Craig’s Commentary Volume 2 Number 8


Councillor Jay’s Failed Attempt To Suspend Rule Of Law, Quash Freedom Of Expression

On January 25th, under the authority of majority rule, and citing contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Mayor John ordered removal of a sign that said “RHONDA’S DOIN’ BRUCE ON YOUR DIME” on face “A” and “STOP STEALING TAXPAYERS’ DOLLARS TO FUND RHONDA’S PERSONAL VENDETTA” on face”B”. The owner of the sign protested, but removed it.

The co-operative citizen, not wanting to cause anyone any trouble, made a new sign which said “SOMEONE’S DOIN’ IN BRUCE ON YOUR DIME” on face “C” and “STOP STEALING TAXPAYERS’ DOLLARS TO FUND SOMEONE’S PERSONAL VENDETTA” on face “D”, and brought the sign into the January 31 Ad Hoc Sauble Sewers committee meeting, with face “D” showing.

Even though the ad hoc committee has absolutely no business even discussing the sign, Councillor Jay, claiming that he personally objected to the sign, moved to have it removed. The chair should have ruled the motion out of order, but instead allowed it. After a brief discussion, the committee voted and defeated the motion. Councillor Jay was the only one to vote in favour of his motion.

Councillor Jay failed his motion, but for his efforts to suspend the rule of law and quash the charter guaranteed right to freedom of expression, councillor Jay is officially inducted into the TSBP Hall Of Shame, joining John, Rhonda, and Jim in the Aisle Of Tyrants.

Craig

“we don’t need the position of a CAO “


Three Cheers for Gordon MacDonald! A man that has a pair!!!!
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bruce

Credit to the Owen Sound Sun Times

Cut the South Bruce Peninsula budget
Posted 3 hours ago
Editor:

To the taxpayers of South Bruce Peninsula:

My wife, the former Vivian Hardman, and I grew up on the Bruce Peninsula — me in Wiarton and she in Mar. Both of us moved out of the area for economic reasons but came back here to our roots because of our love of family and down-to-earth fellowship.

We have always been interested in how our taxes are used at all three levels of government. We have also been able to contribute in more ways than financial at various locations.

We have noted the debates that have taken place in Meaford, Owen Sound, South Bruce Peninsula at the council tables and wonder why the debates always turned to bickering. Bickering precludes the need for councils to run their agenda like a business and this becomes very costly.

Over the years I have marveled at the way Mayor Hazel McCallion has had such success with the city of Mississauga. I became aware of what she had to do and did it (we had a friend in common — Bruce McLaughlin who was the prime developer of such major projects as Square One in Mississauga) to the point of treating her job like a business and standing up to the red tape politicians. At age 90 she is still doing it. We should be so lucky here in TSBP.

After doing our best to watchdog the previous council, we now have a completely new council and we relaxed with the hope of improvement. Why has the conflict ell let’s explore some of the questionable changes.

First let me remind all of you in our little community that we don’t need the position of a CAO — our current budget doesn’t permit it. Back at the time of our amalgamation, a CAO was hired on a temporary basis to assist in the transition. When the amalgamation was completed the position was kept. This was a mistake that compounded the problem of being saddled with a permanent position of CAO on the organizational chart. When that CAO retired the problem was compounded when the wrong candidate was hired as a replacement — a decision that caused taxpayers considerable unnecessary dollars.

The basic management requirement at that time (and still today) is a professional clerk who knows how to handle staff including the matter of allowing key employees to do their job without the bottleneck of micro managing but, at the same time, providing direction as it is required.

One of the things we did when we moved back to the area was compare administrative costs of South Bruce Peninsula with other municipalities of the same size. It was out of whack then and it has since worsened!

We encourage you (like us) the taxpayers to take a look at the discrepancy. Your benchmark should be administrative costs measured as a percentage against revenues and compare it with other municipalities. Then we will be justified in asking (no, make that demanding) that the budget for 2012 be reduced to 10% below the budget of 2011.

Town staff is responsible to council for whatever budget is approved. Based on current performance it seems as though it is the other way around. The tail is wagging the dog and the dog keeps chasing its tail.

During the campaign our current councillors put emphasis on the need for change and that’s why they were voted in. It’s not happening so we’re asking the councillors to step up to the plate and make change happen and we’re asking you, the taxpayer, to call your councillor and hold his or her feet to the fire. We’re asking you to do it — not just think about it. You can reduce it to one simple sentence — “what are you doing to reduce the budget?”

Let’s help our councillors do their jobs. We are being told that the cost to run this municipality can’t be reduced and the new council is having success by keeping the budget to a zero increase. Well it’s not good enough! Take a look at the cheque register. Make yourself familiar with staff function. How do salaries relate to the community at large? What changes would you make if it was your business? Example: would you have two receptionists as well as an automatic phone answering system?

Please make phone calls, ask questions! Let’s consolidate!

It won’t be easy — we have eight councillors and one mayor. I phoned all of them six days ago and have had a response from only four councillors — but it will be worth it. You shouldn’t have to pay more taxes (on a per capita basis) than other municipalities of the same size.

Remember, council and staff are responsible to taxpayers. You are the employer and if we have to set up our own board of directors, then let’s do it!

It was your vote that gave us a new council, it’s time for an assessment. So do your homework and if you don’t think they are pulling it off, then let’s help them.

If you, in turn, are looking for help, then call me at 519-534- 5744 or e-mail me at gormac@myway.com. I have qualified helpers waiting in the wings and we’ll outline the first three steps in how to save the most money! The 2012 budget needs to be a minimum of 10% below the 2011 budget. The savings are there. Gordon M. MacDonald

Howdenvale/Wiarton

When the Tail Waggs the Dog!


Bruce

“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Well maybe!

I have to ask myself, what is the true purpose of government in Canada. If we go back in history, Canada was form to facilitate a means to take products produced and distribute those products across this vast land.

John A. MacDonald created this vision to the benefit of the whole.

A railway was created to do this.

The creation of the railway allowed a means for we the people to have access to products.
The production of these products created new markets thus increasing demand for the products produced and creating new markets for new products.

This concept created an economy which in fact resulted in the creation of jobs and the development of the Country we know and love today.

To promote the general welfare, the government must provide an economic” level playing field” for all. The key word being to “promote”. If the Government places too many restrictions on the members of it masses and on trade, it is then working to destroy trade and no longer fulfilling its mandate.

A government that serves itself, is a tyranny, regardless of whether or not it does so with popular consent.

Today we have and average income in this area of approximately $25,000 per year per worker. The average civil servant in the area makes double that. What’s wrong with this picture??

The moment we stop the development of the community is the moment we stop growing and as a result we have less revenue to maintain what we have built.

Our area has stopped growing but our Civil Service has expanded. The direct result is huge deficits high unemployment and a shrinking of our population base and ultimately an erosion of our lifestyle.

Frequently, when I go on an anti-government tirade, I will receive comments like “Would you prefer anarchy?”. I should be clearer: I do believe government has a purpose, and that we need it.

Kinda sorta like cod liver oil, it leaves a bad taste but solves a lot of pother problems.
Governments since the beginning of recorded history have carried the burden of resolution dispute. Our legal system is needed for this purpose, and this purpose alone.

People have always had conflicts with other people, ever since the first caveman took a branch to the head of another caveman who angered him. When a justice system fails, it can lead to everything from riots to vigilantism (although there are times when a justice system is put in a no-win situation, and these kinds of things will happen regardless of a court decision).

I have two points that want to make here.

1. If we are to maintain our existing lifestyles we have to plan and allow for growth. We cannot facilitate growth if we do not expand. We cannot expand without Sewers and water. Our eco system cannot facilitate growth to the levels we need without assistance. The addition of Sewers and water in this area is key to facilitate the growth coming regardless of the views of the short sighted.

2. We cannot grow and maintain the economy we need to sustain while expanding the Civil Service at our historic rate of growth. The creation of Regulation by the Civil Service creates more and more need for an expanded Civil Service and thus more and more demand for tax dollars to support the beast that has been created and continues to expand.

We have witnessed over the last ten years a dramatic decline in the development of our manufacturing sector, a huge increase in unemployment being the result. An expansion in the importation of manufactured products thus shifting of our job base to third world. As this has evolved there and been an increase of regulations that have to be enforced for “the good of the whole”. The results of this approach, is self evident.

When the Civil Service drives the bus the only way they can maintain, is to expand regulation, thus giving the perception of need.

Once the need has been established it becomes necessary to impose more restrictions to support the need.

Centralization of Government has expedited the growth of both regulation and the destruction of our industrialized sector, giving more and more support to the need factor.

Such things as the adoption of Political Correctness, the embracing of the concept that we have to provide for the under privileged by way of taking from the productive from those that have, by force. We have encouraged the growth, of a generation, of those that expect without contribution.

To bring this whole concept around we have to get back to a basic concept:

The purpose of government is to promote an environment, wherein which the production of products and services is priority one without interference.

When there is no reward for creation the creators stop creating. When the creators stop creating there is no growth and no economy.

To hinder growth through dominance of regulation and promotion of need, builds a solid foundation for Fascism.

It all starts with indecision and lack of leadership.

When the tail waggs the dog, there is no purpose for the dog!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bruce

Craig’s Commentary Volume 2 Number 7


Sauble sewers off the table (for now); strategic plan is still a costly failure

My big concerns about the strategic plan, as documented in commentary 44
and in a submission to the consultant, were:

1. Sauble sewers was predetermined by John Close (through the EDC and the EDO) as a key component of the strategic plan.

2. The public, and especially seasonal residents, have been shut out of the consultation, replaced by the chambers, the EDC, selected businesses, and staff.

3. The strategic plan is inappropriately for the benefit of the commercial sector at great cost to taxpayers.

Sauble sewers

One councillor denied vehemently that Sauble sewers were ever in the strategic plan, but the truth is that Sauble sewers were central, but had to be removed from the plan because of the public outcry by Sauble residents in the October 2011 meeting, letters to the editor, and written expressions of opposition to the strategic plan co-ordinator Christina Bruce..

Sauble sewers is at this point not longer a key component of the plan. Vigilance is recommended to make sure it stays that way.

Public shut out

The corporate body (taxpayer, the “public”) are still an afterthought, with staff, chambers, the EDO and non-residents still being given priority. Staff are not participating as members of the corporation and as such should have no say and no influence on the strategic plan. Non-residents should have no say. The chambers and the EDC are not members of the corporate body, and so should have no standing, no say, and no influence.

Strategic plan is to steal massive amounts from residents and give it to commercial operations

The strategic plan for the municipality should be for the members of the corporate body in their capacity as members of the corporate body. The plan is being paid for by the members of the corporate body (the public) and must be focused on the public.

Commercial enterprises, sectors, associations can and should do their own strategic plans, at their own expense. There is no way the taxpayers should be forced to fund the development of strategic plans for commercial sectors, and certainly there is no way that the public should be forced to fund the implementation of the commercial strategic plans.

Stealing money from the public and giving it to private enterprises is wrong – it just doesn’t make sense.

The strategic plan as it appears to be developing will steal hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, from taxpayers, and will reward only the commercial sectors and the empire building employees.

Universally accepted principles of municipal economic decision making include:

1. The use of taxpayer funds must be lawful
2. The use of funds must be ethical
3. The use of funds must be economically sound
4. The use of funds must be economically fair.

The kinds of programs developing in the strategic plan violate all of these principles.

The money-sucking strategic plan should be quashed.

There is an opportunity to “quash” the strategic plan at the public meeting Tuesday January 31, from 7 pm to 9 pm, at the Sauble Community Center.

Craig

Craig’s Commentary Volume 2 Number 6


Too Close for Comfort!

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AN OPINION BEING EXPRESSED AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!THERE MAY BE SOME PROFANITY USED SO IF YOU TAKE OFFENSE EASILY READ NO FURTHER! DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE A GUTLESS WONDER THAT BELIEVES OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEACH IS NOT OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CIVIL SERVANTS HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO WORK IF THEY ARE OFFENDED BY LOUD MOUTH RED NECKS! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT RIGHT IS WRONG AND WRONG IS RIGHT! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU THINK OR BELIEVE THAT OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT WISELY IN THE TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA!

Mayor John suspends rule of law, quashes freedom of expression

A citizen brought a double faced sign into council chambers January 25th, during budget discussions. The sign was placed against the south wall, with face “A”, which read “RHONDA’S DOIN’ BRUCE ON YOUR DIME”, facing the room.

Councillor Jim indicated that a staff member found the sign “RHONDA’S DOIN’ BRUCE ON YOUR DIME” offensive. I agree with that staff member, whoever she is. The sign is offensive. Very poor taste.

Then council, by formal resolution, asked that the offensive sign, that is the one that read “RHONDA’S DOIN’ BRUCE ON YOUR DIME”, be removed. It was removed with only a minor note of protest.

This left face “B”, which read “STOP STEALING TAXPAYERS’ DOLLARS TO FUND RHONDA’S PERSONAL VENDETTA”, facing the room.

Councillor Jim explained that he had meant for both sides to be removed. The citizen argued that the allegedly offensive face “A”, namely the one that read “RHONDA’S DOIN’ BRUCE ON YOUR DIME” was the sign that was referred to in the resolution, and that’s why, being an authority-respecting, cooperative citizen, he had removed face “A”.

So Councillor Jim, apparently agitated, made a second motion, this one to remove the remaining parts of the sign assembly, including face “B”, which read “STOP STEALING TAXPAYERS’ DOLLARS TO FUND RHONDA’S PERSONAL VENDETTA”, and also the wooden stick to which face “B” was attached, and also any glue or tacks holding face “B” to the stick.

Councillor Bowman then asked if a staff member had found face “B”, which read “STOP STEALING TAXPAYERS’ DOLLARS TO FUND RHONDA’S PERSONAL VENDETTA”, “offensive”.

Councillor Jim replied “gosh I didn’t think of that .. maybe we should actually get a complaint before we act on that complaint”.

D’ya think?

So Councillor Jim asked for a recess from the budget deliberations to see if the staff member who found face “A” offensive also found face “B” offensive. The member was apparently not keen on pursuing the issue, and so, lacking a “complaint”, the resolution was withdrawn.

A while later Councillor Jim apparently was able to find a staff member (not Rhonda), who even though she was apparently unaware of the words on face “B” until Councillor Jim made her aware of the words, was nevertheless willing, so that the councillor could get his resolution passed, to look Councillor Jim straight in the eye and say that she found the sign offensive. Councillor Jim would not name the staffer, and asked council to just trust him that there indeed was such a staffer and that there indeed was a legitimate complaint.

Councillor Jim re-introduced his motion and it passed seven to two, with only Councillors Bowman and Jackson voting against the motion.

Asked what authority he had to order the face “B” sign removed, Mayor John just shrugged his shoulders and said “majority rule”. To me, the shrug seemed to say that it should be obvious to everyone that he and Rhonda and Councillor Jim can do anything they damned well please, as long as they have a council majority backing them.

Asked what rule or regulation had been breached, John said the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but would not name a specific provision.

The sign was removed.

There are two Charter guarantees under siege in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

The first guarantee under siege is our right to rule of just law.

On this issue the Canadian charter of freedoms and rights states:

“Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”.

The second is our right to freedom of expression. On this the charter states:

“2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
….,
(b) freedom of …, …, …expression, including freedom of the press
and other media of communication;
……

On January 25th John suspended the charter engrained rule of just law and replaced it with his tyrannical “majority rule”. On January 25th John suspended the charter right of freedom of expression.

With a $700,000 lawsuit served on four good citizens who dared to exercise their right to speak, and another suit being contemplated against at least five other good citizens who dared to exercise their right to speak, who is going to step up and challenge the tyrants?

A transcript of the “signs discussion” is at: http://www.craiggammie.com/Other%20Documents/2012%2001%2024%20excerpt%20council%20meeting%20re%20unoffensive%20sign.pdf

If you want to check for accuracy, an audio record is at: http://www.saublesewer.com/Documents/20120124%20special%20council%20budget%20part%201.mp3

Craig

Just A Thought!


He said, she said, I said, they said…..

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AN OPINION BEING EXPRESSED AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!THERE MAY BE SOME PROFANITY USED SO IF YOU TAKE OFFENSE EASILY READ NO FURTHER! DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE A GUTLESS WONDER THAT BELIEVES OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEACH IS NOT OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CIVIL SERVANTS HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO WORK IF THEY ARE OFFENDED BY LOUD MOUTH RED NECKS! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT RIGHT IS WRONG AND WRONG IS RIGHT! DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU THINK OR BELIEVE THAT OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT WISELY IN THE TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA!

The fact of the matter is somebody has to pay.
The situation is that Rhonda Cook has the right to sue anyone she wants for what she believes. I have no problem with this. It is her right.But to use my money to do it is just wrong.

I do take offence to the fact that the taxpayers are paying her bill but the defendants do not have the same rights as her.

The other thousand miles is it is okay to have a good old snot slinging match where all the dirty laundry get spread out and we turn friend against friend, brother against sister and neighbor against neighbour. But at the end of the day who wins?

The Little’s don’t have $700,000, and I doubt that Gammie has 3/4 of a mil kickin arround, as for Schnurr he has no money, more importantly, he is just an employee. Last, but not least is the Turks and Caicos company, they are under to obligation even to adhere to this jurisdiction. So Rhonda, in the event of a win, gets a judgement, which if you add a dollar gets her a rather poor quality cigar.

The town of Meaford learned about litigation and the costs associated thereto. Do we have to repeat history.

It is my opinion that a lawyer worth his salt has a responsibility to determine whether or not the people he is pursuing have the ability to pay the claim in the event he wins. Ops, guess we have a lawyer not worth his salt!

The reality here, is the issue at hand, Freedom of Expression.There are people who treasure political correctness and wouldn’t say shit if they had a mouthful. That is their right. But there are the rest of us that say what we think and how we think it and don’t cotton to being told by our employees what we can and cannot do.

Yes sometimes things get carried away but oh gee we have the right to think and say what we feel is right.

The moment we restrict the right of free speech we promote Fascism.

The fact remains that Rhonda is paid with tax dollars. Our tax dollars. Now the town is giving her $50,000 + tax-free in legal fees to prove that we do not have the right to complain about it in any way except to remove those elected come election time.

Where is the accountability???

Rhonda’s lawyer (he of no salt), wrote everyone and demanded an apology. Schnurr offered to provide and publish one, provided Rhonda signed a mutual release, in an effort to put this behind us. Guess what the lawyer said no! Seems to me that Schnurr’s offer was reasonable! Rhonda got what she wanted, but oh wait there are no legal fees in accepting the offer. The gravy train is over!!! Now we cannot have that can we! No sir them tax payers have a right to pay what ever it takes to get justice for Rhonda!!! He doesn’t care how much it costs!!As long as the cash keeps flowing!!!

Now I have found most folks up here to be pretty reasonable! They call a spade a spade and then put it behind them. It appears I overlooked a few!!!

Our Mayor, Mr. Close, went to the press and called the Blog “blight of the community” just last fall! If he had any balls he would have ended this without spending dime one! But perhaps I am confusing him with a leader or maybe with someone with balls.

The balance of Council, I am told were informed by a Mr. Mundy of the Ministry of Labour, in August or there abouts, that Rhonda indeed was being harassed by the Blog and if the Town did not come to her aid that they could be charged under the Act and prosecuted personally. They in turn voted to pay here legal fees.

It is interesting to note that Council agreed to pay her legal fees, prior to passing their Harassment policy. Even more interesting their harassment policy differs in definition from the Provincial definition in that the towns policy is custom tailored to fit the lawsuit filed. I wonder how that happened.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the CAO produce recommendations to Council before any bylaw is passed.

In my opinion any member of Council that supports this litigation and maintains their seat is as gutless as their leader. If they have any integrity at all they would resign. They have been duped into supporting a lost cause that terminates our right to speak freely about those that are taking our tax dollars to protect us from ourselves by allowing the tail to wag the dog!

Now it is our town, our money and our rights that are being abused here.If we allow them to carry on with this fraud we deserve what we get.

Remember, Rhonda wanted an apology it was offered and her lawyer said no! Who is kidding who.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bruce

THE OLD DOG


An old German Shepherd starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he’s lost. Wandering about, he notices a panther heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.

The old German Shepherd thinks, “Oh, oh! I’m in deep shit now!”

Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the panther is about to leap, the old German Shepherd exclaims loudly,

“Boy, that was one delicious panther! I wonder, if there are any more around here?”

Hearing this, the young panther halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees.

“Whew!,” says the panther, “That was close! That old German Shepherd nearly had me!”

Meanwhile, a squirrel who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the panther. So, off he goes.

The squirrel soon catches up with the panther, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the panther.

The young panther is furious at being made a fool of and says, “Here, squirrel, hop on my back and see what’s going to happen to that conniving canine!”

Now, the old German Shepherd sees the panther coming with the squirrel on his back and thinks, “What am I going to do now?,” but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn’t seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old German Shepherd says…

“Where’s that squirrel? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another panther!”

Moral of this story…

Don’t mess with the old dogs… Age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery!
Bull Shit and brilliance only come with age and experience.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bruce