Posts
Friday, June 22, 2012
Mayor - razzle's dazzle's them
Last night's Town Hall Meeting razzled, dazzled and finally frazzled everyone.
There was more ducking and weaving the questions put to mayor and council than you see at most boxing matches. "We'll get back to you on that" was the standard reply. If the questions got to hard or difficult to answer, or were put to him too bluntly, there was the old pre-arranged stand-by police paddy wagon to cart off those the mayor took a disliking too... which happened much too frequently, including near the end of the meeting with my own wife, of all people, almost being carted off too when she challenged him for lying that he had been in the Bellecrest parade (which has always been the customary practice of former mayors, but not this one?), which she felt was a slap in the face to the residents living east of the slide. Never-mind that he and his council are threatening to close the Bellecrest Senior's Hall while pumping money like drunken sailors into the Coleman Senior's building?
Yes, dictatorial 'Pompous Bruce' was in full-swing last night for everyone to see, taking no prisoners, laughing and joking his way through the evening to the chagrin of many in the audience. At times, people felt, I'm sure, was he laughing with us, or at us? It was had to tell.
Yes, the mayor took discontent with his rule to a new razzle dazzle them level that would make a Las Vegas show proud. Culminating the evening with more pie-in-the-sky promises of good things to come... but don't hold your breath, he says, because it could all disappear like a puff of smoke.
So were the long outstanding issues with his administration of transparency in how and why decisions are being made, accountability, fiscal responsibility, and due diligence, to name a few, addressed to the satisfaction of the people there? I don't think so. What was clear is that we have an authoritarian leader who has no respect for taxpayers, and who has trouble answering questions put to him directly, if at all, who suffers fools lightly and does not hesitate in using the power of his position to quell discontent in this regard.
Surprizingly, the subject of the newly reactivated Ratepayers Association never once came up?
In conclusion, never once last night, except maybe when Jerry Lonsbury made his speech, did I feel our community spirit was back. In fact, by the end of the night, it felt more broken and lost than ever before. In reality, the very character and fabric of who and what we are never even bothered to show up. Instead, what did show up was the very real sense that we were all now 'sleeping with the enemy'.
UPDATE:
Open Letter to Mayor Bruce Decoux... the day before the Town Hall Meeting.
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Search This Blog
37 comments:
Your comment concerning the Coleman Senior's Hall are not fair. It is the Coleman Seniors themselves who have been fundraising and completing the various grant applications for the funds that they have been receiving to restore the building. The municipality has only contributed a small fraction of the amounts being spent. In fact, the Coleman Seniors have been paying bills that the municipality should have been paying since they are the owners of the hall.
If what you say is true then I stand corrected and apologize. The picture in this week's Promoter showing Albert Headrick, director of protective and community services, taking a sledgehammer to a wall and the caption below it gave one a totally different spin on this matter.
JP
There was something about the mayor making a couple of really big announcements. What were they?
As I've already stated, "pie-in-the-sky" announcements.
1. He's going to strike up an economic committee. (This was already announced a while back)
2. River Run investors legal problems are slowly being dealt with. The "spring is thawing" is the expression he used, I believe.
3. 'Potential' hotel development at the CLC site.
That's it. Nothing concrete at all. The last on my list above brought back 'bad memories' of the many promises made by Bridgecreek. Made my blood boil again, hearing what might also turn out to be more 'empty promises'
JP
Sounds like the pompous man wasted everyone's time while self inflating his ego again. I have more "choice" words to say....but won't ;-)
I thought I read a while back on Deans blog that administration had so much interest in the CLC site that they were going to extend the deadline. I believe the new deadline has passed by about a month now. Were they lieing about having so much interest?
I did not make the meeting, were people actually forced to leave? Tell me more!!
Anon @11:43
The mayor spoke of one developer only while also showing some slides (not very good ones either).
The meeting started on a sour note with people being ejected from it and ended on a sour note in a shouting match. Over all nothing was really accomplished except after a year and a half we finally got to see our mayor and council in action, in a less than positive light to put it mildly. Our community has been hijacked by a power tripping egotist, with a lame duck toddy council and a bunch of big city consultants and technocrats.
The above, of course, is my own personal opinion.
JP
Sounds like a waste of time!
Yes, in many respects it was. I mean, aside from having the opportunity of finally actually seeing and hearing our elected representatives (half-way through their term of turning this community upside down, some thinks), I don't think we are any wiser or better off for last night's experience. Except I think we all got a better idea of who and how things are being run right now... and how serious our problem really is!
At the end of day, for the mot part, I could have done without it for the little benefit I received on the 'positive' side of things.
JP
What I found quite amusing is I was there the whole time and not once was an actual business plan mentioned for anything. It was all "we don't know", "we didn't know" or "we won't answer that at this time". So basically what I gathered was in all this time there is NO CONCRETE PLAN. It's all what they would "like" to do. I'd like a million dollars to fall from the sky, don't think it's going to happen though. No word of HOW to bring business. Also no mention of WHY the business goes to Pincher Creek. Here's a hint, the Blairmore Super Valu charges out the nose for items, the Walmart in Pincher Creek doesn't. It's the difference between people knowing how to run a business and people thinking because they've owned one there for so long they are the business master. There's a broken down school in Bellevue, anyone ever maybe just had the thought since the community is so hurting for trained workers, why you can't repurpose that school for some sort of adult class type setting? Also, lots of talk of Blairmore and Coleman, yes thanks I already got the feeling the plan is to sacrifice everything else for Coleman and Blairmore's sake. Thanks for the confirmation on that, it doesn't make me feel better. Than we have this maybe-maybe not hotel. That is what people call throwing the dog a bone. Nothing concrete just a maybe, here's a thought on that, it shouldn't have even been mentioned at all. When it doesn't happen, people will blame council for it, if you aren't sure, don't open your mouth about it otherwise you just gave everyone more ammo to use later. Whoever is advising these people are not very smart. Oh also one other thing I found amusing was the talk of going after the 80 people in the municipality of Ranchlands...here's another hint, if these people are worth 7 times what CNP is, DON'T SCREW WITH THEM. If I were these people and I had council come after me, I'd tie you up in courts until your money ran out, Alberta doesn't give out grants to pay for lawyers. I hope the 80 people in Ranchlands were paying attention last night. Get your legal teams ready and take the pass for everything you can. It was PAINFULLY obvious last night the mayor and council don't have a plan and alot of the business owners and general populace don't have much of a clue either. Half are against business coming to hurt the locals the other half want the business. Also people please, selling your shack you call a house for 250,000 and higher, if you don't think you are a big part of the problem, think again. Last night was a real eye opener about how far behind things really are here. On a discriminatory note, one of the council members was blasted for not living here full time, on this I have to defend him asmuch as I don't like too. This is a CLEAR example of what I've posted twice now. LOCAL vs Non-Local. This is why there is such a huge problem and until that is dealt with in some form it's what will constantly get talked about when people leave. They go somewhere else and say...man, you have no idea how bad people treat each other there. It's time people quit acting like it wasn't going on. The mayor and Council have to take a hard look in the mirror yes, but so does everyone else living here. There's a difference between "rumours" and word of mouth, ask any advertising agent. Both are free but only one is good for your business and reputation. What a sham last night. I couldn't help feeling disgusted after I left. What the hell was the point if you are just going to say we don't know or we won't answer that at this time.
Before I forget, I don't remember the name of the girl that brought up bullying the second time but I remember the first person was a young man named Emmitt (hope I spelt that right). They deserve a HUGE round of applause from all of us for braving things out and speaking up. Good for them, more of the youth need to speak up, they're say counts too. If you are wondering the answer they were given was it's a provincial problem. Yeah nice job passing the buck mayor and council. Why don't people come here? Maybe because they hear that and don't like the idea of high taxes, higher prices and oh just for some fun, we'll bully your children too. Would you move to CNP if these were the considerations you had to think about? Just a suggestion on bullying, write a bylaw against bullying, if you get caught doing it your parents eat a $500 fine per infraction until they realize it's nice to have kids but perhaps you should do your jobs as a parent and raise them properly. When someone that young brings up the word suicide next to bullying, parent's especially, clean out your ears and pay attention. When children need to bring it up, you KNOW it's a major problem that probobly isn't a good idea to ignore.
David,
Thanks for your comments and good to hear from someone who was there last night. You've given those who were unable to attend some good food for thought.
Nice of you to mention Emmitt and the ladies who I too think spoke both passionately and caringly about the bullying issue that seems to be on everybody's minds these days.
JP
Just a quick comment. I have seen other places have to dismiss people because they didn't live in the area. I think I agree with them - that they should live in the area to run. That has nothing to do with old timer or young cute timer. I think David made some good points - but they were just his ideas. Agree with some, but definitely not all.
Just to clarify a point, the person in question, who does not live in the area, is the CAO, "not" a council member.
Just a hunch from what I heard at the meeting and back during the election:
The new improved Community Standards By-law will "grandfather" (exempt) the LARGE dumpy industrial sites while cracking down on residents and small business.
David, We have our problems just like everywhere else.Can things be better here, for sure.It is one thing to bash council but when you bash all of the CNP you are wrong. The majority of the people who live here could just as easily move.However they stay and enjoy one of the best communities anywhere.I can make you a list of things that are better here than most other places.Just asking you to be wary of who you are attacking.
Anonymous, you are correct. I lumped everyone into one group in my second last post and it was'nt entirely fair of me to do so. I spent some time walking around in the last month and these were things I heard from people I know and new people I met. That council meeting was a boiling point for me. I was still a little steamed when posting. You have my apologies for going over the line. In my future comments I will do my very best to be more fair among as many groups as possible. Again if I did offend someone you have my apologies. I hope with that, there are no hard feelings.
Hi John,
My point in this comment is about bullying. Why is that word only used around school when all these kids learn from the public? You have been bullied yourself, by the mayor and the council and you don't seem to know it with the way people respond on the blog. We have a woman here as a manager of our Community Economic Development program bullying everybody around for ten years. I tried to take her to court for forgery that I can prove 100%. The RCMP refused to investigate and gave me a letter stating "The Police and the Crown Counsel have to be absolutley certain that she is guilty. I know she is. I asked the Crown Counsel for the police report. They never heard of my complaint. If this is not bullying at the highest degree, what is it? I'm sure I'm not alone in this situation, being judged by the local RCMP and being cut out of our justice system by one single individual.
My definition of bullying:
YOU abuse your power to hurt others.
a) Physical power
b) Office power
c) Elected power
d) Police power
e) Psychopath power
About a by-law bullying $500 fine to the parents:
How much would you charge when the Council or the Police is bullying you?
Kids learn from the public more than they learn form the parents. We have people in power in some places who we can't be proud of. This is my personal opinion.
John, I have a few comments regarding the meeting. The first concerns the young fellow who raised the topic of bullying. I think it is great for parents to bring their older kids to an event like this as part of their education in how democracy works. However, I didn't go to the meeting to listen to a kid raise a subject that has nothing to do with the business of Council. It is a matter for parents, teachers, School Boards, and the police. Anyone who thinks a by-law from Council is going to solve the problem is nuts. I have to laugh too, when on one hand people are complaining about all the new by-laws and their enforcement and on the other hand, are suggesting a by-law as a solution for a problem as complex as bullying. Also, if that young man was my son, I'd teach him to show some respect when he is addressing the Mayor (or any adult for that matter). I thought he was a brat.
My second comment is that the horrible behaviour (yelling, profanity, threats of physical violence) of the guy who was invited to leave by Sgt. Bott, was an excellent demonstration of adult bullying behaviour. Am I the only person who was appalled by that man's behaviour?
Lastly, the discussion that took place regarding the location of the CAO's home was highly inappropriate and an invasion of his privacy. The only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned is whether he is performing his job well, and I happen to think he is. Why are so many locals surprised at the turn over in administrative staff, when we subject them to that kid of crap? Frankly, if I was Mr. Thompson, I'd be polishing my resume and looking for a job in a community with fewer crazy people. I'm thinking a lot of the criticism has less to do with where he pays taxes and more to do with the Municipality not hiring some local hack as CAO. Well frankly, I've seen enough of what happens when all the administration consists of 4th generation "locals" who've never lived outside the Pass. We now have some competent people in the administration, and I just hope we can keep them.
Yes, totally agree with 8:44 AM anon.
Bullying issue had no place at that meeting - nothing to do with council. Don't even think kids belong as such a venue. Especially brats...wonder about parents that allow disrespect.
I also agree with Anonymous at 8:44 AM. Now that we have a competent CAO in place, let's allow him do his job.
In regards to bullying in our schools, I'm sure the Mayor is as concerned as anyone, but is it not as Anonymous @ 8:44 says, "It is a matter for parents, teachers, School Boards, and the police." What is the Mayor suppose to do?
In regards to the residency issue of certain municipal employees. Is this any different than the CNP residents who work in the mines across the border in BC, where they don't pay taxes? Good thing for us they are not forced to live there.
Yes anmy 12:20, you are correct. I change my mind, I guess it does not matter where you live as long as you do a good job.
Barb; We moved to the pass a number of years ago, it sure was a pleasant surprise from other parts of Canada, warm, friendly, and reasonably priced for Real Estate as well as purchasing our daily needs here, also the beauty and pride of the area........look at the main street today, few flowers,cranky merchants,and a joke for council,I would be embarased to be a council member let alone show my face in town...please grow up and restore the Pass to what it should be! Folks don't be anonymous,man up!
The mayor did not speak to the bullying issue because he is a bully himself, as he demonstrated for all to see at the recent town hall meeting.
The bully issue has nothing to do with council. Should not have even been brought up.
@8:16
I was at the meeting and did not see any behaviour on the part of the Mayor that could be characterized as bullying. What he did do was ensure the meeting was conducted in an orderly manner. That he did so, was for the benefit of everyone, and I appreciated it. Allowing people to heckle and yell from their chairs would have turned the whole affair into a gong show. Everyone had the opportunity to take a turn speaking at a microphone. Those who did were treated with respect, even those who showed little respect for the Mayor and Council. I wish some people in the Pass would understand that you can disagree with someone without name calling, yelling, and profanity.
General comments:
As far as I'm concerned the biggest bully is our governments. Let's start at the top with them and work our way down. Having said that, the Mayor should have got the RCMP Sgt. to say something, since he was already there busily figuratively throwing guys into the paddy wagon upon King Bruce’s every command. I’m surprised we never heard the shout “Off with their heads!
Now ‘residency’ seems to be the hot topic right now with this post and on that one it is the same with me as it was with the manager of the ski hill who lives in Fernie. That is, it should be a condition of the employment contract here that management employees invest in the community, as the community is investing in them, by residing in it. Aside from the already stated obvious reasons for doing so I must say I agree with the 4th generation comment. But come-on, we should have a commitment by prospective management employees to becoming first generation, don’t you think? I’m not saying all employees should have to reside here but those making the rules that we all have to live with, and possibly be hard done by, should. Otherwise, it is hard to make the case that they are really committed to the community they are serving, when it is so easy to just pack up and leave your mistakes behind.
I guess the reason that matters to me most is I don’t particularly like the idea of having someone setting the rules for how I must live, while both not having to live with them same rules themselves, for better or worse, or deal with the fallout when and if the shit hits the fan because these guys went to fast… and weren’t as smart as they thought they were.
JP
Re: the employee residency issue.
The simple reality is that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc. etc., including place of residency. If the municipality tried implement a rule that you have to be a resident of the Pass in order to be employed by the Municipality, they would find themselves in front of the Human Rights Commission and they would lose.
I remember reading about this same issue a number of years ago. There were residents of Edmonton who were concerned at the number of city employees who lived in the neighbouring communities of St. Albert and Sherwood Park. In the end, nothing changed for the reasons I have stated.
Anon @10:28
I respect your argument and persistence with respect to this issue but putting discrimination aside, an employer can make the determination whether or not to hire someone based on whether they plan on living in said community, or not. Just as an employee can get a clause in their contract that reimburses them for for their fuel when commuting back and forth from their gated community where they actually do live.
JP
John,
I'm not so sure you can tell an employee, or potential employee, that unless they live where you want them to, they can't work for you. As long as they are able to fulfill their job obligations, you can’t dictate where they live. A good example is when they tried doing this with the miners who live in Crowsnest Pass, but work in BC. Some of the folks in BC felt that if you wanted a job there, you should have to live there, too. In Canada, you cannot discriminate because of residency.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your correlation between how an employee can get a clause in their contract that reimburses them for their fuel when commuting back and forth from their gated community where they actually do live, and discrimination because of a person’s place of residency?
Anon @12:29
For years I tried to get on at the mines but they wouldn't hire me, couldn't even get an interview, because of discrimination against me because of who I am. Just as they could get away with that an municipal employer can get away with not hiring someone because they find out during the interview process they are not willing to relocate. As far as I know there is no law that says you cannot hold that (not willing to relocate) against someone.
Let me remind you once again, I am not talking about just any employees, I'm talking about top management people working for a municipality making decisions that affect peoples lives but not their's, because they don't live here. e.g. Advise council to raise peoples taxes. What do I care, it doesn't effect me.
The point I was making with respect to the last part of your comment is that both are part and parcel of the negotiating process. The employer can insist on residency, just like an employee can insist on reimbursement for his mileage, because he insists on living hundreds of miles away from his work place, and commutes weekly doing so, as is the case with our current CAO.
JP
further...
The real question people should be asking is why did mayor and council agree to hire this person, under these conditions... unless they just wanted a rubber stamp CAO?
JP
John,
Once an employer receives all the applications for a posted position, they can choose who, or who not, to interview. What you experienced happens every day. These days, applicants are usually screened/researched long before they are offered an interview. Look at how many people have not been hired for positions, due to things they have posted about themselves on Facebook, for example. It might not be fair, but it happens all the time. If a person can't get an interview, they're not going to get the job. However, once someone is in the office being interviewed, there's a long list of questions they can't be asked. This includes religious and political beliefs ... etc. In regards to residency, as long as you are a Canadian resident, you can apply for work in any province or district, without having to live there, or be forced to live there. I know this from personal experience.
Sometimes, and maybe this is true in your case, it's "name recognition" that prevents one from getting a job they might very well be qualified for.
In regards to the rubber stamp comment, I have to disagree. Had you said this about the last person who was the CAO during the previous mayor's term(s), I would have agreed. Our current CAO is not like this.
Most people crave name recognition. Then there's those that just want to be like everybody else, having the same opportunities, but are never given that chance because they have been black-balled by the money-elites as a threat, or shit disturber. These people live a precarious life but one of their own choosing... and making. "I've got to be me", is their motto.
"Character is what you have left when you've lost everything you can lose."
I don't know the man, he's never called me on anything, but obviously you do, so I'll have to take you at your word anonymous. Best!
JP
Well I think it could be made a condition of employment that you move here. I think it would be pretty obvious to the people interviewing if the resume says BLAIRMORE or COLEMAN.
You are right, he can put into effect anything as it affects him in absolutely no way. Bottom line. It should be changed.
Remember people, we all come here from somewhere. Even those who doing the most complaining about "newbies" had to have settled here from somewhere else (or their relative's did at one point). Just remember that.
Post a Comment