The End is Here ...

NO LONGER AN RDA

In  four hours and forty-three minutes SWSDA will cease to exist as an RDA ... and cease collecting funding support from municipal, provincial and federal governments for its core funding and Mr. Anderson's salary. On the dole for fifteen years, the only question left is will SWSDA fade into the night with a whimper or a bang.....

Now that the walls of this dysfunctional rogue organization have been breeched, all that remains to be seen is whether politicians and civil servants have gotten the message and whether they will give themselves and taxpayers a chance at a fresh start .... by relaunching socio-economic development that is truly community-based, open, transparent and accountable..... under the aegis of accountable people and bodies.

I firmly believe that ..... ANYTHING LESS is doomed to failure and will perpetuate the misery generated by the present management and power base of the organization.

I will leave this site up in case anyone needs to refresh their memory of the things that were wrong with SWSDA.... However, it is not my intention to post anything additional to this site. The purpose of this posting and related activities has been achieved as evidenced by.... the following.

1. The Supreme Court has stated clearly that RDA's are public bodies and their files are to be open to the public under the Freedom  of Information act. Mr. Anderson told his Board on more than one occassion that he would not lose that battle... he did.

2. The Ombudsman has issued a scathing report and I understand is pursuing further investigations of SWSDA and initiating new ones as requested by the Municipality of Barrington. Mr. Anderson has apparently not been very cooperative with the Ombudsman... that's a battle he will lose.

3. The Department of Economic Development is shutting down SWSDA as an RDA by requiring all RDA's to fall under the RDA Act. Mr. Anderson and his Yarmouth gang thought they could jsut play a shell game again and maintain the status quo .... The Province has not minced words with SWSDA or Mr. Anderson. ... Change has arrived.

4. The municipalities of Shelburne County are now struggling to regain control of their own socio-economic development agenda and asserting their rights ... and building solid relationships with Provincial and Federal agencies at the same time.... something Mr. Annderson had heretofore convinced them they couldn't do on their own.

GIVES ONE A WARM GLOWING FEELING THAT CITIZENS CAN STILL BRING ABOUT CHANGE.... GREAT FEELING!!

And.....  remember my faithful readers that the Ombudsman's investigators found much about SWSDA's operations that were of sufficient concern to ask the Province to dramatically alter the legislation respecting RDA's, their accountability and their management.

REMEMBER ... the Ombudsman has asked both SWSDA and the Province to agree to three new audits and recommended four additional investigations of SWSDA's dealings... IN ADDITION, the Ombudsman (a former Assistant Superintendent of the RCMP) referred the sale of the Boys School (another SWSDA project that ended in such a blinding success NOT) to the RCMP. Hopefully, one or more of the audits requested by the Ombudsman will generate the additional evidence needed by the RCMP to proceed.

FINALLY ... we haven't seen the last of the Boys School money issue!!! That's because the Ombudsman found that neither Mr. Anderson nor his hand-picked SWSDA Executive had ANY authority to spend maintenance funds or proceeds of the sale without the approval of Team Shelburne ..... !! Moreover, the Ombudsman has directed that those funds be returned by SWSDA to Team Shelburne!

AND

SWSDA (read Frank Anderson) has refused to return the hundreds of thousands of dollars owed to the taxpayers of Shelburne County. One would hope that steps will be taken to return that money to its rightful owners .... Shelburne County residents.

Remember, you can search the archives ot take a look at documents or Mr. Anderson's expenses simply by doing elective searches or going back into the archives.

Thank you for reading my blog.

UPDATE ON BLOG

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

What's Going On?

Over the holidays, I've been busy getting ready for our litigation with SWSDA. Hence, no blogs from us....

Trial was scheduled nearly two years ago to start January 18, 2010. 

Monday this week, SWSDA's lawyers asked for a one week adjournment of the trial. We agreed to SWSDA's request but indicated that we would oppose any futher delays to this lawsuit initiated by Mr. Anderson in the name of SWSDA and its Board of Directors some ten years ago. Until the trial is underway or definitive dates for it to start are available, I do not plan to re-start my blogs.

In the interim Dear Reader I urge you to follow the development efforts and successes of the Municipality of Shelburne and Timothy Gillespie's site at http://www.shelburnecountytoday.com/ for news about SWSDA, the trial and development in our communities.

FYI - I have been advised by the Ombudsman's Office that at the request of SWSDA the Ombudsman's office also has extended the time for SWSDA to respond to the Ombudsman's report to this coming Friday, the 15th of January. I am told that by the end of January or first week in February, Willa Magee, Timothy Gillespie and I should receive our copy of the report. I will of course ensure we share the report with you as soon as we get a copy.

That's all the news for now folks.....!

Ed

BASE FOR SALE AGAIN?!?

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

"OWNER RETIRING"

http://cgi.ebay.com/World-class-TV-and-Film-Production-Complex_W0QQitemZ320460322459QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4a9cec769b

Second Property For Sale Too?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amazing-Priced-to-Sell-Nova-Scotia-ocean-front-land_W0QQitemZ320461100523QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLand?hash=item4a9cf855eb

OMBUDSMAN'S PETITION

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

FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS

Dear Reader.... It's now been a few years, but here's the letter to the Ombudsman that started all this...... A simple reading of this document will let you know what to expect in the report when it is released to "Concerned Citizens" in the coming weeks. How our municipal governments deal with their preview will provide telling testimony about the lessons they've learned... if any.... from the exercise!

Sent by fax to : 902-424-6675
May 27, 2007


Mr. Dwight Bishop
Ombudsman, Province of Nova Scotia
5670 Spring Garden Road
Suite 700
P.O. Box 2152
Halifax, NS B3J 3B7


Subject: Complaint Against Department of Economic Development, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Affairs, the South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) and its Nine Municipal Members


Dear Mr. Bishop:
We the undersigned believe that the Department of Economic Development, the nine
municipal governments who sit on SWSDA’s Board and the Department of Municipal
Affairs wittingly and illegally/irregularly permitted SWSDA to operate as an RDA under the Societies Act.

As a result, over the past 12 years many of the safeguards intended and built into the RDA Act have been skirted by SWSDA with significant deleterious financial and development effects on the taxpayers in the Municipality of Shelburne in particular and all of southwestern Nova Scotia in general. In large measure these lost financial and developmental opportunities were possible because this “arrangement” was blessed by government agencies prompting the further erosion of the principal of public accountability and the resulting loss of public control over a public institution.


The South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) is incorporated and has operated for some twelve years under the Societies Act rather than the Regional Community Development Act. Operating in this manner has permitted SWSDA, the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Municipal Affairs and the nine Municipal members of SWSDA to circumvent and contravene the provisions, and ignore the safeguards as well as the requirements of the Regional Community Development Act, resulting in the following:


a. RDAs should be incorporated under the appropriate Act - SWSDA is not;
b. the majority of RDA voting Board members should not be municipal representatives - the majority of SWSDA’s Board are municipal representatives (despite this situation, SWSDA claims not to be a municipal body or subject to the MGA);
c. RDA’s are not allowed to own land – SWSDA has been given and owns two major properties, has received mortgage financing from the Department of Economic Development on one of its properties and was recently given property for $1 by Order in Council and $600,000 to maintain it;
d. SWSDA has paid no property transfer tax on either of the properties it has acquired in the Municipality of Shelburne, and while it pays property tax on only one of the two properties it owns, the property tax paid by SWSDA on that one property is returned to SWSDA as a grant each year by the municipality;
e. although municipal governments are not allowed to provide loan guarantees to others, SWSDA has received frequent loan guarantees from all of its municipal members in the past and is now seeking additional guarantees thereby increasing the vulnerability of municipalities;
f. SWSDA’s ownership and management of these properties has resulted in a growing operating deficit of more than $1.5 million as of March 2007;
g. with respect to public accountability, SWSDA operates as a private society requiring Board and staff to sign confidentiality agreements and providing program/project financial reporting in a manner that makes it impossible to determine funding or expenses for any particular project;
h. while core funding reporting provides some details these are also commingled in the chart of accounts in such a manner as to make it impossible to determine the effectiveness, efficiency or economy of use of those resources – SWSDA further maintains that it is not subject to the MGA or FOIPOP, notwithstanding that it receives in excess of 99% of its funding from government, thereby making it difficult to assess audit information provided;
i. since the mid-90s taxpayers in the Municipality of Shelburne have borne the burden of the direct and indirect subsidies to SWSDA by providing grants in return for taxes, providing loans, providing loan guarantees and providing core funding;
j. now SWSDA is proposing that these same taxpayers bail SWSDA out of its deficit to help it out of its insolvency .


The Regional Community Development Act. 1996, c. 29, s. 1. at paragraph 6 provides
the Minister of Economic Development with the authority to establish, by order,
corporate bodies to be regional community development agencies.


Under the definitions section of the Act, it goes further by providing the following definition for Regional Development Agencies incorporated under the Regional Communities Development Act:


3 In this Act,
(a) "agency" means a regional community development organization established pursuant to this Act;


It is important to note that the use of the Societies Act to incorporate certain groups under the Societies Act is purposely restricted and specifically excludes the incorporation of RDAs under the Societies Act. Specifically, paragraph 3. (2) of the Societies Act. R.S., c. 435, s.1 states that:


Where any Act, other than the Companies Act, provides for the incorporation of a society for a particular object, no society shall be incorporated under this Act for that object. R.S., c. 435, s. 3.


Questions


1. Given the provisions for incorporation under the Regional Communities Development Act and the clear restriction in the Society’s Act, is SWSDA entitled to legally be incorporated as a Society?


2. If it is entitled to be incorporated as a Society, is it entitled to call itself a Regional Development Agency (RDA) given the strictures on the use of that term in the Regional Communities Development Act?


3. If it is entitled to be incorporated as a Society under the Societies Act, is it entitled to the funding earmarked and approved for the use of RDAs that is provided under the Community Economic Development Program of the Canada/Nova Scotia COOPERATION Agreement on Economic Diversification.


4. If it is entitled to be incorporated as a Society under the Societies Act, is the SWSDA a municipal body as defined in the MGA?


5. If it is a municipal body, what obligations does SWSDA have respecting the conduct of its annual audit and its chart of accounts?


6. If it is a municipal body, what are the Auditor General’s responsibilities respecting SWSDA’s operations?


7. If it is not a municipal body and it is not an RDA, do taxpayers have any obligation to


provide SWSDA with any financial support?


8. If it is an RDA, how did it become an RDA given the detailed process for the creation and formulation of RDAs found in the Regional Communities Development Act?


9. If SWSDA is an RDA do the strictures related to RDAs found in the Act, provincial guidelines, regulations and official government web sites apply to SWSDA?


10. If they do not, why don’t they?


11. If they do, who is responsible for ensuring that provincial requirements for SWSDA as an RDA are enforced?


12. If SWSDA is an RDA and RDAs are not allowed to own land, should the two properties that were transferred in error to SWSDA by government be returned to the Province and/or the Federal Government?


13. If not, why not.


14. If SWSDA is prohibited from being a Society under the Societies Act and it was never incorporated as an RDA under the Rural Communities Development Act, does it have any legitimate legal status?


As taxpayers, we grow increasingly concerned by the failures of Provincial and Municipal officials to properly manage this portfolio. Their failure to do so has further thrust additional taxes on our communities over the past twelve years and now has created a financial crisis with significant property tax implications in our communities. Your kind assistance would be appreciated. If we can provide additional information please let us know.


Yours very truly,

A. A. Cayer

Timothy Gillespie

Willa Magee

HISTORIC MEETING - INSIDE SCOOP!

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

DEPUTY MINISTER MEETS SWSDA BOARD

On Friday the 11th of December the Deputy Minister met with the Mayors and Wardens from three counties who are responsible for the sound administration of the South West Shore Development Authority. As previously reported, the meeting was to discuss the SWSDA request for $500,000 additional loan guarantee backed by govt. The bail-out is needed because SWSDA is apparently on the brink of bankruptcy. Just before the meeting all voting SWSDA board members received a copy of the long-anticipated Ombudsman's Report, which will certainly be very critical of SWSDA operating and governance practices.

WHAT WAS LIKELY DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING AND SOME POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS

..... the Province is still unwilling to back the $500,000 with the information they have at hand. Govt sources in Halifax say that requests from the govt for more information have gone unheeded.

..... The Ombudsman's report was likely thorough and almost cerainly responded in detail to the questions asked by Concerned Citizens 30 months ago (see copy here) and the SWSDA board has until January 8th (25 days and counting) to make comments on the report.

.... it is no secret that Board Governance... or should I say a lack of sound Governance by the SWSDA Board members - is a major problem.

WANT TO KNOW MORE?


Ask your Mayor, Warden or Board Member.... they are the ones responsible for fixing the mal-administration of this essential development agency in our midst....Municipal, Provincial and Federal Governments endow them with trust, information and millions of taxpayer dollars each year. The Ombudsman has concluded that management of the organziation needs change...... Find out what our municipal representatives on the Board intend to do about it.... ASK THEM... call, write or stop them on the street.... but ask if you want them to know you are concerned and you care!

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

SWSDA PROJECT REPORT

When SWSDA talks about all the projects they have organized and are running for us, do you know what they are talking about? Well you should.

They account for millions of dollars each year being spent in the name of development for our communities. Take a look at the latest project report for SWSDA and tell me what you see.

For example, does anyone know why the C@P summer students for 2008 are listed on this 2009/2010 report?

Does anyone know.... what the Community Access Society does, why their budget for this year is $55,000 and why they've spent 50% mmore than the entire year's budget after only six months?

And, why C@P projects .... are listed under Business & Investment services?

And do you realize dear reader .... that if you remove the C@P expenses from this category that SWSDA's total Business & Investment portfolio projects for nine municipalities in three counties is less than $80,000!

Oh.... and I haven't begun to ask questions about this Shelburne SoundStage/Park project with a budget of $75,000, no funding identified and no explanation!

SWSDA & The Role of Municipalities

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

MAKING THE RDA ACCOUNTABLE

The Right Honourable Justice Hood in Her Decision about SWSDA says....

"I conclude that SWSDA is 'under the authority of' the participating municipalities."

For some time now I have argued that municipal councils had a special responsibility to monitor, direct and control SWSDA through the representatives of the Municipality that they appointed to the SWSDA Board.

Let me suggest to you that municipalities have failed in this essential duty of sound governance.

Further.... let me suggest to you that after all of its investigative work, the Ombudsman's office will agree.!

In part, I believe that this failure is caused by ..... the manner in which Board members have been misled into believing that certain information about the inner workings of SWSDA was best kept away from elected municipal councils. I recall Pat Nickerson, Paulette Scott and Raymond Davis claiming that they couldn't share information about SWSDA Board meetings because "they were confidential."

As a result, I believe the pattern shows that:

-  the CEO kept secrets from the Board,

- the Executive of SWSDA kept secrets from the full members of SWSDA,

- the Board members and Mr. Anderson kept information secret from Municipal Councils.....

Resulting in .... the public being kept in the dark and decisions being made on behalf of the municipalities and taxpayers without input from elected officials who are responsible and asked to be accountable to the public.

All this dear Reader to suggest that when municipal representatives get a copy of the the Consultative Report from the Ombudsman's Office, they should ensure that their Councils are consulted about its content before the SWSDA Board  and municipal representatives on the Board respond to the Ombudsman.... which I understand they have to do before January 6, 2010.

What do you think?

CAN YOU SPELL EMBARGO?

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

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT & FINDINGS

SUBMITTED TO GOVERNMENT AND

SWSDA BOARD MEMBERS

Department of Economic and Rural Development and SWSDA Board have 30 days from receipt of the Ombudsman's report to respond before the public will get to see the report.

Want to understand the process? Take a look at the Act.....

http://shelburnecitizendrivendevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/12/ombudsman-act.html

SWSDA Financials as at September 30

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

WHERE'D THE MONEY GO!?!

Ever wonder? Here's SWSDA's Balance Sheet for the first six months of this fiscal year.... to the end of September. Click on it to enlarge....

A quick look shows that SWSDA has some three-quarters of a million dollars in cash and term deposits, $868,333 in receivables (presumably from governments) and a mortgage payable in monthly installments to SWSDA by Sea Coast Entertainment beginning in 5 or 6 months.... Mortgage principle is worth $1,750,000. plus interest to SWSDA..... Along with odds and sods .... total assets of more than $3,405,000.00

Not bad for an organization that keeps complaining about being broke..... but here's the rub!

Accounts payable jumped some $300,000 in just one month to $901, 767.05 .... for what you ask.... ? ? Good Question!

When added to other project accruals.... for this year, Total Project Accruals are more than $1,500,000! Add Demand loans, repayable grants, the Sound Stage Loan guaranteed by the Municipality of Shelburne, amounts owing to the Province of $475,000 from a mortgage on the Base sold by SWSDA in 2008, money owing to Shelburne County Business Development Centre and an item entitled "Deferred Capital Contributions" and total Liabilities are significant having risen more than$70,000 in September alone.....

Gotta love high finance as practiced by "Former Bankers"..... Hate to think what kind of shape Yarmouth Area Industrial Commission is in!!