ENOUGH!

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

BEFORE ..... OUR COLLECTIVE COUNCILS HOLD SECRET MEETINGS!
BEFORE ..... WARDENS AND COUNCILLORS MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT!
BEFORE .... ELECTED OFFICIALS MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THINGS THEY HAVEN'T THOUGHT THROUGH!
BEFORE .... MEMBERS OF SWSDA'S BOARD MAKE DECISIONS THAT WE CITIZENS WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH!
BEFORE... ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ACOA AND SWSDA ENGAGE IN SECRET NEGOTIATIONS!
BEFORE.... OTHERS WITH VESTED INTERESTS IN OUR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE DISENFRANCHISED!

INVITE CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INFORMED PUBLIC DIALOGUE ABOUT OUR FUTURE RDA OR RDAs.....!!!!

Join the Concerned Citizens Committee of Shelburne County and demand a meeting with councils and officals from Economic Development. To join just send me an email indicating you want to participate in the dialogue to create a new RDA for Shelburne County. Write to aacayer@gmail.com and I will add you to our mailing list and give you an opportunity to sign petitions to get your council to engage in public dialogue.

RDA TUTORIAL TEST QUESTIONS....

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

Questions That Need Answers .... Before applications are made to the Minister for any new RDA, here are questions that citizens might want answered to their satisfaction by elected Municipal officials.

1. What municipal areas are to be covered by the new RDA?
2. What three year strategy will the included municipality or municipalities use as their basis for applying to the Minister for the creation of a new RDA, who will prepare the strategy and who will approve it?
3. What shall the new RDA be called?
4. How many members on the Board of Directors should be appointed by the councils of the participating municipalities and how should they be selected for appointment?
5. How many members on the Board of Directors should be representatives of the economic sectors and other relevant groups within the area, who should they represent and how should they be selected?
6. What should be the term of office of members of the Board of Directors of the new RDA and what should be the conditions under which members of the Board of Directors cease to be members of the Board.
7. What should determine the proportion in which each of the participating municipalities contribute to and provide the funds required to meet the expenses of the new RDA?
8. When should these payments be made to the new RDA?
9. What officers should the new RDA have, how should the new RDA be organized and how, when and where should meetings of the new RDA be held for transaction of the RDA's business?
10. What should be the fiscal year of the new RDA?
11. How should the assets of the new RDA be disposed should it cease to operate?
12. What role should the new RDA play in the following areas:
a) advising municipal councils with respect to matters affecting economic and social development;
b) promoting interest in the activities of the RDA;
c) encouraging and assisting the participation of the public, private and voluntary sectors;
d) preparing, updating and implementing a strategy and action plan for the development of the communities within the RDA;
e) encouraging interested groups and the public in participating in the strategic planning process and setting priorities for development action;
f) acting as financial, industrial, promotional, marketing, training and planning advisers with respect to the development of the communities within the RDA in accordance with the strategic plan;
g) encouraging the formation of partnership groups to evaluate, plan and organize implementation of specific development actions and projects that fall within the framework of the strategy;
h) facilitating contact with those who may be able to to provide technical, professional and policy resources needed to enable project groups to be effective;
i) facilitating access to those who may be able to provide funding to implement projects and business plans in accordance with the strategy;
j) provide managerial technical, or other support services to other business or operations of any community development group, company, syndicate, labour group, non-profit organization, cooperative, partnership, enterprise or undertaking in respect of achieving the purpose of the Act;
k) providing training to those individuals or groups involved in regional community planning to assist in the implementation of the strategy;
l) collecting, analyzing and disseminating information;
m) cooperating with governments and agencies of governments?
13. What provisions should the bylaws of the new RDA include respecting:
a) the conduct and duties of the officers and employees of the new RDA;
b) the method of calling meetings and conducting business at meetings;
the order and proceedings of meetings;
c) public access to information respecting the activities of the new RDA and meetings of the RDA?

What now.... well dear reader.... that' is the burning question?!?

Who will decide the public's wishes respecting these questions?

Were any of the present council members, mayor, or wardens elected on a platform respecting the creation of RDAs under the Act?

Of course not..... so without input from the public.... where do they get the mandate to transform the present RDA into the one that likely will determine our social and economic development progress in the coming decade?

NO DEAR READER.... I BELIEVE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILS IN OUR AREA OWE A DUTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION TO VOTERS BEFORE THEY RATIFY MORE OF THE SAME OR A COMPLETELY NEW STRUCTURE....

What do you think? Your views are important......

RDA -101 Tutorial

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

INTRODUCTION

The recent decision by the Department of Economic Development to enforce and apply the Regional Community Development Act's provision for incorporation and management of RDAs bodes well for the future..... IF CITIZENS ENSURE THAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS CREATE LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE TRULY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

This posting provides the text of the Act and our commentary for readers in order to familiarize our readers with issues arising as a result of these coming changes.

The recent letter from the Deputy Minister of Economic Development requires all RDAs to be incorporated under the Regional Community Development Act before the end of March 2010..... or lose funding from the Federal and Provincial Governments. As a result, the Deputy's letter provides new opportunities for citizens to regain organizational control of the development agency services provided to citizens in Shelburne County..... IN THE NEXT SEVEN MONTHS!

So what does that mean? In the next 7 months, municipalities in Shelburne County have the opportunity to do one of the following.

1. Re-establish SWSDA as an RDA with its existing membership of nine municipalities by requesting the Minister to incorporate a new body under the Act. Should the Minister agree he will also have the opportunity to agree to a definition of the structure and mandate of the newly-reconstituted RDA.

2. Establish one or more new RDA's to provide development services to one or more muncipalities in Shelburne County to replace the services presently provided by SWSDA. Should this happen, again a new opportunity will present itself to completely re-shape the local RDA servicing our communities.

Here's the Act and commentary......

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regional Community Development Act
CHAPTER 29
OF THE
ACTS OF 1996
An Act to Encourage and FacilitateCommunity-based Planning forEconomic, Social and Institutional Change

Short title
1 This Act may be cited as the Regional Community Development Act. 1996, c. 29, s. 1.
Purpose of Act
2 The purpose of this Act is to encourage and facilitate community-based planning for economic, social and institutional change by
(a) enabling, upon the request of a municipality or of participating municipalities, the establishment of regional community development agencies to work with the community to plan and carry out regional development strategies and action plans that will further the development of the community;
(b) facilitating the co-ordination of provincial and municipal public sector development programs affecting the roles of private and voluntary sector groups, labour groups, companies, non-profit organizations, co-operatives, universities and community colleges in the support of community development;
(c) assisting regional communities in developing local planning capability, institutional capability, community entrepreneurship and the essential infrastructure that will promote the creation of business investment, jobs and opportunities for individuals through education, training and participation in locally driven ventures; and
(d) improving the economic and social conditions of rural and urban areas of the Province. 1996, c. 29, s. 2.

Comments - It should be noted that the purpose of RDAs is not to replace local efforts by taking over development but rather to support local development capacitybuilding efforts - note in particular 2(a) and ((c).

Interpretation
3 In this Act,
(a) "agency" means a regional community development organization established pursuant to this Act;
(b) "development" means economic, social and institutional change brought about by a broadly representative community process aimed at improving the community as a better place to live and work;
(c) "Minister" means the Minister responsible for the Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency, including Tourism Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Marketing Agency;
(d) "municipality" means a regional municipality, town or rural municipality;
(e) "participating municipality" means a municipality that is represented on an agency;
(f) "regional community" means the geographic area of one or more municipalities located within the boundary of an area of locally accepted economic development interest;
(g) "regional development strategy" means a three-year comprehensive multi-sectoral economic and social development program prepared in consultation with community groups and individuals. 1996, c. 29, s. 3.

Comments - First please note at 3 (a) that RDAs must be established pursuant to THIS Act... not the Societies Act. For the better part of 13 years Economic Development has permitted SWSDA and others to operate under the Societies Act like "rogue" RDAs, unfettered by the rules and regulations that this Act imposes on real RDAs. Second, please note 3 (b)'s focus on development taking place as directed by a broadly-based and representative community process.... not one controlled and dominated by municipal politicians or their appointees as is presently the case!

Supervision and management of Act
4 The Minister has the general supervision and management of this Act. 1996, c. 29, s. 4.

Personnel
5 Such employees as are necessary for the administration of this Act shall be appointed in accordance with the Civil Service Act. 1996, c. 29, s. 5.

Regional community development agencies
6 (1) Where a municipality or municipalities propose to prepare and adopt a regional development strategy for the municipality or municipalities, respectively, the municipality or municipalities, as the case may be, may request that the Minister establish a regional community development agency for the area covered by the regional development strategy.
(2) Upon receiving a request from a municipality or municipalities pursuant to subsection (1), the Minister may, by order, establish a body corporate to be the regional community development agency for the area covered by the regional development strategy.
(3) An order made pursuant to subsection (2) may specify
(a) the name of the agency;
(b) the regional community for which the agency may exercise powers;
(c) the municipalities that are to be represented on the agency;
(d) the number of members on the agencys board of directors to be appointed by the councils of the participating municipalities;
(e) the number of members of the agencys board of directors to be representatives of the regional communitys economic sectors and other relevant groups;
(f) the term of office of members of the board of directors of the agency and the conditions under which members of the board of directors cease to be members of the board;
(g) the proportions in which each of the participating municipalities shall contribute to and provide the funds required to meet the expenses of the agency, subject to the participating municipalities ability to approve its contribution on an annual basis;
(h) the date when the contribution of each participating municipality is to be paid to the agency;
(i) the officers and organization of an agency and how and when meetings of the agency are to be held and the business of the agency transacted;
(j) the fiscal year of the agency;
(k) such other matters as the Minister deems necessary to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act.
(4) A vacancy on the board of directors of an agency does not impair the right of the remaining members to act or the corporate capacity of the agency.
(5) A member of an agencys board of directors or a municipalitys advisory committee is not entitled to remuneration for serving on the board or committee, excluding reimbursement of expenses actually incurred.
(6) An order made pursuant to this Section may be varied or rescinded by the Minister after notice to all participating municipalities.
(7) The Minister may disestablish an agency and determine the manner of disposing of the assets of the agency. 1996, c. 29, s. 6.

Comments - This section of the Act is VERY important because it provides for the definition of the RDA created at the behest of the municipality or municipalities, its structure, representation, replacement of Board members, the fiscal year, the officers and organization of RDAs and the conduct of their meetings, terms of office, ..... and much more. This section should be the subject of public consultation by municipalities before they approach the Minister to either re-constitute SWSDA or create new RDAs.... AND MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE IN SECRET MEETINGS BETWEEN SWSDA, THE PRESENT BOARD AND PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS! I have personal views on much of this but would prefer to keep them to myself until we have an opportunity to have a public dialogue about these things.

Powers of agency
7 (1) An agency may
(a) advise the council of any participating municipality with respect to matters affecting the economic and social development of the regional community;
(b) promote interest in activities of the agency and encourage and assist the participation of public, private and voluntary sector groups;
(c) prepare, update at regular intervals and implement a strategy and action plan for the development of the regional community;
(d) encourage interested groups in participating in the strategic planning process and set priorities for development action;
(e) act as financial, industrial, promotional, marketing, training or planning advisers with respect to the development of the regional community in accordance with a regional development strategy;
(f) encourage the formation of partnership groups to evaluate, plan and organize implementation of specific development actions and projects that fall within the framework of the regional development strategy;
(g) facilitate contact with those who may be able to provide technical, professional and policy resources needed to enable project groups to be effective;
(h) facilitate access to those who may be able to provide funding to implement projects and business plans in accordance with a regional development strategy;
(i) provide managerial, technical or other support services to other business or operations of any community development group, company, syndicate, labour group, non-profit organization, co-operative, partnership, enterprise or undertaking in respect of achieving the purpose of this Act;
(j) provide training to those individuals or groups involved in regional community planning to assist in the implementation of a regional development strategy;
(k) collect, analyze and disseminate information;
(l) co-operate with governments and agencies of governments;
(m) perform such other functions or duties as are assigned to an agency by the Minister.
(2) An agency may enter into agreements with the Government of Canada respecting the sharing of expenses associated with the encouraging and facilitating of community development. 1996, c. 29, s. 7.

General powers of agency
8 (1) An agency may exercise such powers as are necessary or conducive to attaining the objects of the agency and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may
(a) acquire by way of grant, gift, devise or otherwise funds to carry out the objects of the agency;
(b) invest any money of the agency not immediately required for the purpose of the agency;
(c) enter into agreements with the participating municipalities, the Province or the Government of Canada with respect to the funding of the agency;
(d) employ such persons as are deemed necessary by the agency to carry out the objects and purpose of the agency and determine the remuneration of such persons;
(e) do such other acts or things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and purpose of the agency.
(2) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an agency may make by-laws for the internal management of the agency and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make by-laws
(a) respecting the conduct and duties of the officers and employees of the agency;
(b) respecting the method of calling meetings and the conduct of business at meetings;
(c) respecting the order and proceedings at meetings;
(d) designating a name for the person who presides over meetings. 1996, c. 29, s. 8.

Comments - Again, a very important section of the Act that those creating any new RDA under the Act should discuss with the public to determine the public's wishes respecting the operation of the new RDA.

Records and statements
9 (1) An agency shall keep proper books of account and records, which shall be open to the public for inspection upon request.
(2) An agency shall annually cause the accounts of the agency to be examined and audited by a registered municipal auditor who may be paid such remuneration as the board determines.
(3) An agency shall, not later than June 30th in each year, submit to each of the participating municipalities and the Minister an audited statement for the immediately preceding fiscal year showing
(a) the revenue for the immediately preceding fiscal year;
(b) the expenditures;
(c) a revenue fund balance sheet as of the close of the fiscal year;
(d) changes in the surplus or deficit account during that fiscal year with explanations of such changes;
(e) an auditors certificate; and
(f) such other information and accounts as the participating municipalities or Minister may require. 1996, c. 29, s. 9.

Comments - Section 9 has to do with control, transparency and public access to the new RDA's financial reports and accounts. Again, public input in ensuring this section of the act is adhered to is critical to future avoidance of the financial sham we've been subjected to by SWSDA as a result of their secrecy and failed accountability systems.

10 (1) An agency shall, not later than January 31st in each year, submit to the council of each participating municipality for approval an estimate of the amount required from each of them for the purpose of the agency for that year.
(2) Sums paid pursuant to this Act are held to be sums required for the ordinary lawful purposes of the municipality.
(3) Sums paid by a council prior to the coming into force of this Act to an incorporated body whose objects are similar to those of an agency under this Act are deemed to be sums required for the ordinary lawful purposes of the municipality. 1996, c. 29, s. 10.
Annual progress reports
11 An agency shall annually submit to the council of each participating municipality and the Minister a report detailing the progress made in achieving the objectives of the regional development strategy. 1996, c. 29, s. 11.
Interpretation
12 Nothing in this Act means or shall be construed to mean that
(a) an agency created pursuant to this Act is a Crown corporation or an agency of Her Majesty in right of the Province; or
(b) any property, right, privilege or obligation of any agency is the property, right, privilege or obligation of Her Majesty in right of the Province. 1996, c. 29, s. 12.
Regulations
13 (1) The Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Governor in Council deems necessary to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act.
(2) The exercise by the Governor in Council of the authority contained in subsection (1) is regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. 1996, c. 29, s. 13.
Repeal
14 Chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Cumberland Development Authority Act, is repealed. 1996, c. 29, s. 14.
Proclamation
15 This Act comes into force on such day as the Governor in Council orders and declares by proclamation. 1996, c. 29, s. 15.

Proclaimed - April 22, 1997In force - April 22, 1997

How the Ombudsman Discovered SWSDA.....

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

A STORY THAT SHOULD BE TOLD

One reader recently asked who had asked the Ombudsman to intercede.......

Well..... grab a cup of coffee, put your feet up, relax and let me tell you the story of how citizen outrage was transformed into an investigation of the previously unreachable (I almost wrote untouchable) organization known as the South West Shore Development Authority or SWSDA.

A long, long time ago .... a time shrouded in the mist of previous municipal elections.... when Paulette Scott was Warden of the Municipality of Shelburne and Co-Chair of SWSDA, the Municipality hired a retired Halifax City accountant and financial guy. Having identified what were thought to be irregularities in the operations of the Municipality Council gave him the lofty position of Acting Chief Administrative Officer (aka the Acting CAO).... a fella by the name of Reg Ridgely.

And it came to pass..... that SWSDA was finding it increasingly difficult to find creative ways to finance its various overheads and costs .... off the backs of unwitting municipalities and uninformed taxpayers...... and lo and behold..... a proverbial godsend in the form of a two hundred acre property (known as the Former Nova Scotia Boys School) with over twenty buildings with a replacement cost of over $20 million became available ... and the Province thought.... this is good!

And in a blink of an eye.... the property and $625,000 to maintain it prior to its sale were transferred to SWSDA for the Authority to dispose of.....

AND TO ASSIST SWSDA..... A bold plan was concocted and staff reports were generated by the Acting CAO for the Municipality of Shelburne, for the Municipality to acquire by purchase or lease, the former Boys School as well as another property owned by SWSDA.... the former Naval Base CFS Shelburne.....

and the Warden, SWSDA and their supporters smiled and held meetings in secret..... assuming that the taxpayers would never notice .....

for they seldom paid attention to the machinations of the Municipality during the early summer and the municipal budget season which coincided with the cake and carnivals known locally as Founders Days....

But wait! To The Warden, the former Warden, the Acting CAO and SWSDA's chagrin .... taxpayers began to notice and the crowds attending budget and Council meetings grew larger and the questions asked more persistent and probing!

Hundreds..... nay more than a thousand attended budget meetings.... CBC sent reporters and television crews from Halifax, others started reporting about an obvious rebellion mounting on the South Shore.....

and the Warden, SWSDA and their supporters smiled a little less.... finally calling Mr. Anderson and his good friend Ralston MacDonnell to come help quell the rebellion with soothing words and platitudes, newspeak and double-speak....

But the crowds were not assuaged ..... and they continued to ask questions and remind elected officials that.... new elections were coming and they would be held accountable (and they were.... but that's another story).

And the proposals were defeated..... but not before a petition with more than 500 signatures was compiled and sent to Ministers and the Premier..... and the Ministers and Premier did nothing (and they were held accountable .... but that too is another story...)

And so a small group calling itself "the Concerned Citizens of Shelburne" .... came together and wrote to the Ombudsman to seek the help of his Office in reviewing what had transpired..... and for two years they met with the Ombudsman's Office awaiting the Supreme Court's decision that SWSDA was a "Municipal Body" and therefore subject to the Ombudsman's Act, the Freedom of Information Act and other Provincial Legislation.....

And it came to pass that the investigation was initiated some years later (in the fall of 2008 and after Paulette Scott, Pat Nickerson and Reg Ridgely no longer were in the story.)

The morale of this story is that a small group of citizens have power if they are informed and if they act...... The report and recommendations of the Ombudsman's Office are expected this fall.

Guide to Results Based Management Framework

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

To Anon 8:10 PM - Here is the Treasury Board Guide on doing a framework which sets out objectives and how to measure them before implementation begins..... hope this helps.... it is destined to provide guidance to Federal Deputy Ministers and Ministers to report back to Parliament....

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/RMAF-CGRR/RMAF_Guide_e.pdf

Ed

RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING (RBMR)

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

For nearly twenty years Canadian government agencies including the Federal Treasury Board, international organizations, NGOs, foreign governments and others have worked to enhance the ability to improve the performance and results produced by projects, programs, policies and/or other planned initiatives.

In its simples form, the focus of that effort has been on measuring ..... the effectiveness and efficiency of the use and application of inputs ----> to generate activities ------ > that produce outputs that yield ---> desired RESULTS AND IMPACTS. e.g. ingredients and skills for making a pie ----> lead to making of pie crust, preperation of fruit filling and baking of pie and
invitation of local newspaper food critic ---> that produces the dessert course of a multi-course dinner consumed by the food critic ----> that results in rave reviews in local newspaper that leads to an increase in business.


You can google RBM Treasury Board, Google Result Based Management or take a look at a good power point presentation at http://www.ccrda.org/files/54/files/CCRDA_RBM_Presentation.pdf It provides a bit of background to the genesis and present use of RBM if you are interested.

All this to let you in on a little secret...... From what I can see, neither ACOA or Economic Development are terribly interested in measuring results.... rather the process seems designed to be superficial, without any evidence of causal links between monies invested, activities initiated, outputs produced or impacts and results measuring social and/or economic development. Following is the one page document entitled "South West Shore Development Authority Summary of mid Year Review".














I invite you dear reader to take a look at SWSDA's web page and the 2009-2010 Plan laid out there at:

http://www.swsda.com/userfiles/ABusiness%20Plan%202009-2010%20for%20website(3).pdf

1. Problems you'll encounter include that Annex C identifed in the table of contents dealing with the evaluation of the program for 2008-2009 is not included in the SWSDA web page.... soooo no one knows what success they've claimed for what.

2. Their logic framework appears to be a toothless bastardized version of logic frameworks used in all these models by other organizations. That is because SWSDA and ACOA/Economic Development appear to be basing the conclusions they draw on what they call "measures of success" like lower unemployment.... without having to qualify or quantify what employment level changes are directly attributable to the investments/expenditures/action of SWSDA or even identifying what unemployment levels are presently..... what is missing is what folks call the causal link ..... determined by the measurement of OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (OVIs).... for each impact, result, output, activity, or input identified.

UNFORTUNATELY THERE ISN'T AN OVI IN SIGHT IN EITHER SWSDA OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT'S MODELS......OR REPORTS.

SWSDA Employees

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

For those who are interested, SWSDA's web site provides an overview of their staff including Joan Bower the Development Officer in Shelburne..... see ....

http://www.swsda.com/index.php?a=bio

MOS -and Coast Guard... RE: SWSDA!

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

Speaking of the MOS..... here is a recent report submitted to the Committee of the Whole.... Feel free to speak to Council members and the Warden to see what decisions Council made, based on this report and the clear recommendations provided by Mr. Cox.......

WHAT A CHANGE SINCE PAULETTE SCOTT, PAT NICKERSON,RAYMOND DAVIS AND REG RIDGELEY HAVE GONE! WOW!!

Why doesn't the Coast Guard provide better coverage & information about this stuff?

See http://www.shelburnecitizendrivendevelopment.blogspot.com/

for most recent comments on Coast Guard's failure......

Reply to Anonymous 8:25 AM

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

Dear Anon 8:25:

Interesting you should mention MOS lawyer.... I understand that one former Councillor indicated that MOS had been advised by one of MOS' lawyers that the Base was beneficially owned by MOS. When I asked the new CAO Mr. Cox ..... I was told that the MOS lawyer had advised MOS that they were not the beneficial owners of the base. Clear as mud isn't it?!?

Given the documentation I've seen.... and Mr. Cox's letter of July 13, 2009, if MOS was a beneficial owner of the base, I believe it was solely in its capacity as a member of the SWSDA and the benefical ownership was therefore shared by all the members of the SWSDA Board.... in my humble opinion.......

Ed

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YE FREE!

BACKGROUND

A quick check of the Coast Guard ... over the past few years will show that Mr. Anderson has long maintained that costs associated with the former Shelburne Naval Station were a burden assumed by SWSDA on behalf of the Municipality of the District of Shelburne. Indeed, it appears that he did such a convincing job that his Board recently voted to consider suing the Municipality for any maintenance and operational costs incurred by SWSDA that exceeded the revenues derived by SWSDA from the acquisition, operation and disposal of the base and its assets...... (Millions of dollars we and Mr. Anderson's Board were told repeatedly, as a way to squeeze additional funds and guarantees from municipalities, we believe.....)

You will also recall dear reader the recommendations .... prepared two years ago by the former Acting CAO of the Municipality of the District of Shelburne, Reg Ridgely, recommending the purchase of the former naval base from SWSDA and the public outcry that ensued some two years ago..... I believe that mis-guided initiative supported by the former Warden Paulette Scott and others on Council at the time was in part motivated by the belief that the Municipality did have an obligation to support SWSDA's operation of the base.


FIRST PROBLEM .... Mr. Anderson's claims of costs exceeding revenues in the base's operations were never documented by Mr. Anderson or anyone else from SWSDA...... Who knows what monies and revenues were generated and collected by Mr. Anderson over the years at the base? Certainly not the SWSDA Board of Directors! Moreover, who knows if the costs attributed by Mr. Anderson to the operation of the Base are the result of poor management by the erstwhile manager of "All Things South West Nova"..... or really attributable to SWSDA's other operational activities and priorities, e.g. - its self-serving ventures in film-making and boat-building or other initiatives?

SECOND PROBLEM.... I have listened to Councilors and others ask repeatedly whether there was any agreement between the Municipality and SWSDA respecting ownership of the Base. Former Wardens Paulette Scott and Pat Nickerson's carefully worded responses were that there were "... no written agreements...".


Sooo..... a couple months ago I went to the Municipality with a Freedom of Information request seeking any documentation describing, alluding to or suggesting any contract or agreement between SWSDA and the Municipality respecting the base. Our new CAO not only searched the municipality's files but also wrote to Mr. Anderson seeking his input if he could provide any such documents. To my knowledge, Mr. Anderson never provided any evidence of contractual arrangements between SWSDA and the municipality respecting ownership of the base or agreements for the municipality to absorb cost overruns incurred by SWSDA related to the Base.

Following is a copy of the two page covering letter received from Mr. Cox in mid-July after his careful search of the Municipality's files.


CONCLUSION..... taxpayers of the Municipality of Shelburne have no contractual arrangements with SWSDA respecting ownership of the base, nor..... do they have an obligation to compensate Mr. Anderson or SWSDA for their reported MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN cost overuns incurred in the operation of the base.


IN FACT THIS WAS ALL A FABRICATION FOUND ONLY IN THE MIND OF MR. ANDERSON AS FAR AS ANYONE CAN TELL!

ANOTHER SELF-SERVING URBAN LEGEND BITES THE DUST !!!!

Sheesh!! - Impatient ... or what!?! ( ;-)

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

To Anon 10:52 AM - Working as fast as these little fingers will let me!!!

Will Post new blog ASAP...... Thanks for your interest.......

Ed

To Anon 8:15 AM - The Boys School Sale was Challenged in court by OPI as being a Fraudulent Conveyance and OPI asked the court to set aside the monies from the maintenance fund and the proceeds of the sale....

When we got to trial ..... we discovered that to add insult to injury.... SWSDA swore in affidavits signed by Mr. Anderson a couple weeks before trial and confirmed at trial by his lawyer Mr. Belliveau that .... the money was gone.... had all been spent by SWSDA ...

As a result .... OPI and the municipalities agreed with SWSDA to a Consent Order from the Supreme Court to have money from the sale of the base, set aside by SWSDA to replace the Boys School monies already reportedly spent by Mr. Anderson as of early December 2007.

Since then OPI has identified what it believes are a number of problems with SWSDA's compliance with the Court's Consent Order to replace the Boys School monies and has initiated a Contempt of Court action against SWSDA that will be heard in Shelburne in late October.

OPI's application for Leave to file the Contempt Charges against SWSDA was heard in the Supreme Court and agreed to by the Court in August 2008. ..... Affidavits in these actions have been submitted and are available from the court . They set out OPI's evidence of Contempt of court by SWSDA ..... and ..... SWSDA's defence ..... claiming it was all a miss-understanding.

Hope this helps ......... Ed

Summer is Just Starting to be Interesting!

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

Dear Reader:

I am back home tomorrow after a dozen glorious days in St. Andrews, New Brunswick with kids, grandkids and inlaws.... something refreshing about spending time with folks between the ages of 2 and 90!!! Great way to review and challenge perspectives.... recuperate from open heart surgery and more than four weeks in hospital....

I'll be glad to be back.... so much to do and write about......So lets get this blog back on track.......

This week's submission will begin ....... with a review of what constitutes Evaluation in today's "Best Management Practices" and the so-called "evaluation" conducted by Economic development of SWSDA.... In doing so we will talk about the standard now accepted by local, regional, national and international bodies....... "Results-Based Management AND Monitoring"....... AND ...... ask the question.... can we rely on the findings flowing from the evaluation process used by Economic Development and if not what changes should we seek in the system.....

SWSDA Mis-direction Uncovered Again

I will also share with you on this blog..... a very informative letter I received from the Municipality of Shelburne about the purported millions of dollars Mr. Anderson has repeatedly claimed was owed to SWSDA by the taxpayers of the municipality.... amazing how far one can get on bluff, bravado and BS.... Thank you Mr. Cox for helping rebut the urban legend perpetuated by former Wardens and Councillors and Acting CAOs about our collective indebtedness to SWSDA!

In my other blog I intend to end the week with a discussion of the potential structure of organized development in Shelburne County and some of the options available to ensure public participation and accountability in the process.......

We'll take a brief look at the options for creating a functional RDA, the role that a group like Team Shelburne might play, how a properly mandated Shelburne County Industrial Commission might help and become an integral part of the development team .....and what to do with inefficient and ineffective regional provincial government agencies dealing with education, community services, economic development, health and more...... I can hardly wait! We might even ask some questions about the management of marine resources and fisheries...... and energy! Keep an eye on my other blog too..... But before we do......

SO.... WHAT IS A TROLL?

From Wikipedia....

"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation DNFTT redirect here. For the Wikipedia essay, see "What is a troll?".In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Tune in on Friday......

How to ruin blogs!

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

Dear Reader:

There are many ways to ruin a blog. One is to post comments provided by readers that are clearly libelous. By publishing other people's libel the blogger becomes guilty of libel. I have rejected a handful of blogs over the past few months because they made statements that could be challenged in court. Of the hundreds of comments provided by readers, a handful have been rejected by yours truly as inappropriate for that reason.

Another way to ruin a blog is to spam it with the same message repeated over and over again. That is why the coded message confirmation pops up on occasion. It is a "blogspot application" to help control spam blitzes. Only one reader has tried to do that copying a message supporting SWSDA and Mr. Anderson over a dozen times in less than three minutes.... even with the confirmation message. Needless to say, I didn't post the dozen repeated message.... although I did let one copy get through.

A third and more insidious way to destroy blogs is to raise red herrings bringing into question how the blog is administered or who reads and comments on the blog. In the last couple days an anonymous poster has done that asking rhetorical questions about the integrity of the anonymous function on this blog. Let me assure my readers that the software I am using is google software and I am unable to tell who anonymous posters are. In three comments submitted in quick succession that person has suggested that I am protecting Tim, that anonymous posts may not be anonymous, suggested that there is collusion amongst readers who choose to identify themselves as a group.... you know what I mean..... the old "do you still beat your wife " type of question. ... with a quick accusation that the lie must be true if I didn't respond to the red herring statements within 24 hours in mid-summer!

Of course all of these comments have been submitted by someone who prefers to remain anonymous... even though he/she questions the integrity of the anonymous function and keeps submitting comments.... Funny how that works.....

I have posted all of these because I wanted to share with you dear reader some of the challenges associated with managing a blog. You will of course note that had I wanted to I could have started swsdaaccountability as an anonymous blogger and google would never have identified who I was. Even a court order would not have pried my name from google had I wished to remain anonymous...... The same rules apply to those who comment on my blogs anonymously. Unless you identify yourself in your comments.... no one will ever know who you are.

SWSDA AGM

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

Dear Reader:

Sorry for the long hiatus between posts.... lots of excuses..... even some good reasons! Now we are truly back....... so ..... have a seat and a read and lets get this accountability blog back in stride.

Ed

GATHERING NEWS

You will recall that SWSDA indicated that the upcoming AGM would be presented with a number of amendments to the bylaws as well as the audited financial statements of the organization.

QUESTIONS -

1. Will Board members have these documents available well before the AGM so they can review them and seek direction from their respective municipal councils?

2. Given the Deputy Minister's correspondence requiring all RDAs (including SWSDA) to be incorporated now under the Rural Communities Development Act, what purpose is served by amending SWSDA's bylaws under the Societies Act since SWSDA the Society will no longer be an RDA and no longer will be eligible for core funding as an RDA at the end of this fiscal year?

3. Will the proposed changes to the SWSDA bylaws create future obligations for the present members of the Board?

4. Has the Agenda for the AGM been circulated and has a date been set for the meeting?

5. Has SWSDA prepared a transition plan or proposal for consideration by the Board?

6. How will the present legal obligations, debt and assets of SWSDA the Society be dealt with when one or more RDAs are created to replace the old SWSDA?

7. Will municipalities be asked to provide the $506,000 in guarantees now pledged to SWSDA the Society to the new RDA or RDAs?

8. What happens to the $506,000 in municipal guarantees presently pledged for SWSDA the Society?

9. What happens to the $84,000 in additional guarantees presently provided by the Municipality of Shelburne for SWSDA?

10. What happens to the money owed by SWSDA to the Shelburne County Business Development Corporation?

Questions..... lots of questions..... anyone got answers?

In my experience SWSDA likes to make changes and get approvals from an inattentive Board in the middle of the summer.... let's hope that isn't permitted to happen again this year.

Ask your representative on the SWSDA Board..... and while you are at it let's make sure that only real Board members get to vote.... not proposed Board members or alternates who don't legally have a vote......

And So.... We Begin Anew.......

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

Dear Reader,

Thank you for your patience, as I recover from my brief sojourn at the Maritime Heart Centre. I'll save you the details but suffice it to say that I am glad to be back and looking forward to the summer to do research, read, write and share with you information gathered and views expressed by folks....... Stay tuned......

DEPUTY MINISTER REPLIES

Further to my request for more information about the Evaluation of SWSDA last year, here is the reply I received from Mr. Thompson upon my return. Take a good look at the DM's reply and watch for copies of the evaluation and my comments in tomorrow's blog.

In particular, I recommend that you note Mr. Conrad's contact information ..... should you have additional questions after you've had a chance to read the info provided today and tomorrow........

Things You Should Read!

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

AND........ QUESTION!!!

Following is the url for the latest minutes from SWSDA's meeting of May 27th...... Take a look and ask yourself if it answers or raises more questions.

http://www.swsda.com/index.php?p=know

Want more information?

Ask SWSDA for copies of documents and answers to your questions or send your requests to your municipal representatives..... or simply post them here as comments and I'll send them off when I get back from my brief hospital visit..... (;-)

ENJOY THE MINUTES......

New Blog!

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

As promised..... I've launched the new blog and look forward to developing it over the summer with input from readers.... take a look and pass it on to others.....

http://www.shelburnecitizendrivendevelopment.blogspot.com/

Can We Afford Our Own RDA?

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

For some time now I have listened to SWSDA and others deride the possibility of Shelburne having its own RDA. The primary reason given has been that we can't afford our own RDA.....

Frankly.... I don't know what a REAL RDA would cost since we've never had one... however, according to my own .... off the top of my head calculations ..... we have more than enough resources to create and successfully operate our very own development agency in Shelburne County.....

Indeed..... if push comes to shove..... we might even be able to run more than one in Shelburne County......

I haven't done all the sums but here are some preliminary figures showing funding of development and SWSDA just from the Municipality of Shelburne's financial statements over the past decade..... and I know there is more that I haven't been able to identify! I suggest the other municipalities in Shelburne County might want to take a look at their former contributions to SWSDA and for development purposes!

Here are totals I've added up for MOS .....

1998 - $12,047
1999 - $15,094
2000 - $ 73,512
2001 - $91,377
2002 - $284,429
2003 - $212,305
2004 - $269,668
2005 - $171,860
2006 - $115,567
2007 - $98,094
2008 - $105,901

Total - $1,449,854

Plus.... the Municipality of Shelburne has provided a guarantee of a loan to SWSDA for some $84,105 since 2004 and we have been paying the interest on that loan on behalf of SWSDA... It is not clear what the interest rate is but it presumably is one or two points over prime.

Plus .... the Municipality of Shelburne provides a guarantee of $61,500 on SWSDA's line of credit with the Royal Bank in Yarmouth.....

Plus ..... the Municipality of Shelburne recently provided SWSDA with an additional grant to compensate for its inability to increase its guarantee of SWSDA's indebtedness, provided a grant to SWSDA for its taxes in 2008/2009, provided another grant for its share of core funding for this fiscal year.... Plus, Plus, Plus!

Plus ..... the Municipality has provided and continues to provide SWSDA with grants and or contributions for a range of reasons including volunteer programs, etc.

Plus.... I am not certain if the numbers provided above include the monies contributed by the Municipality for construction of the Ocean Ventures Boat Shop at the Base or the Sound Stage.....

Anyway...... you get the idea..... it appears to me that SWSDA has been like a suckling pig at the teat of the Municipality of Shelburne since its inception with the complicit support of Wardens Nickerson and Scott over these many years..... SWSDA's former Co-chairs!

Thank God for the Shelburne Concerned Citizens revolution of a few years ago that stopped the former Wardens and our "Acting CAO of the Day" Reg Ridgely from pouring more of our hard earned money into the maw of SWSDA!

Question..... given the monies spent on SWSDA by the Municipality of Shelburne alone in the past.... and without getting down and counting the money spent by the other four municipalities in Shelburne County..... why can't we afford our own RDA?

A funny Thing Happened on the Way to Heart Surgery!

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

For those of you who have kindly wished me well .... Thank you....

I guess a medical update is due and here it is... Last Wednesday at precisely 10:00 AM an ambulance backed into the emergency doors of Roseway Hospital and loaded yours truly into the back of the vehicle.... My journey to Halifax for open heart surgery on Thursday morning was about to begin and although filled with some trepidation, I was looking forward to having it completed and beginning rehabilitation.... and posting in earnest!

For those of you who have never had the pleasure .... ambulance rides from Shelburne to Halifax are bumpy and uncomfortable despite the caring hands of those in the "bus"..... an hour later we were entering Port Mouton when the ambulance slowed down and eventually pulled over to the side of the road....lying there, my mind went through a series of reasons why they might be stopping... including a stop for coffee... When the attendant came to the back of the ambulance, he sat down and advised me that they had just received a call advising them to return to Shelburne and Roseway.... my surgery had been cancelled because the QE2 had two heart transplants that they were working on and all other surgery would have to be re-scheduled.

Since then, we have waited for the call from Halifax and last night I was advised that I would leave Shelburne Monday morning and that my surgery was now scheduled for Tuesday June 30th!

Sooo.... here I am folks making some last minute postings to you and filling you in on what's happening.

So much to share and so little time.....

Keep posted.....

Pause Before the Break

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

Well Dear Reader,

You will likely have noticed that while last week's postings from your humble servant were significant, the volume of posting's has slowed down somewhat. Two primary reasons. First, I have been a guest at Roseway Hospital since last Monday and getting access to the Internet has been a challenge...

Second, I am working on a new blog that I hope to launch on July 1st.... it will I hope, provide insight and a serious forum for the discussion of the future development of Shelburne County and the provision of opportunities for generations to come. I will launch that with a Primer on RDAs, with a quick historical perspective and information about how the original concept produced by extensive consultation with local communities in the mid-nineties was turned on its head by SWSDA and their crew.

As for the SWSDA Accountability blog, I propose to maintain it and keep reporting news and views until after our communities have sorted out the mess visited upon us by years of neglect by elected officials and secrecy and backroom dealing by SWSDA and the failure of the present agencies who are responsible for development in this region at the local and provincial levels.

Today, I want to post a couple items in keeping with past postings.

The first is Frank Anderson's Job Description .....

.... that I recently received from SWSDA. I invite you to note that fully a third of his job description as seen by Mr. Anderson falls under the rubrique "Security Functions". Whoever prepared this job description must have been copying from Dick Cheney's book on terrorism and scaring people..... .

It is hard to imagine that fully a third of the job description of a self-described "CEO" of a community development agency in Nova Scotia would fall under the title Security Functions....you'd think .... he was working in the ghettos of LA with gang bangers!

The Second is a comparison of financial reports from SWSDA ....respecting the monies remaining from the sale of the Boys School.

The critical factors to observe here are the following......

1. The date covered are significant. The first column reports expenses from April 1, 2005 to May 31, 2007. It does not include the $550,000 reportedly paid by Mr. MacDonnell for the Boys School. Unfortunately for Mr. Anderson, you should note that the school was not transferred to SWSDA until September 6, 2005 so any expenses reportedly included by Mr. Anderson in this statement for maintenance of the Boys School prior to that date should not charged to the Boys School funds.

2. The second Column reports expenses from April 1, 2005 to July 31, 2007. Unfortunately this report from Mr. Anderson not only includes expenses on maintaining the school before it was acquired by SWSDA from the Province as well as maintenance expenses attributed to the Boys School funds, 34 days after the sale of the boys school property This statement also includes the $550,000 from the sale of the Boys School on June 26, 2007.

3. The third column reports maintenance expenses again from April 1, 2005 (five months before the property was acquired by SWSDA) to September 30, 2007 (three months after the property was sold). Please note that Mr. Anderson has not added interest on this money in his calculation since July 2007.

4. The final column reports expenses from May 1, 2005 to March 31, 2008 - nine months after the Boys School property was sold. Please note that Mr. Anderson has not added interest on this money in his calculation since July 2007

This information is important because at the present time Mr. Anderson has argued that his continued use of the Boys School sales proceeds and maintenance fund are legitimate expenses of SWSDA..... go figure!!

Soooo .....why aren't any of our municipalities raising a stink about this??

Of course.... there are many more problems with this accounting by Mr. Anderson..... none that a forensic audit wouldn't solve!

In closing... I've got bad news and good news....

The good news is that I now believe that the Municipality of of Shelburne does not owe SWSDA Millions of dollars!!!

This has been more smoke and mirrors from the pro himself......

More about that next time I blog....

The bad news is that ...... I won't be able to post for the next week..... I am going to take a little forced R&R and give my body up to science for a few days.....

I'll tell you all about that next week.... in the meantime I have made arrangements to post comments as they are received..... soooo keep those cards and letters coming....

Your humble servant,

Ed