Craig’s Commentary

Volume 1 Number 30

30 July 2011

RE:  August 2, 2011 Committee of the Whole Agenda

 Part “A” – Excerpts from COW agenda package August 2, 2011

4.1.    11:00 am Sauble Beach Growth Strategy-Genevieve Scott, Cuesta Planning (1


 Sauble Beach Core Area Growth Strategy Proposal.pdf

 Sauble Growth Strategy-Discussion Paper-June 2010.pdf

 5.2. Procedural By-Law, Schedule A and By-Laws-Councillor Bowman

 5.6. CLK41-2011 Councillor Standen Resignation from Ad Hoc Committee

 5.7. CLK42-2011 Ombudsman Correspondence


 5.9. EDO13-2011 Strategic Planning Consultant-Variance to Budget


 5.12. EDO16-2011 Event Policy Amendments


 5.16. PW69-2011 Variance to Budget-Sideroad 15 Surface Water Study


 5.17. CAO68-2011 Pitre Purchase of a Portion of Roth Drive


 5.18. CAO69-2011 Policy Manual Amendment, Policy C.4.2 Harassment

 Part “B” – Craig’s comments

 4.1. 11:00 am Sauble Beach Growth Strategy-Genevieve Scott, Cuesta Planning (1


 I have written extensively about this scam called the “Sauble growth Strategy”.

 Commentary 15

 Commentary 23

 It was a strategy paid for by the residents. It was supposed to be a strategy built to conform to the people’s agenda.  It was supposed to be a study constrained to the Sauble downtown core area.  Without council knowledge or approval, it was switched, by CUESTA, to a growth strategy for the tourism and development industries. Without council knowledge or approval, it was switched to a growth strategy for all ofSaubleBeach. The switches were tacitly authorized by COA Cook without any knowledge of council. 

 Key CUESTA recommendations are sewers for all of Sauble and extensive commercial development.

 CUESTA did not do what they were required to do.  CUESTA has done much harm to the people of ward 3.  And now they are being rewarded with a one – hour deputation.   They are pushing some agenda that is not the resident’s agenda.  (See my comments below re the “strategic plan”).

 In a June 10 sewers committee meeting, MPW Dwyer boasted that he had substituted his own big-sauble-sewers agenda for the more modest Sauble resident’s agenda (modest sewers plan , DCA only, if at all) because the residents of Sauble are too “irrational” and “misinformed” to have any input of value.

 In substituting her own agenda (big commercial growth study  – all of Sauble) for that of the people of Sauble, has CAO Cook not demonstrated that her contempt for Sauble residents is even stronger than that of MR. Dwyer?

 5.2. Procedural By-Law, Schedule A and By-Laws-Councillor Bowman

 The procedural by-law section A14.6 reads:

 “After the first and second reading of a by-law, any member may ask to debate the by-law, and that by-law shall be referred to Committee of the Whole under “Items referred from Council or Committee of the Whole” for further debate, or with the consent of the majority of members present may be debated at the current meeting.”

 Section 14.6 is a pillar of our democratic system, as it requires that if any council member so desires, a by-law shall be debated separately from the meeting where first and second reading were done.  This rule is there to allow councillors and the public to engage in informed debate.

 On June 28 Mayor Close and his band knocked down that democratic pillar.  On June 28 Mayor Close decided that from then on a by-law would only be discussed at a separate meeting from first and second reading if a majority of council concurred that it should be debated separately. And then Mayor Close decided that by-laws would only be debated at all after first and second reading if a majority agreed with debating the by-law.

 In one ruling Mayor Close replaced our democratic institution of participation in informed discussion of by-laws with a tyranny of the majority.

 Our democracy is under siege.  First schedule “B”, the record of the voice of individual citizens to council, was dropped, because COA Cook felt that some citizens were abusing their right to participate.   Then all correspondence from the public to council was channeled through CAO Cook for censoring and filtering.  Then rules on deputations that made it virtually impossible to get on the agenda were passed.  Then third reading of by-laws on the same meeting as first and second became the norm, rather than the exception.

 And now debate of a by-law occurs only with permission of the majority.

 It’s democracy under siege at Camp Shenanigans.

 Good on Councillor Bowman and her like-minded colleagues for opposing the siege.

  5.7. CLK42-2011 Ombudsman Correspondence

 The clerk’s report 42-2011 (about the Ombudsman’s report of July 19, 2011) is very misleading.

 Reading clerk report 42-2011, you get the impression that council got a fairly clean bill of health from the Ombudsman regarding closed meetings.  Not so.  For the truth, readers should check out the actual letter from the ombudsman. (Link is in section “A” above). 

 The clerk seems to imply that the complaint that started the investigation was not valid.  The ombudsman’s report says otherwise.

 The ombudsman clearly found fault in several of council’s closed meetings.  The law is designed to allow the public to be fully involved.  The ombudsman’s letter says that the public was inappropriately shut out.  The ombudsman’s letter does not say explicitly that the town breached the law, but that’s the clear implication.

 Why the ombudsman is so timid is completely unfathomable to me.  

 In a strongly worded July 2010 report on improper closed meetings in TSBP (called “open conflict”), the Ombudsman indicated very clearly that Council broke their own by-laws and also the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.  But the Ombudsman was criticized for not doing anything about it.   So maybe the July 19, 2011 report was toned down to preempt similar criticism.

 Or maybe the Ombudsman is afraid that if he criticizes too much he’ll be branded as a criminal and hunted down by the vigilante bill 168 enforcers.

  5.9. EDO13-2011 Strategic Planning Consultant-Variance to Budget

 Having a strategic plan for the inhabitants would get on paper what kinds and levels of services we want, what level of taxes we are willing to pay, and what kind of community we want.  This would be good.

 But while the plan that’s in the works is billed as a strategic plan for the town, it is in fact not a strategic plan for the people of the town at all.  If left unopposed, and if not corrected, the coming “strategic plan” will in fact be a plan not for the people, but rather for the development industry and the commercial sector, and mostly the tourism industry.  It would be more properly called a “commercial/development strategic plan”.  If left unopposed, the so-called “strategic plan” will be in fact a plan for how to collect more money from the taxpayers and give it to the chambers of commerce.   If left unopposed, the so-called “strategic plan” will be in fact a plan for how to hand our communities over to the developers.  If left unopposed, the “strategic plan” will be a plan for putting an eighty-million dollar sewers system in at Sauble, (the cost of which will result in many losing their homes).  If left unopposed, the so-called “strategic plan” will be a plan for intensive commercial development ofSaubleBeach.  And if left unopposed, the “strategic plan” will turn Sauble beach into a cluster of high rise condominiums, big hotels, rows of townhouses on twenty-foot lots, and even a casino or two.  We face loss of our savings, loss of our homes, and loss of the quiet pastoral ambience that brought us to Sauble in the first place.

 The ward 3 people’s agenda is crystal clear.  In the October 2010 election, the voters of ward 3 strongly rejected the eighty-million dollar Sauble sewers plan, and rejected the “commercial/developer strategic plan”.  We voted to keep our homes, to keep our money, and to keep our community and its quiet small town ambience.

 So how is it possible, just nine months later, that the crystal clear people’s agenda is being replaced by someone else’s strategic agenda?  (See also my comments on the Sauble Growth Strategy above.)

 5.12. EDO16-2011 Event Policy Amendments

 TheEDO says that for a non-charity events liquor license, the town designates the event as a “significant event”.  That’s close but not quite right.

 For an event of municipal significance, the designation is  “municipally significant”.

 “A Public Event is one which is conducted by a registered charity or not for profit entity or an event of municipal, provincial, national or international significance. To be “municipally significant”, the event must have been so designated by the local municipal council and include a municipal resolution. To be “provincially, nationally or internationally significant”, the Registrar generally requires a municipal resolution.” (AGCO)

 It is hard to imagine that council would deem an event “municipally significant” if it wasn’t really “municipally significant” within the meaning of the words as intended by  the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.  But I may check of few resolutions just to be sure.  

 How about “Municipally significant” Chessfest?  Tiddlywinksjam?  Freezefest?

 Council should note that the liquor laws are there to protect the public.  So in the public interest, council should resist any urge to find the shortest route around those laws. 

 5.16. PW69-2011 Variance to Budget-Sideroad 15 Surface Water Study

 MPW Dwyer recommends spending $26,000 for Golder Associates to do an Environmental Assessment to decide whether and if so how to fix the sideroad 15 “problem”.

 One alternative should be modifying the bridge and road to the way it was designed in 2010 by Genivar.   Since the water flow and water level modeling and most of the engineering for this alternative have already been done by Genivar, it might make some sense to at least invite Genivar to bid on conducting a new EA or EA-like process.  It could be a lot cheaper.

 5.17. CAO68-2011 Pitre Purchase of a Portion of Roth Drive

 When a resident presented to council in May or June, he indicated that he needed to purchase part of Roth drive so he could make his Berford Lake home his permanent residence.   I knew there was something not right in that explanation.  In fact that resident does not need the road to make his Berford lake home his permanent residence.  And last Tuesday at council meeting we found out the real reason for that resident wanting the land.  It’s because he does not want the public using public land in front of his property.  Last week we learned, by his own admission, that the resident had many months ago erected a chain across the public road, with a “no trespassing” sign on it.  The chain was completely on town property, and was restricting people from using and accessing town property.

 It appears that the resident’s request to purchase has nothing to do with permanent residence status.

 Other residents in the area are strongly opposed to the sale to the resident who put the chain up.  That should be the end of it.  Council should do the right thing.




Tis da last week in Jewli

Da sumars half gone

Da septic is full

and soggy is da lawn

Da plovers dun breedin

Da lake is all green

Da beach is all crowded

da trash cans all full

No sewers are needed

We know this is bull!

So suck it up boys and girls! We need sewers to grow this community! No sewers no growth, no growth more taxes to stand still!

All the retired folks living in their piece of paradise have to think in terms of exit strategy. No growth means no demand no demand means no one to sell to. No sewers means more polution which decreases demand and increases the tax rate to service what we have already.

You may be happy right now but sooner or later you are going to end up in the big beach in the sky and your estate is gonna get nailed with the cost of sewers, water and probate.

Right now the cost of money is low. As we enter into the hyper inflation stage coming we will be able to pay off the debt with cheap dollars. Remember Trudeau??

Whether it is 40 thousand or 50 thousand a unit who cares in five years it is going to be double that and we are going to be forced to do it anyway. We may as well get it done now and let the new owners pay for it.

The dynamic pair from Squabble Bitch, Janice and Marilyn fighting the sewers are gonna cost your grand children huge.

Some say we need them some say we don’t but I am here to tell you that you are going to stall your way into bankruptcy if you don’t.

All the scrimpin and savin was for not if we do not grow.

Let’s hype things up, bite the bullet get the sewers and water in, build like maniacs sell the mess to the immigrants and citiots, then we move to the third world collect our pensions and live on a new beach with no taxes, citiots or immigrants!  Hell we could even take the Plovers there and save them flying south for the winter.

At the end of the day the new owners are going to get the bill cause we all will have sold to them and gone where it is warm. Pakistan is really nice in February, course the odds of Willy surviving Bar-B-Que season would be pretty much nil!

I can see it now Rhonda will be in charge of a mess of off white tax payers “Tankin her bery much ” for her efforts. Curry and Samosa’s will be served as opposed to burgers and fries. No one will have to worry about walking into affluent on the beach and the water will be as clean as Walkerton on a sunny day.

We will be on a wonderful beach in the South hoping our pension cheques don’t bounce, with a large Margretta, sun tan lotion, roasting plover in our new-found paradise.

It needed to be said!!!



Blackberry Soup!!

As we all can recall the day when Council decided to punish the only good Mayor we ever had, and take away her Blackberry for misbehaving, it seems history is repeating itself as it often does.

The word on the street is that Mayor Rhonda, has punished our Economic Development office by sending her to her room without her BlackBerry.

As most will recall,  immediately following the BlackBerry incident, Mayor Gwen Gilbert was barred from using her office, is this the next step for our Economic Development Officer?? Will our Economic Development officer be barred from her office next?? Will Deputy Mayor Close intervene or is he too Close to comment?

The political silence at city hall is deafening!

I understand that “The Blackberry Nazi” , is ruling supreme over staff and the Council members with Blackberry fear! The fear of “Rhonda the Red” has everyone hiding in the shadows! If I am late with my taxes will my Blackberry be seized by “Ronda the Red”.

Now the Economic Development Officer is not a shinning star nor is she the sharpest knife in the drawer, but her job requires her to communicate with the community and promote economic development. Isn’t this like sending the carpenter to work but taking his hammer and saw away from him?

One has to wonder if indeed it is “the Blackberry Nazi” that is really in charge! Does the town get a credit from the service provider if the Blackberry is not being used??

Perhaps we could email economic development and ask if the facts raised are true, Oh wait a minute she can’t respond she has no Blackberry it’s in “Ronda the Red’s” office paying homage to to the “Blackberry Nazi”!

Tune in next week to see if “Rhonda the Red” takes her office or if maybe Deputy Mayor Close has grown as set!

I can see it now, Staff will be all assigned a tin can with a string attached, sending messages back and forth from the dark corners of city hall, while “Rhonda the Red” hovers with a pair of scissors waiting to pounce upon anyone that doesn’t obey!!

Sieg Hiel Mayor Rhonda!!!



Craig’s Commentary

Volume 1 Number 29

24 July 2011

The Summer Of ’11 At Sauble Beach: Driftwood, Dunes, And Little Birds In Peril


The July 20 OSST edition reported Councillor Jackson’s reaction following a meeting of TSBP council and MNR officials Mark Shoreman and Suzanne Robinson.

 The article has Councillor Jackson saying “They [MNR officials] recommend or advise certain practices but, when push comes to shove, demand the municipality act according to MNR’s wishes.”

 The MNR officials did no such thing.  In the July 19 meeting the MNR officials stated that Piping Plover habitat destruction was prohibited by section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, informed council of what sort of driftwood removal would be considered habitat destruction, advised the town that if we want to comply we ought not destroy habitat, and indicated that there would be consequences if we did.

 That’s exactly the same message as in the letter from Mark Shoreman to the town of June20.  There was no change in the message between June 20 and July 19, and no change during the July 19th meeting.  The law has not changed and the MNR advice to comply with the law has been absolutely consistent.

 Far from “They [MNR] keep going around in circles”, as Ms. Jackson suggests, the MNR officials have spoken clearly, correctly, and consistently.

 If anyone “keeps going around in circles”, it’s Councillor Jackson.

 Early in the discussion Councillor Jackson demanded that the town be allowed “right now” to remove driftwood from the part of the beach North of sixth.

 MNR’s Mark Shoreman answered that driftwood removal would be considered habitat destruction and a violation of “section ten”.  It sounded like a “no” to me.

 Yet Councillor Jackson, feigning deafness, or feigning something, repeated the same demand.  Mr. Shoreman gave the same response.

 Then Councillor Jackson made the same demand nine more times, (and got the same response, nine more times), and would have asked all day if Mayor Close had not stepped in and cut the “questions”.

 But the incessant circling was not the most entertaining of Councillor Jackson’s contributions.

 The rhetoric coming from the good councillor was over the top.

 Ten times Ms. Jackson claimed that “we” have lost the whole north end of the beach to the plovers.  But Ms. Jackson is just plain wrong.  The beach north of sixth is almost as well used as the part south of sixth.

 And taking a page from Mayor Close’s May 24th “we’re-gonna-get-the-blog-criminals” press release, Ms. Jackson offered this: “We have complete intrusion of the entire north end of our beach. One hundred percent.  Our people have lost their beach to the plovers.  That’s beyond unreasonable.  That’s criminal.”

 “That’s Criminal”?

 C’mon Councillor Jackson.  There is lots of room to walk in the sand on the beach North of sixth.  You really need to take that walk.

 Council’s meeting with MNR was not all heavy and adversarial.  Councillor Turner threw in a bit of levity by announcing that he knew of six mating pairs of plovers at the edge of a little pond within five minutes of council chambers.  But after the laughter and snickering died down, the driftwood argument went on.

 Ms. Jackson wants a “balanced approach”, a “compromise”.  What she doesn’t seem to get is that the plovers and their habitat are protected by law, and you don’t find a compromise with the law, and you don’t find “balance” by obeying the law sometimes and breaking it other times.

 Ms. Jackson was elected to represent the residents of ward 3 in the TSBP policy making process.  Ms. Jackson was not elected to represent the residents of ward 3 regarding acceptability of the provincial endangered species act, or of the enforcement policy, and even if she did know the views of the people she has no more mandate than anyone else (except our MPP) to speak on behalf of the residents regarding acceptability of the act.

 But what makes Ms. Jackson’s position so outrageous is that Ms. Jackson not only lacks the mandate to speak for the residents, but also completely misrepresents the views of the residents.

 While Ms.Jacksonclaims, based on thirty e-mails from people that want the driftwood removed now, that the whole town is behind her, the fact is that her position is her personal view, and is not the view of the residents, or the ward, or the town.

 Ms. Jackson is trying, without any legitimate mandate, to use her position as councillor to sell her personal views about the act and about MNR’s enforcement strategy as the position of the residents.  This, in my view, is outrageous and fraudulent.

  Craig Gammie


Craig’s Commentary

Volume 1 Number 28

17 July 2011


Part “A” – Excerpts from July 19, 2011 COW agenda

 Agenda Item 4.1. 10:30 am Mark Shoreman and Suzanne Robinson, MNR-Beach Raking (30 mins)

 Agenda Item 4.3. 2:00 pm Don Scott, Cuesta Planning-Wiarton South Growth Study and DraftOfficial Plan Amendment (1 hour)

  Agenda Item 5.3. CLK38-2011 Governance Review

 Agenda Item 5.8. FS37-2011 Request to Consider Capital Expenditures for Airport

 Agenda Item 5.10. CAO62-2011 Town of South Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Update

 Agenda Item 5.15. CAO67-2011 Request for Placement of RV-Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce

 Agenda Item 5.23. PW62-2011 Unfinished Business-Solutions for Fiddlehead Water System

 Agenda Item 6.1. Noise By-Law-Councillor Jackson

 Agenda Item 9.17. Sauble Growth Study-Cuesta Delegation Request (June 28, 2011)

-Scheduled for August 2 COW

 Part “B”Craig’s comments

 Agenda Item 5.8. FS37-2011 Request to Consider Capital Expenditures for Airport

 The airport costs the taxpayers $70,000 per year and rising.  Shut it down and it will cost a tiny fraction of that.  It should be shut down.  Councillor Kirkland wants a new heating system so the operation doesn’t have to shut down.  Why is anyone so bent on continuing the $70,000 per year theft from the residents?

 Agenda Item 5.10. CAO62-2011 Town of South Bruce Peninsula Official Plan Update

 Staff report CAO 62-2011 indicates that “official plans are to undergo a review every five years”.  This is just not true.   The planning act requires revision within five years of the previous plan only if the plan has become inconsistent, as defined in Planning Act section 26, with provincial planning initiatives.  We should not be doing an official plan update just because five years have passed.

 Agenda Item 5.15. CAO67-2011 Request for Placement of RV-Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce

 Council already gave the Sauble chamber $60,000 and gutted theDynamicBeachBy-law and the noise by-law for the Chamber.   Now the Chamber wants more.

 Where will it end?  The beach, (and our money), belongs to the inhabitants, not the chamber.

 Agenda Item 6.1. Noise By-Law-Councillor Jackson

 My commentaries number 26 of June 10 and number 29 of July 17 are about how COA Cook did an end-run around the proper policy development process in order to get her own agenda through again.  This time it was getting two significant noise exemptions, namely an exemption for events noise and an exemption for animals working, into the noise by-law.

 Noise by-law 49-2011, passed July 12, needs to be rescinded and the policy consideration process needs to be done properly.

 And the people’s representatives need to put a stop to these all-to-frequent end-runs.

 Agenda Item 9.17. Sauble Growth Study-Cuesta Delegation Request (June 28, 2011)

-Scheduled for August 2 COW

 My commentaries numbers 15 and 23 were dedicated to the Sauble Growth Study fiasco.

 In commentary 23 I exposed COA Cook’s public “mistruths” about the CUESTA project.  I also suggested that CUESTA not be invited back as:“When a consultant goes off in a direction that is unauthorized, and does not meet agreed-upon requirements, and does not produce anything of value, and sends a hefty bill, the responsible thing to do is to not pay them.  The irresponsible thing to do is to pay them and invite them back to do more.”

 So now CUESTA is being paid to come back on August 2 to do some more damage.  It’s completely irresponsible.

 I still wonder whose agenda is being played out here.  It certainly is not the agenda of the inhabitants of TSBP.

Regulators are over the Top!!

We as Canadians are getting,  ARE regulated to death! Where does it stop.

How long are you going to allow these power-hungry, cash bloated parasites to take your rights away one at a time for the common good. I am sick to death of hearing yet another fellow Canadian getting screwed by over zealous incompetent simple serpants “just doing their job”!

If you are working for a government agency and “just doing your job” YOU ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM!!

Yes I am talking to Police officers,MOT enforcement, MOE officers, MNR officers, REV Canada and the list goes on. Yes I understand that you are just following the rules that you don’t make them up. But wait a minute if a law or regulation is just plan wrong enforcing it only makes it worse.

Take for example the so-called “Deadbeat Dad” that is working at a minimum wage job and is behind on his child support. They garnish him 50% of his income , take his drivers licence, his passport, his boating licence and anything else that will assist them in collecting the arrears. How the hell is he going to get to work if he has no transportation?? How will he pay anything if he is in jail cost us $80,000 per year to keep him there. Yet the single Mom bears no responsibility what so ever.  The state sends her a check monthly and generally speaking she is the life of the party on the weekends while Dad is exercising his obligation to baby sit while she is out at the party.

When Dad gets caught driving to work after the FRO suspends his drivers licence with nothing more than notice by mail, he goes to the can she laughs!

Society say oh it’s for the benefit of the children, My ass! The kids rarely see a dime!!

Lets talk about the employer that gets busted for allowing his employee to drive while under suspension. How the hell does the employer know that the guy that has worked for him for 5 years has his licence suspended for failure to pay child support? The only notice sent is to the the guy who’s licence has been suspended and if he tells his biss he has no licence he gets fired so he ain’t gonna tell the boss. But yet the boss gets a 400.00 dollar fine for allowing him to drive.

In 2004 there were 280, 000 regulations in Ontario today there are in excess of 600,000. How many can you list? But yet we are expected to know and respect these laws or face penalties. Bullshit!

This Nazi mentality has got to be stopped now! We are allowing history to repeat itself very day! More rule more fines  less accountability on the Civil Service.

How long before we are seeing Work Camps created? Look closer it is here already! Work-fare, privatization of the prisons! More to come if we don’t put a stop to it!

White collar crime is rampant in Ontario, the cops will not enforce! I know of a case where a man was defrauded of $650,00.00 his life savings by some city crooks and the cops would not even open a file. “This is far too complicated and we do not have the time to deal with this, it is a civil matter! But yet they throw Dad in jail for driving to work! Kiss my ass!

Do not use pesticides on your yard but farmers can, do not talk on you cell phone while driving but the cops can, don’t pollute the ground by using you old oil to keep the dust down on the lane but the municipality can dump hundreds of gallons mixed with gravel to cover the road.

Double standards are the means of the day.

I am understanding why people arm themselves! Perhaps we all should!



Craig’s Commentary

Volume 1 Number 25

10 July 2011

Who Threw Away 1.2 Million On The Sauble Sewers Project ?….. The Truth Is Revealed

 In January council fired Genivar from the Sauble sewers project for billing the town for work on the Sauble sewers project that produced little of value, and for misleading council past into a wasteful land purchase.  The wasted money was reported at 1.2 million dollars.  In my view only a tiny portion of this $1.2 million of spending was legitimate.

 The Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), written by Genivar, and published December 2010, recommends option 5a, which is the $70 million plus Sauble-wide sewers option.  Because it has always been clear that option 5a is completely unsupportable, and because it is clear that option 5a should never have been pursued, the $1.2 spent on pursuing option 5a was a waste.

 In the ESR there was a strong hint that town staff had a role in the selection of the $70 million “option 5a” as the preferred solution.   This to me was also an indication that staff had a role in the waste of the $1.2 million already spent.

 This is as Genivar staff wrote it:

 “Based on guidance from the proponent and comments received from presentation of materials at both of the public meetings, a preferred design and servicing option for a municipal wastewater collection and treatment system for Sauble Beach was selected. The major components of the preferred option (Option 5A) consist of:

¾    2,435 lots connected to the sanitary col lection system

• 58,540 m of sanitary sewer (primarily gravity sewer) in addition to some areas with servicing by grinder pumping systems.

(ESR section 5.2 e-page 28)

 Comments received from the presentation of materials at the October public meeting were clearly against option 5a, so it would be an outright lie to say the choice of option 5a was based on the public “comments received”.  That means that Genivar’s “choice” of option 5a must have been based on “guidance from the proponent” (the town is the proponent).  Since no such “guidance” was given by council past or present, the guidance must have come from staff.

 In the inaugural meeting of the Sauble sewage management committee, there was an exchange between committee members Gary Leveck and MPW Phil Dwyer that revealed the truth about option 5a and the wasted $1.2 million.

 That truth is that MPW Dwyer, without any authorization whatsoever, and without legitimate grounds, chose option 5a, and instructed Genivar to choose option 5a, the 70 million dollar Sauble-wide sewers option, as the preferred solution, and in doing so wasted the $1.2 million already spent.

 Here’s how the Sauble sewers July 29 meeting exchange went.

 MPW Dwyer was reviewing the history of the Sauble sewers project.  When he got to the October 2010 public meeting, committee member Gary Leveck asked why the town had changed the preferred solution from option 3 in the July 2010 meeting to option 5a in the October 2010 meeting.

 MPW Dwyer replied that they had switched because the majority of comment sheets from the July meeting were in favour of sewers right across Sauble, so option 5a (Sauble-wide sewers) had become the preferred solution going into the October meeting.

 Mr. Leveck, chosen for the committee at least partly because of his EA expertise, said that the switch in preferred solutions was a “misstep’, contrary to the formal class EA, and that the town should have had another public meeting after the June meeting to talk about whether to switch to option 5a.  It is my feeling that Mr. Leveck was saying that the EA process was breached, although Mr. Leveck did not use that word.   Mr. Leveck did imply, in my view, that the misstep, if not corrected, would lead to successful part 2 order requests (bump-up requests).

 MPW Dwyer disagreed, saying that the EA process allows for switches like the one done between the July and October meetings.

 Then Mr. Leveck indicated that the comments in the October meeting, and the comments sent in after the meeting, were almost exclusively against any of options 2 through 5a, and many were against any sewers option.  Mr. Leveck wanted to know why the town/consultant did not heed those messages and switch back to option 1 for the December 2010 draft ESR.

 MPW Dwyer’s response was startling and revealing.

 MPW Dwyer indicated that the public responses in and around the October public meeting were “not rational”.  MPW Dwyer further indicated that the “irrational responses” from the public were the result of “misinformation” spread by Sauble residents.  MPW Dwyer indicated that there is a group of people in Sauble who do not want sewers and who were “spreading misinformation”.  Mr. Dwyer implied that the nefarious “misinformers” had fooled almost all the people of Sauble into giving the wrong response on their comment sheets.

 Then MPW Dwyer proudly declared that he was “the driver”.  MPW Dwyer declared that he was the one who decided to dismiss the comments of the Sauble residents.  And MPW Dwyer proudly declared that he was the one who chose option 5a. 

 (I invite readers to check for accuracy by listening to the recording of the exchange between MPW Dwyer and Mr. Leveck.)

 Two requirements of the EA process are critical.  One is that the decision process be followed rigorously from problem definition through alternative solutions generation, analysis of alternatives, selection of best alternative, and implementation.  The second is full and meaningful involvement of the public.

 MPW Dwyer (along with Genivar) breached the decision process by arbitrarily selecting the preferred solution (5a) and then fudging the prior steps (problem definition etc.) to fit.

 And by dismissing and ignoring the comments from the public as “not rational”, and “misinformed”, MPW Dwyer has seriously breached the public input requirements of the EA process.

 MPW Dwyer, without any authorization from council, made unwarranted policy decisions: that were not in the public interest; that cost some or all TSBP taxpayers a lot of money; that would if implemented threaten many Sauble residents with loss of their homes; that if implemented would threaten loss of the Sauble community ambience; and that caused and continues to cause a great deal of stress for many or most Sauble residents.

 If the $1.2 million cost is ultimately born by the residents of the downtown core, the $1.2 million will be divided among about 300 properties for an average cost $4000 per property.  And that doesn’t include the interest payments that are now building at 5%.  And that $4000 is going to be in addition to the costs of the future project, which, if there is no more grant money available, and no solution breakthrough, will be in my estimate between $40,000 and $60,000 per average downtown core property.

 I believe that MPW Dwyer’s irresponsible actions have already unnecessarily cost the downtown core property owners at least $4000 per property.

 One of staffs’ roles is to implement council decisions and policy.  It is not a staff role to follow their own agenda or to develop and implement their own policy.

 One of council’s roles is to ensure that staff act in the public interest, and to ensure that staff do not implement any policy without council authorization and direction.  It is especially important that council ensure that staff do not go off on their own in ways as damaging to the public as the Sauble-wide sewers fiasco (the 5a fiasco).

 So for going off on his own agenda, and for costing the public so much, and for risking such great harm to the public, and for contempt of the public, MPW Dwyer must be dismissed for cause.

 And since Mr. Dwyer reported to CAO Cook through all of this, council should determine whether CAO Cook had any knowledge of Mr. Dwyer’s conduct, and if so CAO Cook must also be dismissed for cause.

 And finally, now that we know that the draft ESR of December 2010 is a piece of garbage founded on nothing more than Mr. Dwyer’s bizarre delusions of omniscience, council needs to bury the December 2010 draft ESR  –  for good.

 I encourage anyone who shares any of my concerns to write to council, or e-mail or phone the councillors for your ward.  Contacts are at:

 If anyone has concerns about the sewers fiasco but is also worried about the threats of lawsuits and criminal investigations coming from the mayor and directed at anyone who criticises staff, please write an email to me, with your comments about the fiasco, and I will send your comments to council, without any trace of your identity.

 Or send an e-mail to your councillors and say “confidential”

 None of this lets Genivar off the hook for charging the town so much and providing almost nothing of value.   Genivar deceived council and did a very incompetent, unprofessional job on the draft ESR, and they fully deserved to be dismissed. (I will write a separate report on the draft ESR.)

 That leaves the Sauble sewage management committee.   With the December draft ESR in the garbage bin, it is unclear what the committee should be doing.