2011

The Gammie Report 6


The Craig Gammie Commentary

Volume 1 Number 7

17 April 2011

 To:      Mayor and Councillors, TSBP

From:  Craig Gammie

Re:      Comments re COW agenda of April 19, 2011

 Dynamic Beach By-Law Modifications

 The current dynamic beach by-law contains a prohibition against alcohol consumption:

 “(g) No person (s) shall carry on or consume alcohol on the beach as described in Section 1 of this by-law.”

 The proposal is to remove this prohibition.  Some explanation would be in order.

 Noise By-Law Change

 Regarding waiving the noise by-law for special events:

 The current by-law says:

 (1) Without the express permission of the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula or to warn of  the danger or emergency no person shall ring any bell, blow or sound any horn, shout or make any unusual noises likely to disturb the inhabitants of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula or allow or permit such noises to be made.”

 The proposal is to add several exemptions, including:

 The current law allows council to waive the by-law or parts of the by-law and to apply conditions for that waiver on a specific event basis.  This means that anyone who wished to contravene the bylaw has to convince council that it is in the public interest to waive the bylaw under certain conditions.

 The proposal would remove that requirement for permission.  The proposal would remove all control and effectively hand over the law to the chambers of commerce.

 The proposal is completely unacceptable.

 The requirement to get permission for each event should be retained.  Permission should be granted only when it is clearly in the public interest to do so.  And permission should be granted sparingly, with conditions applied to the permission in order to control noise. Any waiver request should include all kind of constraints, like hours, levels, measures to minimize noise, even decibel levels allowed or prohibitions based on maximum distance from a source that a sound is audible.

 The proposed change is not mentioned in the staff report.  This makes it appear that the change is being slipped in.  This is unacceptable.

 The proposed exemption for land zoned agriculture is also unacceptable.

   The proposed exemption for church and school bells:           

 Should be only for certain days and hours.

 Response To My Letter Re Breaches Of Procedure Re Sauble Beach Chamber Memorandum Of Understanding

 In a letter to council I indicated that in the discussion of chamber MOU’s, there had been several breaches.

 I note that there is a draft response penned by CAO Cook included in the April 19 meeting agenda package.

 The draft may appear on the surface to be a rebuttal, but it in fact is no more than unsupported contradictions of a few cherry-picked statements in my letter. 

 For example where I made the argument that the amendment was an amendment to the MOU and not to the motion, COA cook merely stated that the amendment was to the motion, without any comment on my argument.   This is not debate – it’s contradiction.  I  appreciate identification of errors in my case.  But simple contradictions are not constructive and do not help anyone.

 Purchase Of Sauble Medical Clinic

 Sauble Area Medical Clinic Incorporated is either insolvent now or at the rate it is bleeding red ink soon will be.  Council should not even be considering buying the clinic with taxpayers’ money, especially at the values that have been discussed.  And council should not be going into closed session on this issue and especially not with a member or members of the clinic board.

The Craig Gammie Commentary


Déjà vu??    –   Council Shenanigans Taint Discussions of Grants  to the Chambers of Commerce

 Some very fancy stickhandling by the pro-chambers-grants Kirkland team may have distracted the referees for a bit.   But a review of my handwritten notes and committee minutes – the closest I have to an instant reply since my recording device was confiscated – clearly indicates that several were offside.

My protest to council is reproduced below.

 From my perspective, council present is looking more and more like council past.  Whether we are witnessing that wobbly first ride without training wheels or calculated manipulation by seasoned pros, or some of each, is a bit unclear to me.  But what is clear is that extra public scrutiny is still needed.

 Craig

 Date:   11 April 2011

To:      Mayor and Councillors, TSBP

From:  Craig Gammie

Re:      Breaches of Procedure in 5 April COW re Sauble MOU

 In the April 5 COW meeting, the grant proposal for the Sauble Chamber was increased from $40,000 to $60,000.  In making this change, in my view, there were several breaches of proper procedure:

 An amendment was improperly introduced,

  1. An improper meeting prior to the formal meeting may have inappropriately influenced the MOU decision,
  2. Conflict(s) of interest was (were) not declared.

 A.        An Amendment Was Improperly Introduced

 In the March 29 Committee of the Whole meeting, grant requests of $60,000 for the Wiarton Chamber of Commerce and $60,000 for the Sauble chamber were discussed.  Several councilors indicated that they would vote no to a motion of $60,000 to each chamber, and would vote no to a budget with $60,000 to each.  One councilor suggested $60,000 Wiarton and $40,000 Sauble.  Mayor close ruled that the proposal of $60,000 each had to be put to question first and then, if that failed to carry, other motions with other amounts could be put to question.

 On a show of hands, the $60,000 to each chamber proposal was defeated in a 4 to 4 tie (tie defeats).

 Then the $60,000/ $40,000 proposal was put to question and on a show of hands passed.

 This was minuted as:

 On a show of hands, the Sauble Chamber will be given $40,000 and the Wiarton Chamber will be given $60,000. This will be split by giving $40,000 to Sauble in 2011 and $20,000 to Wiarton for 2011 and $20,000 to Sauble in 2012.

 (source 12 April 2011 council agenda page 104 – original from March 29 budget meeting minutes)

 It was agreed that MOU’s be drafted with these amounts.

 In the April 5th COW meeting, the MOU/grant to the Sauble Chamber was raised back to $60,000.

 In my view, the motion that raised the grant back to $60,000 was a serious breach of protocol, was out of order, and needs to be rescinded.

 The proposed Sauble MOU was in the agenda package 5 April with the amount specified in the MOU as follows:

 The staff recommendation in the April 5 agenda was:

 This clearly meant the MOU with $40,000.

 In the meeting of the 5th April, the staff recommendation above (present $40,000 MOU) was discussed as motion COW 136-2011.   For my record I am calling this 136-a-2011.

 At some point in the discussion of motion 136 –a-2011 it was proposed to increase the Sauble amount to $60,000.

 Following this, Councillor Bowman “called the question”.  It is clear from the context that the question being called was 136-a-2011, namely whether to present the $40,000 MOU to the Sauble chamber.

 Immediately after the question was called by Councillor Bowman, COA Cook indicated that “the amendment takes precedent over calling the question”. Mayor Close ruled the same and the 136–a-2011 question (present $40,000 MOU) was not called.

 None of the discussion captured in the preceding three paragraphs was minuted.

 Instead of the question being called, COW136 2011 was revised and moved and carried as follows:

 COW-136-2011

It was MOVED by J. Kirkland, SECONDED by J. Turner and CARRIED

Recommendation: THAT the Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce be given $60,000 under the MOU.

 To make it clearer to follow what happened, I am calling this “amended” and carried motion 136-b-2011.

 Minuted is that council deferred the “main” recommendation:

 Committee decided to defer their main recommendation until after the budget discussion.

 The deferred motion, which had no separate motion number at the time, but was later called COW 150-2011, was:

 It was MOVED by J. Turner, SECONDED by M. Standen and DEFERRED

Recommendation: THAT the Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce be presented with the proposed Memorandum of Understanding;

AND FURTHER THAT the necessary signatory by-law be placed on a Council agenda for consideration after the passing of the budget.

 And later in the day the deferred motion above was formally given the number 150-2011 and was moved and carried on a 5 to 4 recorded vote as follows:

 COW-150-2011

It was MOVED by J. Turner, SECONDED by M. Standen

Recommentation: THAT the Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce be presented with the

proposed Memorandum of Understanding;

AND FURTHER THAT the necessary signatory by-law be placed on a Council agenda for consideration after the passing of the budget.

Councillor Bowman requested a recorded vote. The Clerk indicated yes in support and no as opposed to the motion.

M. Bowman No

J. Jackson No

J. Kirkland Yes

K. Klages No

P. McKenzie No

M. Standen Yes

C. Thomas Yes

J. Turner Yes

J. Close Yes

Mayor Close declared the recommendation to be CARRIED

 The original motion for discussion was:

 In discussion of motions, amendments to the question can be proposed. Such amendments to the main question are governed by rule A21.8 of the procedural manual.

 Rule A21.8 (g) requires that any motion to amend be decided before the main question.

 Because the “amendment” was considered before the main motion, on the surface it appears that A21.8 (g) was followed.

 There were four problems with the amending motion:

  1. The amendment was not made to the original motion,
  2. The amendment was in effect a direct negative to the motion,
  3. The amended motion was identical to the original motion,
  4. A precedent from March 29 was not followed.

 1.         The Amendment Was Not Made To The Original Motion

 The problem in this instance is that the so-called amendment was not an amendment to the original question at all, but was rather a proposed amendment to the MOU, which is different than an amendment to the motion, and as such should have been considered as a separate motion, and should have come to the council after the original question was decided.

 2.         The Amendment Was In Effect A Direct Negative To The Motion

 Section A21.8 (e) of the procedural manual indicates:

 all amendments to motions…shall not be received proposing a direct negative to the question;….

 The original question was whether to “present the $40,000 MOU to the sauble Chamber”.  The amendment to change the MOU to $60,000 was in effect an amendment to “not present the $40,000 MOU to the sauble Chamber”.  The amendment is therefore the negative of the original question and therefore contravenes A21.8 (e) and therefore should be disallowed as an amendment to the original motion.

 3.         The Amended Motion Was Identical To The Original Motion

 An amendment changes the original motion in some way, and that changed original motion replaces the original motion.  Yet the wording of the amended motion (COW-150) is identical to the original (COW 137) motion.  The amending motion therefore could not really have been an amending motion.

 4.         A Precedent From March 29 Was Not Followed

 I submit that a precedent was set in the March 29 meeting that should have disallowed the amendment in the April 5th meeting.  In the March 29th meeting, the $60,000/$60,000 proposal was under discussion but had not been called for consensus.  A proposal was made to put $60,000/$40,000 in the budget instead of $60,000/$60,000.   The chair ruled that the original question was to be decided before any new/amended question.  This was just the opposite ruling to April 5th, even though the March 29th situation was much more clearly a true amendment to the question while the April 5th was not.

 Since 136-b was not a valid amendment to 136-a, the amendment should not have taken priority over a councillor’s call of the question (136-a).  The call of question should have proceeded before the amendment.

 COW 150-2011 and both parts of COW 136-2011 are invalid and should be stricken.

 The process should go back to the valid call of the original question (COW 136a)

 B.        An Improper Meeting Prior To The Formal Meeting May Have Inappropriately Influenced The Mou Decision,

 Before the formal April 5th meeting convened, but with a clear quorum present, Councillor Kirkland attempted to persuade other council members to raise the MOU grant to the Sauble chamber from $40,000 to $60,000.

 Municipal Act 238 s2.1 indicates:

 (2.1)  The procedure by-law shall provide for public notice of meetings.  2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 102 (3).

 Since there was no public notice of the meeting that was held prior to convening the formal and properly noticed meeting, the pre-meeting was not proper. There should not have been discussion of the MOU issue before the formal meeting convened. 

 This means the invalid MOU motion may have been improperly influenced.

 C.        Conflict(S) Of Interest Was (Were) Not Declared.

 Finally, in both the improper April 5th pre-meeting and the formal meeting, in my view, one or more apparent conflicts should have been declared, but were not.