Did I mention Ottawa?

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

On March 23, 2006 Mr. Anderson had lunch at O'Carroll's in Halifax at a cost of $32.91, flew to Ottawa and checked into the Minto Suites Hotel in Ottawa at a cost of $189.75, charged SWSDA for his regular daily meal allowance, before heading down Somerset street to wind up the day at Mamma Teresa's, a well known restaurant in Ottawa described in the following manner ....

" Mamma Teresa's is known internationally for its good food and warm, friendly atmosphere. Prime Ministers, Premiers, celebrities, and others who appreciate a pleasant dining experience, have all graced Mamma's tables." ..... and now Frank Anderson has too ....
Cost.... $176.34 plus a handwritten tip for $35.00 for a total cost of $211.34.

For lunch the next day he billed SWSDA for his daily meal allowance, had lunch at "Prime 360" an upscale Steak House located in the Hotel at a further meal cost of $59.27 plus a handwritten tip of $12.00 for a total cost of $71.27 before heading back to Yarmouth.

Another busy day lobbying in Ottawa...... Food and drinks for Mr. Anderson over 24 hours .... enough to feed more than two families for a week!

Impact on development in Southwest Nova Scotia..... Priceless!

A Dissenting Voice Should be Heard

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

One of the comments posted in the comments under Coronet 2 the Vegas Trip supports SWSDA, their secrecy and chastises this blog. I am bringing your attention to it because it is well worth reading.

I have posted the comment because the author felt strongly enough to put forth the arguments he or she thought relevant. I leave it to you dear readers to judge the comments freely. If you disagree with the person making the comments and wish to comment I would only ask that responding comments be civil.... if they are, I will post them.... if they aren't ... I will not.

In an open dialogue I believe these divergent comments are valuable.... because it begins to explain how the SWSDA phenomenon has been permitted to continue by those who appear to have the view that the public is stupid and those in power are gifted. If nothing else, it is important to understand what the reasons might be to support what appears to be a rogue organization.... even if they might not make sense to everyone.

However, I should point out that the author of the comments supporting SWSDA would have been much more credible if he or she had not tried to attach and make the same identical comments on four different postings of this blog. Also, I would have tended to give more credence to the comments had the author had the strength of his/her convictions and identified himself or herself. Unfortunately that person did not, preferring to operate behind the cloak of anonymity.

I know that many have commented and not identified themselves for fear of retribution from the power establishment associated with SWSDA and I appreciate your courage in posting comments nonetheless.

However, if you support the manner in which SWSDA operates, I wonder who you fear.... could it be the great unwashed public who you claim are not sufficiently endowed to comprehend the justification of the use of public funds for apparently frivolous and personal applications? Maybe they are just envious of the Austrian Crystal.

Or is it that crew named John Q and Sally M Public who don't understand how and why all that money for the maintenance of the Boys School got spent without the approval of Team Shelburne over the nine months after the School was sold to Ralston MacDonnell? Or maybe its that other bunch who are always asking questions about all that interest from the maintenance funds and proceeds of the sale of the Boys School that appear to have vanished in thin air....

Yeah..... they just don't understand high finance I guess.... or that list of SWSDA accomplishments you referred folks to.....

Anyone Miss Him?

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

So..... our Senator Kirby has been retired for nearly three years..... did anyone notice?

And..... who replaced him?

Senators and other things....

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Don't know what Kirby doing or if he just retired.....

Just tried it..... SCT is working for me.......

Reply to Comment - the Phantom Senator!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

To our poster about Senator Comeau......

Actually I was thinking of Michael Kirby appointed by Pierre Trudeau in 1984... just before Mulroney came to office....... Know of anything Senator Kirby has done for Chester/South Shore that he purportedly represents...... He's had a quarter of a century so far......

A Reflective Moment

-------- CIVIL SOCIETY... MILLENIA IN THE MAKING ---------

Reflection was made for a sunny Saturday morning in the midst of spring ... and so this morning, dear reader, I would ask that you indulge me for a moment.

Of late, I've been thinking more and more about the society that my children and grandchildren appear set to inherit. It's at these times that I am filled with both exhilaration and absolute terror. Exhilaration at the prospect of the continued development of a better society, fear prompted by the apparent lack of progress in our thinking about how to improve our society and what I see as movement away from the hard-won improvements gained by previous generations.

My immediate ancestors included Rossignols who settled along the south shore of Nova Scotia in the 1600s, Frasers who fought at Louisbourg and on the Plains of Abraham with the British, Geurettes and Cayers who fled the oppressive monarchy of France in the early 1700s.

They, like generations before and since, moved to and settled in communities that provided civil and personal liberties and opportunities. Our present Canadian rights and those that distinguish Canada from other places on this planet have evolved over all those years and before even the Magna Carta creating a society steeped in principles of ethical behaviour, fair play, common courtesy, shared responsibilities and noble causes. It has encouraged and protected civil rights and public participation in our governance and developed mechanisms to resolve private as well as public disputes. It isn't perfect.... but with continued effort we can aim to make it better for ourselves and our offspring.

In recent years I have seen a steady erosion of the basic institutions and practices that I think are key to the continued improvement in our civil environment. Let me share of few of my observations and concerns.

1. The concentration of power in the offices of Prime Minister and Premiers in the past thirty years has produced a power base without meaningful checks and balances that Cabinet at one time provided along with the House of Commons and the House of Assembly. Now, the House of Assembly meets fewer days than most Nova Scotians have vacation days.

2. In our society, the Federal Senate was originally designed to provide regional geographic representation to each of the Provinces. Over the years that system has been corrupted because senators are appointed by the political party in power and senators no longer feel accountable to the geographic region they are supposed to represent. A good example is the Trudeau era appointee for the South Shore who doesn't even try to make believe he lives here. Does anyone even know his name and how much longer he can serve? Or what he's done for this region?
Provincially, we no longer have a Senate so there will continue to be a concentration of power in large urban centres. Of course the same applies to the House of Commons as Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax and other large urban centres send more and more people to the House and rural communities send fewer.

3. Not that long ago, public servants saw themselves as serving the public first and politicians second. We know that is less and less the case today. But I suggest to you that the problem is even greater than simply a shift of allegiances. It seems that nothing gets done today without a committee, a task force, a project team, a stakeholder, an interdepartmental or inter-governmental group deciding and making recommendations about every aspect of our lives. Of course the nameless, faceless bureaucrats hiding behind these groupings of mandarins and civil servants share no blame for errors in judgement or action. I remember not that long ago when people got paid the big bucks for making decisions and living with the consequences. Not so anymore. Find me a public servant who takes responsibility now.

4. And now, we have the worst of all creations: groups funded by taxpayers dealing with public business at "arms length" from politicians and civil servants and with no mechanism for the public to seek or demand accountability, performance or fairness. Of course if such a public group could deny any knowledge of wrongdoing, that would be the ultimate travesty would it not? Moreover, if such a group, when pushed by the public to pay attention and assume responsibility for the organization's actions, could restrict where its meetings were held, refuse to admit the public to its deliberations except its selection of invited guests... wouldn't that be the final straw...... no. The final straw would be if the deck were stacked and a particular camp within the organization imposed their will against the wishes of the public and a significant minority of the group... that would be the ultimate travesty ..... THE TYRANNY OF MAJORITY.

QUESTION: IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BELONG TO SUCH A GROUP, WHY WOULD YOU?

Corenet 2 - Vegas

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

You will recall that Mr. Anderson spent a week in Toronto in the spring at considerable cost participating in this private club designed to develop real estate marketing skills and networks. A few months later in October 2005 he took another week out of his busy schedule to travel to Corenet Workshops in Las Vegas and shared a room while there at US $173.31 per night with Olive, signing a guest up for what appears to be one of the Corenet events at an additional cost of US $150.00.

Mr. Anderson also claims both his daily meal per diem as well as expenses for 3 people for dinner on the 26th of October ...... but a look at the receipt from the "Hibachi" at the Las Vegas Hilton reveals that there were only two guests and only two meals were purchased on Oct 26, 2005 at a cost of US $79.09 plus a tip of US $15.00.

Total cost.... not counting salary, airfares, etc $3,003.98 according to Mr Anderson's travel expense claim.

Question:

Is it SWSDA policy to allow staff to bring wives along on training programs and pay supplementary fees for their participation in training program related events?

Who approved this?

How did this trip help community development in our area?

THE AUSTRIA TOUR......

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Memories of Saudi Censorship.....

In the early eighties I did some work in Saudi Arabia. At noon each day, offices closed and reopened after 6:00PM. One day I discovered a copy of Time magazine in the hotel shop and eagerly bought it figuring I'd have a good read to while away the long afternoon. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that all but the shortest articles had been censored with heavy black ink and/or had pages and sections of pages cut out, making it impossible to read an entire article.

Mr. Anderson's travel expense claim for his junket to Austria reminds me of Saudi censorship..... On Mr. Anderson's 8 1/2 x 11 summary expense sheet, 30 items have been blacked out!That said, blacking out key bits of information raises more questions than answers about the remaining bits of information.

For example:

1. What does the notation Pam's Room 310.00 mean? Was this Euros or dollars? Why is Pam's Room included in Mr. Anderson's travel claim? Was this for Pam's actual room charge or was it for charges to Pam's room for other things? Who is Pam?

2. Mr. Anderson also blacked out information next to charges listed under lodging for each night on his travel expense claim sheet. What was blacked out that was so secret about lodging charges? Again were these charges in Euros or Dollars?

3. During the 11 days of travel to, from and in Austria in mid-July 2005 Mr. Anderson claimed his daily meal allowance charges but also claimed the following under the column "Other" on his expense claim. These I believe were all in Euros based on some of the attached receipts.... at around €1 = $1.50. Who was entertained and was the entertainment for restaurant and/or booze charges? More importantly, four years later has any of this entertainment produced new development in our communities?

July 16 Meals/Ent €282.20, plus €64.60

July 17 Meals/Ent €754.00 (Did Mr. Anderson tip €100 for this service as appears to be the case on the receipt with a handwritten amount for the tip?)

July 18 Ent €109.40

July 19 Ent €140.80, plus €192.00 (did Mr. Anderson tip €30 for this service as appears to be the case on the receipt with a handwritten amount for the tip?)

July 20 Ent €137.50

July 21 Ent €17.30

July 22 Ent €15.00,

July 23 Ent €91.00

4. Mr. Anderson's travel expense sheet also has the handwritten notations +$500.00 to SWSDA and +$478.48 to NSBI. Question.... Was this a mission undertaken by Mr. Anderson for NSBI and/or others? If it ways, have they shared in the costs?

5.Most of the other receipts provided by Mr. Anderson are too blurry to determine what was purchased..... Except for one receipt typed up on SWSDA letterhead for "KNIGHT'S DINNER AT THE GUSSING CASTLE" Dinner in an Austrian Castle in mid-July .... must be nice.

Perspective..... I've done a lot of traveling over the past forty years and I've been on numerous missions with delegations.... often with the assistance and support of the local Canadian Embassy. Did the Austrians do any entertaining?

Questions:

1. Who organized and paid for this visit?

2. What was the purpose and what involvement did SWSDA member municipalities have in this trip?

3. Why Austria and where does it fit in the strategic plans of our communities...? I was unable to find it as a priority of any communities in Yarmouth or Shelburne Counties in 2005.

4. Who were the members of the delegation?

5. Was a trip report ever published and are copies of it available?

6. Has an evaluation of this mission ever been undertaken and if it ahs, has anyone ever seen it?

CONCLUSION: Mr. Anderson summary expense claim sheet tallies up to 4,950.60, (if this is Euros then its $7,425.90) not counting the $206.96 in mileage charges to get to the airport, nor Mr Anderson's airfare fo $1,200 to $2,000......

Plus of course.... we now know we pay PART of Mr. Anderson's salary so that part of his salary that SWSDA pays.... plus overheads should be added to SWSDA's cost for Mr. Anderson to participate in this junket..... NOW .... we also know from an earlier post that Jason was there, appears .... so was Pam, and while each of them likely did not spend as much as Mr. Anderson on entertainment, depending on how many were on this swan ...... salaries, airfares, mileage, parking, meals, hotels and miscellaneous probably cost taxpayers a pretty penny...... Remember.... this is summer holiday travel time.....

EVER WONDER IF WE GET VALUE FOR MONEY OUT OF THESE JUNKETS?

Speaking of junkets..... Next ... the long-promised blog about Vegas trip with the missus!

Only Friends Invited.....

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

DID CHARLIE AND NORM REALLY WANT .... TO BAN THE PUBLIC?!?

Heck, the motion couldn't even say the words..... "CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC".....
Rather... Charlie euphemistically says that SWSDA meetings should "... be held as in the past..." (;-)

And, to make sure there was no confusion.... but again avoiding the ugly phrase "Closed to the Public" ..... the minutes clarify the motion by indicating that meetings of SWSDA will "... 1.e., not be open to the public." LOL

Wow.... reminds of newspaper headlines when I first arrived in South Africa in 1973 screaming "FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY ACT EXPANDED" ....when it really meant the Act had been amended to make it possible for the much feared Bureau of State Security (BOSS) to arrest anyone involved in an assembly of 2 or more people! Now those folks knew how to keep populations subservient and in line!

NOW HOLD ON YOU SAY.... the SWSDA Board could not have meant ALL OF THE PUBLIC.... That would mean only Board members would be allowed to attend meetings.... not alternates and certainly none of that crew SWSDA calls the "Non-voting Members" who regularly attend and consist mostly of people who add legitimacy to SWSDA proceedings and who participate by simply being there..... Remember, the bylaws DO NOT provide for alternates or non voting members.... just members of SWSDA and the Board of Directors.

So dear SWSDA.... I assume that you will ask all those folks sitting outside the SWSDA inner circle who are part of the great unwashed public there to attend your next "closed to the Public" meeting (read "non-voting members") to leave before you start next week's private meeting.... right!?!

Gee..... makes you wish we had municipal elections again just around the corner.... wonder how many of this crew would survive that round!!??

Folks Are Demanding More.....

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Today the Chronicle Herald Reports that the Auditor General is pushing to get authorization to audit MPs and Senators..... Not Suprising given recent events.

In the U.S. Lord Black finds himself convicted and in jail because of reported abuse of power and skimming of money from shareholders.

.....In Newfoundland expense claim fraud lands a former Minister in Jail.

In England the Speaker of the House of Commons resigns over claims of expense claim fraud.

These are hard times for many and electors everywhere are beginning to demand better scrutiny and management of public funds.....

If you were going to improve things at SWSDA, what would you propose?

Even a little Progress is Exhilirating!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Ask and ye shall receive....

I recently wrote to Sherm Embree pointing out that SWSDA had not updated the minutes from their Board meeting since February. Today I got a note from Sherm letting me know that the March minutes had just been posted and that the April minutes will be posted shortly after they are approved at the next SWSDA Board meeting to be held on May 27, 2009. Yeah!!!

And thank you Sherm........ Interesting minutes... you can read them dear reader at http://www.swsda.com/index.php?p=know

Before I get into them .... here's a bit of background to SWSDA's bylaws I'd like to share ......

For some time now SWSDA has been getting municipalities to name alternates along with their members of the SWSDA Board. Municipalities have dutifully followed Mr Anderson's lead and regularly name alternates to the SWSDA Board. These folks attend meetings, vote on motions, participate in the discussions, make and second motions, even though the bylaws do not provide for alternate members of the Board.

At this March 18, 2009 meeting Jean Melanson and Norman Pottier .... who as far as I can tell are not members of the SWSDA Board.... not only participated but seconded motions and voted!

So what motions did non-members Jean and Norman second and vote on?

Here is the section from the minutes for you to see for yourself how even with the best efforts by our reps from Shelburne county..... this is a losing proposition......

"Darian Huskilson made a notice of motion to change the By-laws/Policies of
the South West Shore Development Authority to allow board meetings to be open to
the public.

It was moved by Charles LeBlanc, seconded by Norman
Pottier that board meetings of the South West Shore Develoment Authority be held
as in the past, i.e. not open to the public. Motion
Carried.

It was moved by Phil LeBlanc, seconded by Jean Melanson
that board meetings be held in Yarmouth until further notice. Motion
Carried."

FLASH!! -SWSDA MEETING DELAYED!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

SWSDA Re-trenching?!?

Just got the news that SWSDA has cancelled today's Board meeting and re-scheduled it for some time next week. Excuse for meeting delay is so that they could get financial statements ready for year end..... (;-) Funny.... last year Mr. Anderson waited until mid-August when no one was around to present financial statements. He also took the opportunity to pass resolutions to amend the bylaws during the depth of summer.....

Its a shame to have this unecessary delay since the present bylaws require him to present his financials only in a month from now.....Wait a minute..... do you think he needs the extra time to come up with amended numbers for the Boys School Expenses?!?

First they moved a planned meeting in Barrington to Yarmouth, then passed a resolution to hold all future meetings in Yarmouth in the name of economy .... now they've cancelled this week's meeting.... just when folks were getting ready to ask questions!

HAVE THEY STARTED DIGGING THE MOAT AROUND FORTRESS SWSDA IN YARMOUTH YET?

And then there's Some More June Travel Expense Claims

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Some hard to read June expense claim receipts .....

1. Rodd Grand Yarmouth at 21:52 PM for $35.18 plus a tip of $10.00 (29%).
2. Triangle Ale House receipt for $52.70 plus a tip of $15.00 pencilled in for a total of $67.70.
3. Rudder's Seafood on June 4, 2005 at 19:02 PM for $45.08 plus a handwritten tip for $10.00 (22%) for a total of $55.08.
4. Le Restaurant Cape View in Mavilette receipt for $60.84 plus handwritten tip of $14.00 (23%) for a total of $74.84.
5. Triangle Ale House receipt dated June 9, 2005 at 19:45 PM for $58.13 plus a handwritten tip of $12.00 (20%) for a total of $70.13.
6. A fuzzy unidentifiable receipt at 12:28 PM for what appears to be $15.00 in a place that sells Keiths by the Pitcher.
7. Receipt from the Triangle Ale House for 1 Coke, 2 Caffreys, 2 Carona for $27.69 with a handwritten amount indicating a total of $37.69, presumably meaning the tip was $10.00 (37%).
8. Triangle Ale House receipt at 19:45 PM on June 9, 2005 for $58.13 plus a handwritten tip amount of $12.00 (21%) for a total of $70.13.

Next posting will deal with entertainment expenses we can identify of SWSDA's CEO in Austria.

I'd like answers to the following questions:

1. Are all these food and booze expenses necessary to encourage development in our communities? And, how do these tips of 20% to 40% help our economy?
2. Are these SWSDA expenses alone or should they be shared with whoever is also paying Mr. Anderson's salary?
3. Who is the person within SWSDA who is responsible for reviewing and approving these expenses....

Will one of our Board members ask the questions and get the answers at their Board meeting today ......??

Here's an Assortment of May Claims

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

More Receipts from SWSDA CEO Frank Anderson Travel Expense Claims in 2005/2006. Not included in any of these reported expenditures are frequent taxi chits in Halifax since the only information on them normally is a handwritten amount (normally for $7.00) with no indication of where the passenger was picked up, dropped off or the time and date. And, of course there is never an explanation of the purpose of the taxi ride.

1. TGI Fridays $16.00.
2. The Austrian Inn... just a tear-off chit with $60.00 penciled in with no other information.
3.A handwritten May 3 receipt for $20.00 from what appears to be Knight Enterprise.
4. A receipt from the Rodd Grand in Yarmouth posted at 21:58 PM on April 26, 2005 for $69.99 plus a tip of $20.00 (28.6%) for a Total of $89.99.
5. A receipt from Rudder's Seafood on May 6, 2005 for $117.30 plus a tip of $35.00 (30%) for a total of $152.30
6. There was also in May a charge on the 18th at the Triangle Ale House at 22:36 PM for $130.65 plus a tip of $40.00 (30%) for a total of $17.65.
7. Then there's room service at 16:53 at the Citadel Hotel for $24.95 plus HST

Blurry Triangle Ale House Receipts in March 2005

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Can't make out all the information but here are a few travel expense claims for SWSDA's CEO Mr. Anderson from what appears to be late March 2005. Below we provide the details we can.

1. Triangle Ale House March 30, 2007 at 23:37 PM... $31.34 plus tip of $9.00 (29%).... Total $39.34
2. Triangle Ale House at 22:15 PM .... $142.28 plus tip of $25.00 .... Total $167.28
3. Triangle Ale House.... $40.00 plus tip of $15.00 (37.5%) .... Total $55.00

CAN'T BELIEVE IT!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

ALL THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND

..... PLEASE ....

WRITE TO YOUR TEAM SHELBURNE REP!

Just re-reading the Minutes of the March 30, 2009 Team Shelburne meeting held in Yarmouth with Richard Hurlburt ..... guess I hadn't read it closely enough the first time .... or maybe I was just in denial.

FIRST

The purpose of the meeting mentioned in the minutes was to discuss the funds from the sale of the Shelburne Youth Centre - $791,000 it says! Can you believe it!?!

These folks get monthly reports from Mr. Anderson indicating that he has only set aside $716,000.... they've been getting these financial statements for a year!

Warden Halliday, Warden Embree, Mayor Delaney, Mayor Huskilson, Mayor Stoddard should know better..... isn't anyone paying attention?

Soooo..... I gave the system the benefit of the doubt, in hopes that they would catch this obvious lapse and numerical mistake of $75,000...... Nope! Mayor Stoddard moved and Mayor Delaney seconded approval of the minutes of this meeting with the $75,000 mistake at their next meeting on April 14th and it was approved unanimously.

Still shaking my head in disbelief.....

SECOND

Even more galling was the following statement.

"It was also the sentiment of members present that these funds should never have been put in escrow to begin with."

WOW! What do you say to the members present that won't be insulting?

In November 2007, Frank Anderson issued a sworn Affidavit to the parties involved in the litigation (including all of the municipalities) that he "had dissipated" ALL OF THE SHELBURNE BOYS SCHOOL MONEY!

His attorney at trial said ..... it was all gone and that there was nothing left. Mr. Anderson provided a copy of SWSDA's bank account record showing the money was gone and that SWSDA was deeply into the line of credit provided to SWSDA derived from the $500,000 in illegal guarantees provided by all of the municipal members of SWSDA.

Bottom line is..... if OPI had not been successful in getting a consent order to replace and protect the lost Shelburne Boys School money with proceeds from the sale of the Base, there would be nothing left.... anywhere!

Will someone please explain this to the members of Team Shelburne so that we can stop this charade with the public..... Thanks.

BTW..... contrary to the statement in the minutes, the court is not holding these monies in escrow, SWSDA is holding GICs for $716,000 in their own investment account and God only knows where the interest is being recorded and held.......

Question From Comments....

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Question asked..... "On Franks boys School report it lists $37,748.00 consulting fees and $86,432.00 for professional services do you know who received this money? "

Reply..... These numbers are from the March 31, 2008 summary report and it did not provide details supporting the expenditures reported......

HOWEVER... in Mr. Anderson's September 30, 2007 Affidavit in Exhibit B his financial report did provide some details .... for these and related categories .... to that date.... at least its a start.

Professional Services

02/01/2007 McInnis Cooper $749.00
05/07/2007 Conestoga-Rover $$4,272.53
06/01/2007 McInnis Cooper $$2,877.23
06/27/2007 Nickerson Jacquard $4,933.51
07/05/2007 McInnis Cooper $3,752.02 (entry plus reversing)
07/05/2007 McInnis Cooper $1,823.28
07/06/2007 Consetoga-Rover $223.64
07/31/2007 McInnis Cooper $12,330.53 (entry plus reversing)
07/31/2007 Wheelans White $535.00
09/05/2007 McInnis Cooper $3,132.96
09/28/2007 McInnis Cooper $4,404.85

Total $22,657.75

Consultants & Marketing

05/04/2006 Vibe Marketing & Communication $12,631.26
03/12/2007 MacDonnell Group $13,829.74

I do not have the details for amounts reported at the end of March 2008 but suspect if your could review those accounts you would find that the bulk of the additional "Professional Fees" went to McInnis Cooper for legal fees to continue representing SWSDA, Frank Anderson, Ralston MacDonnell, Bowood and CVN Holdings (the folks who gave Ralston MacDonnell a Loan to purchase the Boys School).

SWSDA had to provide legal cover paid for by taxpayers out of the Boys School Fund for Bowood and MacDonnell because the sales and purchase agreement concluded by Mr. Anderson for the Boys School had a clause indicating SWSDA would do so if Bowood and/or MacDonnell were sued by OPI.

Hope this helps.......

So... Here's a Summary of my Problems with the Boys School Numbers

-------- THEY DON'T ADD UP!---------

1. Final reported totals to the end of July 31, 2007 - Revenues $1,193,886.85, Expenses $402,189.58, Balance in Shelburne Funds reported $791,697.27.

PROBLEM - Based on this one page summary provided by SWSDA's CEO Frank Anderson, you can't tell where or when the money was spent. Details respecting these expenditures are missing so there is no way to validate the legitimacy of the charges by SWSDA to the Boys School Maintenance Fund or the status of the revenues from the sale.

2. The final reported totals to the end of September 30, 2007 - Revenues $1,088,458.85, Expenses $306,103.00, Balance in Shelburne Funds reported $782,355.85.

Compelled by the lawsuit to justify his expense claims Mr. Anderson provides a summary of expenses to the end of of September 2007 plus a 25 page breakdown of itemized expenses and the dates the expenses were logged in his Sworn Affidavit of November 27, 2007 as Exhibit B. Please note, this is the only information EVER provided by SWSDA, about expenses that gives details of expenditures .... and the only sworn evidence of monies claimed by SWSDA to have been spent on maintenance of the Boys School. BTW - This Affidavit was provided to Team Shelburne's lawyers.

PROBLEMS- First, Mr. Anderson in his sworn affidavit reports only $520,397 received from the Province. We know of course that this number is wrong and that the Province provided $625,000. In making this error, he reduces reported revenues by $104,603. Adding that amount back to the reported balance would leave a new corrected balance of $886,958.85 in the Boys School Fund at the end of September 2007 based on what we know and Mr. Anderson's Affidavit.

Second, a casual review of these expenses attributed to Maintenance of the Boys School to the end of September 2007 identifies a significant number of questionable costs attributed to the Shelburne Boys School Maintenance Fund, e.g. Yarmouth County Tourist Association ($35), MacDonnell Group ($13, 829.74 paid the day before closing of the proposal call), Yarmouth Area Industrial Commission Contract Wages ($32,818.69), Frank Anderson Travel and Travel to Provincial RDA Conference (listed in earlier blog) , Joan Bauer office and travel Expenses, assorted legal fees for McInnis Cooper, plus 33 expenses listed as being paid to the Yarmouth Area Industrial Commission for telephone and other related office expenses.

Third, no interest has been added on the balance of the funds accounted for by SWSDA for the period from July 31, to September 30, 2007.

3. The final reported totals to the end of March, 2008 - Revenues $1,193,886.85, Expenses $477,028.55, Balance in Shelburne Funds reported $716,858.30.

PROBLEM - First, according to this reporting by Mr. Anderson, SWSDA continued to charge expenses to the Shelburne Boys School Funds between June 27, 2007 to March 31, 2008. If Mr. Anderson's sworn Affidavit expense report to the end of September is correct Mr. Anderson managed to spend another $170, 925.55 between then and March 31, 2008, a period well after the closing on the sale of the Boys School on June 27, 2007, without the authority or approval of Team Shelburne.

Second, SWSDA's Mr. Anderson again fails to attribute interest to the Shelburne Boys School balance... regardless of what that amount is.

RESULT - These are important numbers because the Consent Order required that Mr. Anderson deposit the unspent balance of the maintenance fund for the Boys School and the proceeds from the sale into a segregated, interest-bearing bank account or GIC forthwith upon the sale of the former Naval Base. Mr. Anderson in his wisdom has not deposited any of the adjusted amounts discussed above but rather, only $716,000 which he continues to report without accounting for interest gained.

But Hey! Maybe I'm being too picky.... on the other hand, $35,000 here .... a $170,000 there....$104,000 ... here and there.... and the tick,tick, tick of the clock forgoing interest .... and before you know it you could be talking about real money!

Oh, did I mention Mr. Anderson's Exhibit C to his November 27, 2007 sworn Affidavit that all municipalities had access to... it describes how SWSDA had no money left from the Boys School and confirms Mr. Anderson's Affidavit statement that all those monies had been dissipated.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?!?

(Or in our case)... WHERE'S THE INTEREST?

Remember our earlier blog......

"All funds for the Youth Centre project since inception have been held in a separate interest bearing project account." (Frank Anderson letter to Team Shelburne June 19,2007)

The revenue/expense comparison in my earlier blog showed interest accruing to the account to the end of July 2007 in column two.

Question .... Where is the interest accruing since then and why hasn't it been reported by SWSDA....

If you go back to that earlier blog.... You will note in column four of our earlier expenses and revenue posting to the end of March 2008 that there was no increase in interest earned by the funds between July31, 2007 and March 31, 2008..... and that's our beef!

Even more Puzzling! Why hasn't Team Shelburne asked about the missing interest on this pile of money? (791,000 x 7% x 2/3 yr = +/- $36,500 in interest missing.)

Maybe taxpayers need to ask the question..... what do you think?

HAVE YOU NOTICED ?

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AREN'T WORKING!

Machiavelli, the father of modern political science was cynical and maintained that if you could not be effective and loved you should consider being effective and feared. I suggest to my readers that Mr. Anderson has been feared for some time but has yet to be effective at the job he has the good fortune to hold.

Evidence of this conclusion can be found close to home ... of the more than 167 comments this blog has received in the past week, fewer than a dozen have identified the writer. Many have expressed their concern with the consequences that would ensue should they be identified.... even people who have summer homes in South West Nova and live outside Canada appear concerned! At the same time, many have indicated that they have contacted their representatives or responsible individuals by phone, fax, email and snailmail ... all which would result in the person identifying themselves to the recipient..... interesting, eh?

In fact, even the human resources allocated to management of our communities have been wasted with intrigue and assorted Machiavellian chicanery for nearly 15 years. Time to bring an end to it. The dizzying discordance of implausible events surrounding SWSDA are almost too outrageous to imagine in a real life story.... this story would be hard to believe even if told in a cheap pulp fiction novel that is designed to stretch the imagination.

SWSDA THINKS ... PEOPLE DON'T CARE!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Politicians often attribute their lack of effort at public consultation to a lack of interest by people.... People just don't care ... they say..... look at meetings of Council and Council Committee meetings that are open to the public.... hardly anyone ever comes... they say......

THE SOLUTIONS..... may lie in what they do in other constituencies.

1- Never, ever, hold secret meetings when you shouldn't or when you don't have to.

2. Let the public know as soon as possible and in as much detail as possible, what transpired in secret as soon as a decision is made on the subject discussed.

3. Invite the public before the meeting:

a) to add things to the agenda for discussion,
b) ask questions that might be entertained during the meeting on issues that are on the agenda.

4. During the meeting invite the public to:
a) make comments about issues that were raised,
b) seek clarification about issues discussed or resolved.

5. After the meeting provide the public with an opportunity to make comments about the meeting.

Anyway, I know PG often referred to the lack of public attendance at meetings about bylaws as a demonstration of a lack of public interest. I believe he was wrong.......

Here's my take on it.
I've sat through Council and Committee meetings and watched mind and bum-numbing proceedings and debate about issues Council did not appear to know much about, when members of the audience could have easily enlightened the debate.

I've watched Reg Ridgley (the former Acting CAO in MOS) provide a report to Council about the appointment of municipal representatives to the SWSDA Board that was pure Frank Anderson party line and had precious little to do with what actually happened or what the SWSDA Bylaws actually said. If it was research that he based his report on, it was research that was poorly done ...otherwise it was simply propaganda to help SWSDA defend its losing position before the courts about public access to SWSDA's documents.... a battle I am glad I had a role in waging and winning. It gives one confidence in the system again.

Prohibited from speaking, I watched as Council accepted Ridgely's report as gospel. It still amazes me that I continue to go to Council meetings, notwithstanding the anger I feel towards the restrictions this arbitrary system imposes on civil participation and enlightened dialogue. Little wonder folks often don't care to attend Council meetings where Councillors have decided before the meeting what the decision will be without reference to the public or open debate and administrators limit public access to documents in the name of penny-pinching on photocopy costs..... this is false economics..... For God's sake ... save the forests and put all this stuff on your web page ..... before the meeting..... ahead of time.... this is the 21st Century last time I checked!

The hundreds of folks who attended budget meetings of MOS a few years ago showed that anger... indeed rage at a broken system that permits misinformation and factually wrong statements to be made unchallenged..... a system that politicians and staff seem to hide behind and refuse to improve to increase citizen information and/or participation.

Does anyone else remember Paulette Scott advising us that it was 9:00 PM and we had asked enough questions! (Wonder where Paulette is these days... I hear she no longer works for Jimmie and Mary at the Base. Can't imagine how they are coping without their reportedly non-conflicted and supposedly talented Financial Officer.) Just remembered something else that Ms. Scott shared with Frank Anderson.... didn't she also used to work in a Bank?!?

Given my stated desire to see more public awareness and participation you will appreciate my elation at what this blog has shown!

In the first 9 nine days since the launch of this blog on SWSDA Accountability, we have more than 9,250 visitors. More importantly, 167 of our readers have taken the time to write comments about the blog, the issues, the solutions and the alternatives to share with their fellow readers or to ask questions...... And, We've only begun!

Keep up the good work and let politicians and civil servants know that you want to be informed and consulted.... you have views that you want heard... and you have insights that you want to share with each other and them.

MORE IMPORTANTLY..... YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU WANT ANSWERED!

START ASKING THEM NOW ... AND DEMAND THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:

a) ask them at the upcoming SWSDA Board Meeting this week,
b) report the answers back to you and the public after the meeting.

Good Luck!

Tell me it isn't so........

--- Found in the Boys School Expenses ---

NOW I'M GETTING CONCERNED...... you wouldn't believe what I just discovered..... more travel expenses from the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006....... buried in Exhibit B of Mr. Anderson's sworn Affidavit showing SWSDA's "Maintenance" costs for the Boys School.

I thought My Lady Justice Hood had instructed Mr. Anderson to provide .... as I'd requested ... ALL of Mr. Anderson's travel expense claims that for that year... and yet.... can it be..... these were not included......Yep! Poor Mr. Anderson, he must have been confused and forgot these because they were paid for by what he calls "Project" costs and not core funding where we normally provide for travel expenses for Mr. Anderson...... on the other hand..... Justice Hood's Supreme Court decision seemed clear to me.

Anyway.... here's what I found that I think should have been provided along with the 147 pages of Mr. Anderson's travel expenses.

05/09/2005 - April/May Travel, Frank R. Anderson $729.54
08/30/2005 - 2005 AGM Nova Scotia Association $125.00
09/18/2005 - Dundee Resort $306.57
05/09/2005 Apr/May Travel Frank R. Anderson $687.50
12/01/2005 - Rodd Grand Hotel $53.75
12/23/2005 - Sea Dog Saloon $51.87
02/01/2006 - Shelburne Cafe $32.62
09/12/2006 - RDA Conference Liscombe Lodge $188.93
09/12/2006 - AGM Conference, Nova Scotia Association $150.00

Total of what appears to be additional Frank Anderson travel expenses charged to the Boys School Maintenance Fund ............$2,325.78

QUESTION..... ARE THESE LEGITIMATE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO "MAINTENANCE" OF THE BOYS SCHOOL?