Something old! Something New!


This posting is not from who you think it is!

Bruce

Flew in from the Martian beach by UFO

Landed here and checked things out

All the way I’m hopin’ things were good to go

But it’s round three of a ten round bout.

 

I’m back in the TSBP

Ain’t very much good to see, boy

Back in the TSBP!

 

Been away so long I hardly knew the place

Three hundred grand in legal bills.

Gammie suing everybody every place

A death-ray Craig will cure your ills

 

I’m back in the TSBP

Man there ain’t much good to see, boy

Back in the TSBP!

 

Craig’s constant bitching makes me want to yell

He’s lost all cred and couth.

And now his blog – all the lies he tells

He’s banned until he learns to tell the ttttttt truth!

 

Show me round your Willie statue in the park

Take me for a cup at Tim’s

No sewers means the SaubleSchool is going dark

Jackson loses – but she wins

 

I’m back in the TSBP

Man there ain’t much good to see, boy.

Back in the TS, back in the TS, back in the TSBP!

 

Ooooh, Ooooh, Ooooh

 

 

It’s so good to be back to the land of so many bullshit opinions based on incomplete information, speculation, grudges and beefs – a true Rabble Without a Cause!

Live by rumour, speculation and in Gammie’s case, bogus legalese – look stupid later.

 

While there’s nothing like the unwashed and semi-informed with their keyboards, their opinions and too much time on their hands to gather together and add their piece to the sum total of the human condition, this blog has been far too quiet for far too long.

I guess that’s because “Bruce” has been too busy promoting growth and expansion in TSBP while Gammie, being a dolt with too much time on his hands, has been busy trying to destroy growth and anyone who doesn’t agree with him and most people don’t read his crap, let alone comment!

 

It’s easy to see the motives of the defeated, all pissed at the world for not voting for them and trying to lead from the back of the bus without having paid the fare! Or the one who bitches that council should do all the things she didn’t do while she sat at the table. But what I don’t get is a councillor so busy trying to please her special interest pals that good judgement, the general well being of the whole town and common sense don’t appear in her dictionary, let alone her mind!

Screw everyone else as long as my buds are happy sure is a dumb way to run a town!

 

Craig Gammie with at least a dozen court actions against the town, its employees and volunteers, each one costing thousands in legal fees and staff time lost doing your business. A guy who costs taxpayers huge coin, literally tens of thousands, to defend people against him because he’s living in a world where everyone is wrong but him seems a hell of a price for the rest of us to pay! If he’s been removed from County meetings, booted out by the TSBP, an MP won’t take his calls and even the Ombudsman has told him he’s nuts and to piss up a rope, why can’t he take a hint ….or maybe he is as stupid as I’ve been telling you!

 

Whack job Craig is on record for physically threatening at least 3 people, a staff member, a volunteer and a member of the public – one with a weapon! He has repeatedly lied about, slandered and defamed anyone he disagrees with, in his “commentaries” and on blogs. He’s been ordered by a judge in one of his cases against the town to pay court costs on at least two occasions that I’ve heard of. That’s because courts don’t respond to bloviating dick-heads, only facts and the law and Craig has absolutely no command of either …….. or maybe he is as stupid as I’ve been telling you.

 

Craig, the king of misinformation, seldom tells the truth and never the whole truth. He should at least tell everyone that one reason he’s banned from council meetings is they caught him AGAIN leaving a running digital voice recorder hidden in the council chamber during a closed session meeting. Once may be an accident but twice, or more that he wasn’t caught, is deliberate ……or maybe he is as stupid as I’ve been telling you.

 

What’s that Craig? Prove it was your recorder? Why did YOU show up at the town hall and then the OPP station demanding YOUR recorder back? As the Yanks say “We hold these truths to be self evident”! Maybe he is as stupid as……..

 

The more things change…the more they stay the same!

Happy New Year – one and most!

 

the Martian

The Indemnification Bylaw


I found the following comment from TSBP councillor Janice Jackson on her website.  Kudos to Councillor Jackson for having the courage to speak out against the actions of the five councillors who rammed the indemnification by-law through.

Craig

——————————————————-

Having been elected by the people to look out for their best interests as well as their money, this Bylaw is of great concern to me. I feel this bylaw is unnecessary and in my opinion, could possibly be illegal. The town’s insurance policy (which we pay handsomely for) covers Councillors, staff and volunteers (ie members of Committees of Council) in all situations where coverage is appropriate and is allowed. However, the Town’s current insurance policy does not cover consequences of intentional harmful acts, and does not cover acts done outside of one’s duties. If a person is found guilty, our insurance will not cover you. Fair enough!

In contrast, the Town’s new Indemnification By-law covers almost all costs. The exceptions are the payment of any damages, fines or costs awarded by a Court related to Criminal or Conflict of Interest matters. This exception applies only to employees and Councillors, but not “volunteers”. However, the exception does not apply to one’s own legal costs. Subject to these exceptions, the indemnification bylaw pays all costs regardless of the outcome as long as the act is deemed to be done in “good faith” and “in the course of one’s duties”. But who gets to make that decision? Council does! So we could break the law and be guilty as sin and all our own legal costs will be paid out of the peoples’ pocket. In addition, it appears that if someone through a guilty verdict or an unfavorable court finding faces a fine, an order to pay damages or pay the legal costs of the other party (with only a few exceptions as noted above) these costs, no matter how much, will be paid by the people too!

By definition of “Employee”, this bylaw covers all ex employees as long as the action occurred while he or she was an employee.  It’s fairly clear to me that the by-law covers all previous employee’s legal fees to date and we still have ongoing cases. We’re even dealing with a counter suit for hundreds of thousands but through this new bylaw, the people will not only pay legal costs past, present and future, we’ll pay any judgment too! Of course this is as long as the majority of Council deems all actions as being in “good faith” and “in the course of one’s duties” at the time.    Currently, there are several legal proceedings against members of council, employees, and volunteers. The Mayor is facing an ”Obstruct Justice” charge as well as a “Conflict of Interest” charge. Councillor Turner is currently fighting a “Conflict of Interest” charge. It seems to me both men could certainly benefit from this bylaw financially, as the by-law allows for payment of their legal fees (subject to a “good faith/ course of duties” decision by council).

As this bylaw has the potential to benefit all volunteers, employees and Councillors, to the detriment of the taxpayers, I felt very strongly that I had a pecuniary interest and therefore could not sit at the table during this discussion. If I did, I could be cited with a “conflict of interest” at anytime in the future. In my opinion, this bylaw financially assists Councillors. I couldn’t in good conscience sit and vote on it. My other issue with this bylaw is it passed all three readings in the very same night. This creates little chance for public input . When the issue arose at the end of the council meeting, I removed myself from the table refusing to take part in the discussion or the vote. Councillor Bowman followed then Councillor Standen joined us too. Councillor Thomas was absent. The bylaw unanimously passed with the remaining councillors.

(written by Councillor Janice Jackson – on http://www.jackson4saublebeach.com/ )

Re: December 18, 2012 Council Agenda (Craig’s 2-53)


The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52205

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52203

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.
——————————————-

Agenda Item 7.1 Carl Noble, Sauble Medical Clinic

There is a covenant on the Sauble Medical Centre Property. The covenant allows only medical services on the property. No commercial activity except medical is permitted.

The property was given by the town to the Medical Clinic Corporation with the understanding that it was given for medical services to be supplied to the people, and with the understanding that the covenant would be honoured.

Many people donated to the medical centre with the understanding that their donations were for medical services to the residents.

Now Carl Noble wants council to remove the covenant.

Carl Noble wants to add commercial operations completely unrelated to medical and health services.

This is wrong. If Carl Noble wants to add commercial activities then his corporation must pay back all of the donations made to them and also pay the town for the medical centre property.

The price for the property, from the perspective of this humble member of the corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, is two million dollars.

The medical centre corporation is bankrupt. The only thing keeping the corporation from complete insolvency is that the directors keep putting more money in, in the vain hope that council will force the residents of the town to bail them out.

It won’t happen. When the medical centre corporation decides to file for bankruptcy, the town can repossess the property and the buy the building for a song.

Agenda Item 8.1 SWSRAHC4-2012 Final Report to Council

In 2010 a 70 million dollar Sauble sewage treatment system was proposed to solve a problem that was never stated, and was never defined, and in fact did not exist. Because of concerns that there was no problem identified to solve, the 70 million dollar “solution” was put on ice while an ad hoc committee determined if there was a problem to solve.

So the committee set out to determine if there was a problem, and more specifically if there was a problem requiring the $70 million dollar solution.

To determine if there was a problem, the committee hired Hutchinson Environmental to do a pollution study. The results are in the agenda package as a report from the committee.

The results are clear.

There is no pollution problem associated with septic systems.

This should kill the $70 million dollar project.

But in spite of this good outcome, there is reason to keep up the scrutiny.

The consultant said in his report:

“Our detection of the tracer caffeine in 8 of the 9 flowing drains in August and 7 of the 12 flowing drains in September show that the beach drains have been in contact with effluent from human sources (i.e. septic systems). The most probable explanation would be a shallow groundwater connection between the drains and areas where there are septic systems.”

The consultant’s statement is preposterous.

Agenda Item 8.6 MLEO30-2012 Dynamic Beach By-Law

Currently the dynamic beach by-law applies to some private property, including the dunes between fifth and sixth at Sauble.

On December 4th a by-law that would have amended the dynamic beach by-law to make it not applicable to private properties was unanimously defeated.

Now some unnamed councillor is trying to get the defeat reversed by reintroducing the amendment through the by-laws officer as a “housekeeping amendment”.

“SUBJECT: DYNAMIC BEACH BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the house keeping of the Dynamic Beach By-Law from MLEO 30-2012 being changes required to exempt private properties be placed on the upcoming Council agenda for consideration.”

This is unacceptable.

First the amendment is not “housekeeping” at all. It is a substantial change that would allow cars to drive on part of the beach at Sauble, at great risk to the environment and to children and adults alike.

Second, the amendment, housekeeping or otherwise, must come before council properly, not through the back door.

If some councillor has a by-law to propose, that councillor must put the change before council himself or herself. It is improper for a councillor to ask or instruct the by-laws officer to bring the amendment before council.

It is also extremely cowardly. The councillor who did this knows very well that bringing his or her motion properly before council would make him or her very unpopular with the people of Sauble Beach and with all the people of the town.

So he or she took the coward’s route and got the by-laws officer to make the proposal (and take the criticism).

“The By-law Department was contacted by a Councilor and requested that the Dynamic Beach By- Law be brought forward in a house keeping matter and to only make the changes necessary for enforcement at Sauble Beach.”

Can anyone guess the identity of the cowardly corrupt councillor?

Agenda Item 8.13 FS63-2012 BCF Funding for Sauble Sewage System

Now that the Sauble sewers project is dead, all of the costs associated with the Sauble Sewers project over the past several years are now payable. It is not clear form report FS-63 how much is owing, but it appears to be somewhere between $700,000 and $1. 2 million.

What is clear is that all taxpayers will pay.

It is also clear that much or all of the costs were completely unnecessary.

Someone must be held to account.

Craig

The Indemnification By-Law – The Biggest Deception Yet? (Craig’s 2-52)


Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
(Walter Scott)

Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who influences or attempts to influence a municipal official, by deceit, to vote in favour of or against a measure, motion or resolution.
(from Criminal code sections 123 (1) and 123 (2))

An indemnification by-law was introduced in the December 4 agenda package. In the December 4 agenda and in the December 4 council meeting there was discussion of the proposed indemnification by-law. The proposed by-law is on the December 18 agenda for first second and third (final) reading.

In the discussion of the draft by-law there has been a lot of “influencing by deceit”.

The draft by-law is not standard as claimed by Ms. Cathrae

In Ms. Cathrae’s December 4th report she indicated:

“Our solicitor has indicated that it is standard in his practice to see that municipalities, local boards, private business, industries and interest organizations have indemnification by-laws for the protection of their employees and volunteers.”

This alone may not be deceit. But in the meeting Ms. Cathrae also indicated that the draft by-law is similar to that of Toronto and Kingston and many others.

The implication is that it is standard practice to have indemnification by-laws like the one presented by Ms. Cathrae.

The “Cathrae draft” is not standard practice at all. It’s nothing like standard practice.

Toronto it is true self insures along with purchased insurance. But Toronto does not have different rules for the self insured part as it does for the purchased part. The truth is that neither Toronto nor Kingston has different rules. Nor anyone else.

The City of Toronto insurance is not even close to the Cathrae draft. Nor is the Kingston policy even close.

Ms. Cathrae says “Our solicitor has indicated …..”. But of course we don’t get to see what the solicitor actually indicated, so we don’t know who initiated the deception. But even if the solicitor made the deception, Ms. Cathrae is still guilty for trying to pass it off as the truth.

The lie was outrageous and intentional deception.

There was another deception in the December 4 council meeting regarding duplication.

When asked by a councillor why we needed the indemnification by-law when we already have errors and emissions insurance Tracey Neifer responded that the purchased policy is for some situations and the bylaw insurance is for others. She declined to elaborate, saying that the details were for “closed”.

This was an outrageous deception.

In fact the by-law is designed to provide coverage where the purchased policy will not.

And Ms. Neifer could have and should have said so.

By not saying so Ms. Neifer deceived council into supporting the indemnification resolution.

Claims adjuster is not arms-length

All communities have insurance to cover employees and council members. Some larger municipalities, like Toronto and Kingston, who can handle fairly large claims, have very high deductibles, making them almost fully self-insured. But regardless of whether they are insured by an insurance company or whether they are effectively self-insured through a very high deductible amount, all claims must go through a third party, that third party being a claims adjuster.

This means that in Toronto and Kinston and everywhere else (except TSBP) the people making the claims (the councillors, employees, volunteers) are at arms-length from the people deciding whether the claims are valid (the adjusters). And that’s the way it has to be.

But the Cathrae by-law is different. The Cathrae proposed by-law has the same people that file the insurance claims, namely councillors and senior staff, deciding whether the claims are valid, and deciding whether the claims should be accepted.

Section 3 of the Cathrae draft says that councillors, employees, and volunteers and even past councillors employees and volunteers will be covered if:

“(a) he or she acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Town;
(b) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was acting in accordance with any applicable policies of the Town; and,
(c) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that his or her conduct was lawful.”

There is nothing really wrong with the three criteria in sections 3 (a), (b), and (c).

They are a bit looser than our purchased insurance policy, which says more clearly that intentional acts are not covered. But it’s workable.

But guess who decides whether the three criteria are met? Guess who decides whether the people asking to be indemnified, and making a claim for money, were “acting honestly and in good faith”, and were “acting in accordance with applicable policies”, and believed their “conduct was lawful”.

Council decides. Or senior staff. Or both.

The very people making the claim for the peoples’ money from the treasury are the ones who decide whether their claim to the peoples’ money is valid and legitimate. The very people who may be breaking the rules are the ones who decide whether they will be insured.

The very people who may be breaking the rules are the ones who decide whether they will bear any consequences arising from their breach of the rules.

The very people asking to be indemnified are the ones making and passing the by-law giving themselves the dual role of potential claimants and claims adjusters.

The fox is minding the chicken coop.

That’s not arms-length. That’s a recipe for corruption and fraud.

That’s complete lack of control.

This is not standard in Municipalities.

This is not done in any insurance situation.

To say that the Cathrae proposal of non-arm’s length claims adjusters is standard when it is not is a gross deception.

The by-law covers those found guilty

In the December 4 meeting Councillor Jackson indicated that council had earlier agreed that the indemnification by-law should say that if some one accused is found guilty then the proposed indemnification by-law should say that they are not covered.

Ms. Cathrae responded by saying that the draft policy reflected that, and she read from a draft policy that she had in front of her.

But Ms. Cathrae was not reading from the draft by-law at all. She was reading from a second document that she had prepared to answer the anticipated question. She pretended she was reading from the draft proposed indemnification by-law, but she wasn’t. The words she read were not even in the draft.

Even though the deception was very obvious, no council member caught it, or at least no council member said anything. All council members had the proposed indemnification by-law right in front of them, and Ms. Cathrae was reading from something completely different, and not one councillor noticed.

But no matter that all of our representatives were asleep.

It was still deception.

Ms. Cathrae a few minutes later confessed that she had “mistakenly” read from a different version of the draft bylaw than the one that was in the agenda and before council and the public. But then she said that the version in front of councillors and in the agenda package was in substance the same as the one she had “in error” read from.

In fact all of the stuff Ms. Cathrae read from her special version about legal costs not being covered if a claimant is found guilty are absent from the agenda version.

Her claim that the two versions were in substance the same was a lie. A gross deception.

The by-law in fact does allow for some payments even if the claimant is found “guilty”.

If the issue is criminal, the bylaw does not cover settlement cost, fines, or court costs (the other party’s legal fees). But the accused’s own legal costs are not excluded from the by-law coverage, and are thus covered. Same with Municipal conflict of interest.

And for anything else, all cost are fully covered even if found “guilty” as long as the adjusters (themselves) are willing to say it was good faith and they didn’t know it was illegal, even if what they say is untrue (discussed above).

Ms. Cathrae deceived council again.

—————————————
So we have a draft by-law that:

1. Has a different rules for the self insured by law coverage than the purchased insurance coverage.

2. Has no arms length control and as such is ripe for fraudulent claims at great and unwarranted benefit to claimants and at great and unwarranted expense to the taxpayers.

3. Improperly pays legal costs under many conditions even if the claimant is found guilty.

Any one of these should be sufficient to send the Cathrae draft straight to the shredding machine.

The three reasons together suggest that the draft should be shredded and those “practicing to deceive” should be held to account for their deeds, including trial for municipal corruption should the courts so decide.

The truth is we don’t need an indemnification by-law for any legitimate or proper purpose. Certain council members and certain staff need it so they are shielded from the consequences of their malicious bad acts.

Payment of legal fees regarding conflict of interest proceedings.

There is an issue that is not a by-law issue but is closely related and should be dealt with along with the draft by-law.

It’s regarding proceedings under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The Act is very clear. The town cannot pay a council or board member’s legal costs unless and until a court finds that the accused did not contravene section 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Rob Ford was accused under the act. The city of Toronto could not and did not pay Rob Ford’s legal fees.

In contrast, the legal fees for all seven named in Municipal Conflict of Interest Act proceedings in TSBP have their legal fees paid fully by the taxpayers. Those named include councilllor Turner and Mayor Close.

The law is very clear. The town is prohibited from paying.

The purchased insurance policy is very clear. The insurance company will not pay unless and until a finding of “non-contravention” (like a finding of innocence) is made.

The town is illegally paying Close’s and Turner’s legal fees, and also several others. With taxpayers’ money. And to make it worse, up until recently council did not even know or authorize the taking of taxpayer’s dollars to pay Close’s and Turner’s legal fees.

Resolution 792 from November 23 sort of made council aware and authorized it. It reads:

“R-792-2012
It was MOVED by P. McKenzie, SECONDED by J. Kirkland and CARRIED …. THAT the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula supports the indemnification and support of members of Council, committees, local boards and employees in the defense of legal claims and actions commenced;
AND FURTHER THAT an indemnification by-law be presented to Council for consideration”

In summary, we have a bad and unnecessary draft indemnification by-law and we have council illegally paying legal fees related to conflict of interest proceedings.

Why are they doing these things that are so wrong and are so unfair and unjust to the taxpayers?

Here’s a theory presented by a fellow resident:

1. A certain group of council members feel that now that they are elected and are in power, they can do anything they bloody well please, including helping themselves to the treasury, and including attacking any resident who dares to criticize.

2. Certain staff and volunteers and former council members, staff, and volunteers who are connected to those particular council members also feel that they can do anything they bloody well please.

3. These people have completely lost sight of their duty to the public, and instead of putting the public first they have put themselves first. For the worst of them, the public is the enemy.

4. These people have no regard for the law, and place their own “rules” above the law.

5. Several residents have complained that the abuses are not right.

6. The bad council members and their accomplices didn’t like that.

7. So the bad council members, and notably John Close, branded the residents who complained about the abuses as “blights on society” and “criminals”.

8. Then the bad council members told former CAO Rhonda Cook that if she sued the residents identified by them as “blight” and “criminals”, for defamation, the town would pay her legal fees and cover any costs assigned to her.

9. And CFO Tracey Neifer went around to committees and told them that if they are sued by a citizen not to worry because the town’s purchased insurance will cover it, completely failing to mention that there is no insurance coverage if a volunteer intentionally harms a resident (for example defamatory slander). She was encouraging committee members to intentionally slander and libel those residents that she and others consider to be “blights” and “criminals”. (I think she includes me in both categories.)

10. But something happened that the bad council members and bad staff did not anticipate.

11. Instead of Rhonda’s lawsuit shutting the residents up (as they anticipated), some of the residents turned and fought back.

12. For example, a counterclaim, still outstanding, was filed against Rhonda for several hundred thousand dollars.

13. I filed commencing proceedings (not lawsuits) against Jim Turner, John Close and several local board members under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

14. I filed applications to the courts to quash two by-laws.

15. I sued a committee member for defamation.

16. There are several more commencing proceedings against the town and or council members or staff or committee members, by me and by others.

17. John Close was charged with obstruction of justice, a criminal offense.

18. And I expect that there are many more in the making that I don’t yet know about.

19. There is a cesspool of corruption lurking just below the surface at town hall.

20. Every day that cesspool of corruption becomes a little more visible to the public.

21. The sole purpose of the Cathrae draft indemnification by-law is so that bad council members and bad staff members can make war on any resident that exposes their bad actions and maybe takes them to court, and to make war using the residents’ own money to oppose those residents, and to make war using the residents’ money in the defense of the bad council members and staff.

22. The purpose f the by-law is to pay Rhonda Cook’s defense of the $500,000 lawsuit against her for defamation. The draft by-law would cover her legal costs and any settlement. It could cost taxpayers $700,000.

23. The purpose is to cover the defense of any council member, staff member or volunteer against a lawsuit for damages for intentional defamation of a resident. That’s covered too by the draft by-law. Cost to the taxpayers? – Unlimited. It could be millions.

24. The purpose is to cover the defense against conflict of interest actions. That’s being paid for by taxpayers too even though it’s illegal and is not covered by purchased insurance. Cost to taxpayers. Unlimited.

Staff are not the town, council is not the town, and John Close is not the town.

We the inhabitants are the town.

As the inhabitants, we deserve and are entitled to by-laws and resolutions that are made for our benefit, not the benefit of council and staff to our detriment.

The indemnification by-law will come up on December 18.

Council needs to defeat it.

Council also needs to make a resolution to stop paying legal fees associated with Municipal conflict of interest proceedings.

We the inhabitants of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula have a web of laws to protect us from the bad actions of corrupt officials.

We are entitled to the protection of those laws.

Council must get the insurance by-law defeated and the conflict of interest legal fees stopped or we will have no choice but to ask the courts for more help.

We need people to attend council meeting and watch for and report deceptions, lies and other bad actions.

I cannot attend meetings. I am banned from town hall. I am banned from all meetings wherever they are held.

To be clear, I was not banned because of some recording device issue. That was a pretext, a complete red herring.

I was banned because “they” believe that every time I attend a council meeting I get more evidence of the massive scale of corruption at town hall.

They banned me to try to stop me from getting and using that evidence.

Their strategy has backfired. Council and committee meetings are still being recorded by others, and are being sent to me almost in real time. So it’s almost as good as being there. And because I am spending a lot less time travelling to attend council and committee meetings, I have a lot more time to do research and to write exposes of their lies, their deceptions, and their nefarious actions.

And I have more time to blow the whistle (ask the courts for assistance).

I saw her today at the reception,
In her glass was a bleeding man.
She was practiced at the art of deception,
Well I could tell by her bloodstained hands.”
(You can’t always get what you want, Rolling Stones)

Craig

IT is Amazing!!!


Bruce2

                                                                “Bruce the Blight”

We as a community, invest thousands of dollars in economic development, in marketing, employees, studies and consultants, not to mention office space, phones, computers, cars, trips and conferences. I have to wonder what value are we getting for our money.

I have not seen any real development in this Town in the last ten years! 

Yes we have seen the odd small bussiness come and go but no new jobs, no new stores with the exception of Tim Hortons.

We do have a new empty medical Center at Sauble. 🙂

Our elected officials are to busy suing each other or being sued by residents or facing charges.

During the last two years I have worked on Duffy’s in Hepworth. I have not heard BOO from the EDC or the Chamber for that matter.

I did manage to get meetings with our elected officials, where they listened to what I had to say then gave me an “adda Boy” and went on their way. Jim Turner did in fact provide me with assistance where he could as did Janet Jackson and Jay Kirkland.

I have been getting a truck load of paperwork from the Building department, the majority of which has been fines and grief since Wayne McFadden left. Now Angie has been helpfull when she isn’t defensive but overall the Town has done nothing to further my venture.

The latest greatest issue is the lack of parking at Duffy’s. This seems to be an issue now. The zoning for Duffys has no parking requirements.

Now I do have concerns about the parking situation and have aquired some of the surrounding properties to address the problem but I note the Town has seven acres in Hepworth that houses a ball diamond that is used occasionally.

I know that Tim Hortons is generally got a full parking lot and I believe that Duffys will generate more stopping trafic as it develops. 

The seven acres of ball diamond, when it is used, does have parking for 50 to 100 cars leaving the diamond intacked. Maybe just maybe the Town could drop some gravel on the site and make parking available there. Hell they might even make some money charging for the parking.

Now why is it that the town and the MTO want to make it Duffys problem? After all it was the Town that laid out the zoning in the first place.

Didn’t we pay planners and consultants etc to layout our master plan for the area???

I find it amazing that we as a community put up with this stupidity and continue paying for that stupidity!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

Re: December 4, 2012 Council Agenda (Craig’s 2-51)


The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51943

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=51941

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.

——————————————-

Agenda Item 8.3 CLOSE08-2012 Ontario Municipal West Conference

Of the proceedings at the November 16th Ontario Municipal West Conference, John Close indicated:

“some facts came out load (sic) and strong”.

One of the facts, according to John, is that:

“Municipalities can pass by-laws to assist in the operations of a BIA”.

That’s not really true.  The law is fairly constraining.  And it is constraining so people like John Close don’t rename the Chamber of Commerce as the BIA and then raid the treasury to assist in the operations of the BIA (Chamber).

Residents should watch for something to come down the pike regarding giving more of our tax dollars to the Wiarton Chamber of Commerce (disguised as a BIA).

You’re being watched, John.

Another “fact”, according to John, was that:

“Speakers also talked about the CAVE people (Councillors Against Virtually Everything) and how this hurts your community, council and staff relations.”

This is presented as a fact.  I don’t believe that any of the conference speakers would actually say this.  Unfortunately the presentations are not yet up on the conference website, so I can’t check.  But when they are posted, I will check and report.

It appears to me that opportunist John Close is using a stupid buzzphrase (CAVE people) to take an oblique shot at Councillor Jackson.

John Close can’t refute her arguments, because they are too solid.  So he goes after her by characterizing her, by subtle innuendo, as a bad “Councillor Against Virtually Everything”.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member who takes her oath of office seriously.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member dedicated to the people of TSBP.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member who consistently puts the public interest ahead of her own.

Councillor Jackson is the only council member with the guts to stand up to John Close.

Far from being “against everything”, she is “for everyone” and “for the public good”.

The things that Councillor Jackson is against are John’s nefarious schemes to cheat the people of the town, and his skullduggery, and his dishonesty.

In fact it is John Close, not Councillor Jackson, who is a member of the group “Councillors Against Virtually Everyone” (CAVE).

And as long as we’re on the acronyms, let’s have a group called RANS (Residents Against Nefarious Schemes).  Or how about Residents Advocating Some Honesty (RASH).

(Sorry John Close, but applicants will have to qualify to be accepted, and with your record you would not qualify for either group.)

Agenda Item 8.15 CLK145-2012 Indemnification By-law

CLK145-2012 proposes an insurance by-law that would make the town the insurer if council members, staff or committee appointees accidentally cause harm.

Sort of self insurance.

The only problem is that the town already has purchased insurance (from a real insurance company) that protects council members, staff or committee appointees if they accidentally cause harm.

And the coverage is virtually identical, at least on paper.

Claims under the Municipal Conflict of interest Act are not covered by the proposed by-law policy, just as they are not covered by the insurance company policy.

Claims arising from an act of intentional harm are not covered by the by-law policy, just as they are not covered by the insurance company policy.

It would be crazy for a small community like TSBP to replace their purchased insurance with self-insurance.  Because one big claim could bankrupt the residents.  That’s why we purchase insurance.

But what is being proposed is not to replace the purchased insurance with the by-law self insurance. What is being proposed is to have both.  What is being proposed is duplication.

Why would any municipality want to do that?

Why would council want to do that?

It’s really very simple.

It’s because the by-law insurance is not really the same as the purchased insurance at all.

The by-law insurance is really to cover something completely different than the purchased insurance covers.

The words in the by-law policy indicate that only consequences of accidental harm are covered.

So the by-law says the town shall indemnify against claims arising from an act if:

“(a) he or she acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Town;

(b) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was acting in accordance with any applicable policies of the Town; and,

(c) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that his or her conduct was lawful.”

In other words, if the “act” that caused damage was unintentional, they’re covered.

That’s fair. So far so good.

The problem is that with the by-law policy, it’s the same people wanting to be covered (council members) that decide whether the act is intentional or not. And this is a conflict of interest.

If a group of councillors wanted to remove a vocal resident from the picture, and decided to do that by deliberately using malicious slander and libel to discredit and shame the resident, and then one councillor (or a friend of a councillor) willfully and intentionally slandered the resident, and then that resident successfully sued that councillor for a million dollars, then the insurance company (the purchased insurance) would refuse to cover either the legal costs or the settlement (because the damage was wilfull).

But the fact that the purchased insurance would not pay would not be a problem for the councillor.  Because all the slandering councillor would have to do is to tell his council buddies (with a wink and a nod) that the slander was unintentional, and council would declare by resolution that the slander was unintentional, and council would declare that the settlement costs are to be covered by the by-law insurance, and then all legal and settlement costs would be paid out of the treasury.

And the malicious guilty councillor would walk away without any consequences.

But the resident would be bullied out of the picture.

We already have perfectly adequate purchased insurance that covers accidental harm.  Self insurance is completely unnecessary if we have purchased insurance.

The by-law self-insurance is really just another crooked scheme for council to go after anyone who criticizes.

Like Rhonda Cook’s stupid lawsuit.  Which council also paid for with your money.  (For fourteen months anyway.)

The insurance by-law is proposed solely for a sinister purpose.

The insurance by-law would be a license to steal from the treasury.

The insurance by-law would encourage councillors and appointees to do bad things to any residents who oppose them or who oppose council.

The insurance by-law would encourage slander and libel.  Or even worse.

The by-law must be defeated.

Clerk Cathrae’s report says:

“Our solicitor has indicated that it is standard in his practice to see that municipalities, local boards, private business, industries and interest organizations have indemnification by-laws for the protection of their employees and volunteers.”

This is a lie, a misrepresentation at best.  Because in the context of the draft by-law, the report implies that “municipalities, local boards, private business, industries and interest organizations have indemnification by-laws”, in addition to purchased insurance, “for the protection of their employees and volunteers”.

It’s the implied “in addition to” part that is the lie.

No private business, industry or “interest organization” would ever purchase insurance and then exactly duplicate it with self insurance.

The only municipalities that would duplicate coverage are those with sinister intentions.

The solicitor who prepared the draft by-law has a serious conflict of interest.  If this indemnification by-law goes through he automatically gets more business. Lots more business.

Note this in the draft by-law:

“Town shall have the right to select and retain a lawyer to represent a person referred to in s. 3 of this by-law. The Town shall advise such person of the lawyer representing him or her, and shall advise Council of the disposition of the matter (in camera, if aplicable).”

The insurance by-law will encourage bad acts, which will lead to court proceedings, which will mean lots of lawyers, which will mean lots of legal fees.

The lawyer who wrote the by-law that will encourage the bad acts will get rich because of the by-law and the bad acts that the by-law will encourage.

It stinks.

Why can’t council understand this?

Agenda Item 10.5 By-Law 138-2012 Being a By-Law to Regulate Dynamic Beaches in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula

I have two concerns about this by-law.  First it declares the dynamic beach by-law ineffective between fifth and sixth streets at Sauble.  This will mean that there will be cars on the beach, along with environmental damage, and a hazard to beachgoers, and especially children.  And the change is supported only by a ridiculous concocted report from the same lawyer who developed the self-insurance by-law scheme (Steven O’ Melia of Miller Thomson).

Residents, and especially Sauble residents, should know that their councillor Bowman is wholeheartedly supporting gutting the dynamic beach by-law so as to allow cars on the beach.

Secondly the amended by-law allows dogs on the beach during the summer between 6 pm and 9 am.  This will mean lots of dog poo on the beach.  This will mean children at risk of serious infections from parasites.  The policy and by-laws should protect the children, not put them at grave risk just to satisfy the demands of dog-owners.

The by-law needs to be defeated.

Craig

The Answer Is No!


The policies in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula is to say no to everything as when you do this you are never wrong!

Do nothing and be rewarded as perhaps you have errored on the side of caution!

Anyone who tries to do anything in the Town is met with 101 reasons why you can’t!

The Simple serpents are driving the bus and shift the burden of proof on the creators!

We as tax payors of this community pay their wages! They are supposed to be working for us. The fact of the matter is they work for themselves! Find new and better ways to frustrate the people who are building this community by creating an economy.

The Simple serpents all drive nice cars and dress to the nines going to meetings to decide when the next meeting is. Oh and get lunch to boot not to mention an average wage and benefits that most in town only dream of.

Challenge anything with logic or reason and their response is they didn’t make the rules they are just doing their job!!!

Common sense has to come into play at some point. But not if you are an employee of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula! Just say no and deny everything and somebody else is at fault.

Remember if you work for town hall you are not accountable for anything or to anybody.

The so-called professionals at the hall are beyond reproach. They pretend they know what they are doing and don’t but the minute you prove them wrong they say “I didn’t make the rules!

The fact of the matter is they write the rules!!! Politicians merely vote on what they have been feed by the incompetent self-serving over paid bureaucrats.

I have been in business for the better part of forty years and I have never before seen a group of so-called hard-working professionals to use the term loosely to get so little done!!!

The Job of the Town Department Heads is to promote the town and encourage development and an economy. This bunch firmly believe that it is their job to stop all progress and growth.

You cannot grow an economy or create jobs or promote the area if these idiots are working against you every step of the way.

God help you if you do not bow to their demands! They will go to the earths end to find a way to say no to everything.

I am so sick of hearing our elected representatives tell me how hard the staff work and what a wonderful job they are doing. Wake up you fools they are being well paid to do their job that they don’t do!!!

Show me one thing that has been accomplished in the last five years other than increase in legal fees paid, increases in taxes and no new businesses!

I have been called a liar by the department heads!

I have been working to develop a site in this community to be hit with a Stop Work Order as according to them I had no Building permit! When I produced the building permit they said “OH well that didn’t include the front porch and there are no notes in the file so you will have to prove you had permission.

Just a minute here didn’t we pay the staff to do their job? If there are no notes in the file how is that my problem? Were the staff not paid to keep notes??

When the CBO says do this you don’t require a permit for that and the new CBO says well  “He didn’t have that authority” then why is that my problem??

They have the odasity to tell me to get Affidavits sworn saying that the old CBO gave me permission to do something or they will fine me for not having the correct permits.

It is interesting to note that they waited to tell me this until after I had spent the better part of a million dollars.

I am sorry if I maybe offend you but I am offended. They have delayed my project for eight weeks on bullshit! That eight weeks represents 1/2 a million dollars in revenue and wages that have been delayed.

Why in Gods name would I spend money if  I didn’t believe I had the permits in place.

The past CBO was in my building every couple days encouraging me to go forward yet the new CBO has done nothing but tell me that the old CBO didn’t have authority to do what he did and now I must prove that he said go and do it.

I am told that if I produce affidavits they will deal with it. Well If I have to produce affidavits I might just as well go straight to the Courts to deal with it. But wait a minute they sued me and I can’t get to court as we don’t know who their lawyers is now and WHEN I ASK THEY SAY IT HAS GONE TO THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?

The monkeys are running the Zoo! Just when you thought things were as bad as they could get they prove you wrong!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce