-------- 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!!??
Ombudsman Act
-
*****TRANSFORMING CLIENTS INTO CITIZENS******
CONCERNED CITIZENS PETITION WORKS!
It took a while but the petition from Concerned Citizens of Shelburne
app...
14 years ago
5 comments:
Fact: Para 2 of the original Bylaws called for 1 member from each of the 9 mun. units, but they had 8 mun. units and 2 members from YAIC on the board.
12 Dec 02 SWSDA through Special Resolution - Bylaws amended replacing Para 2 with 12 members (8+4) - 1 from each mun. unit; 3 from YAIC; and l business person from Shelb. Co.
I've missed something, because the next thing I find is SWSDA Strategic Plan 2006-2011, Feb 06, stating (my confusion begins here again) there are 9 mun. units again, rather than the 8 units from the 2002 Bylaw amendment.
2009 - SWSDA BofD has 14 voting members:
Business (5) = Rose, King, P. LeBlanc (YAIC); Redding (Acct/Shelb. Co.); Lombard (RBC/Clare).
Mun. Units (9) = Towns(4) of Lockeport, Shelburne, Clarks Harbour and Y'mouth; and Muns. (5) Shelburne, Barrington, Clare, Argyle and Y'mouth.
It appears that Clare didn't have a rep in the beginning - is that it, or am I just totally muddled by it all?
No matter how you slice the pie, Shelburne Co. is a minor player in the grand scheme of things, when you have a majority from the western area of the region covered by SWSDA.
There is a problem with Norm Pottier and Warden Moulanson voting on the closed door policy, as non-voting board members/alternates. We'll be hearing more on this issue I'm sure. I originally pointed my finger at the past Treasurer, but was promptly informed that Darian Huskilson was the lone man to stand against the CEO, without support from the voting members.
Fr, howdidthismanagetoescapeanauditforsolong
"...Board meetings rotate throughout the region." - SWSDA Strategic Plan 2006-11.
There is no justification in holding all meetings in Yarmouth. The taxpayers of this region covered by SWSDA demand an open door policy during these meetings, with meetings held in the various communities ASAP!
The truth is that the tax payers DO NOT demand an open door policy for the meetings. If they did, there would BE and open door policy. As a long-time civic activist (7 yrs in this region, 10 yrs elsewhere) and as the person Frank Anderson had removed by RCMP (complaint being investigated by the same nincompoops who removed me) I can attest to the fact that ONLY ONE public official stood up for his constituents on that day - Darian Huskilson. He publicly protested and removed himself.
Warden Sherm Embree, Warden Louise Halliday, Councilperson Elizabeth Acker, Cecil Brannen, Gerald Keddy's rep, Nova Scotia Business Inc., Dept of Econ Development, etc etc - sat on their hands, remained comfortably "in the tent" and SAID NOT ONE WORD!... not one word. If the taxpayers demand an open door policy it is with these elected officials that they must quarrel.
Timothy Gillespie
Shelburne County Today
Warden Embree's silence is ridiculous, as he witnessed what went on during Warden Scott's watch. I have yet to receive a response from him on my most recent email, and it appears he is hoping things will die down, and the matter will fade away. It won't Warden Embree, and you are wasting our taxpayer's dollar$ by evading the truth of the matter. If these atrocious expense records don't tell you anything, it's time you stepped down.
I say, "Go Darian Go", in response to Mr. Gillespie's posting. At least there is one sensible and honest board member - are any of the others ready to take a stand and be counted?
Fr, whataboringelectioncampaigninshelburneco.
Democracy ,,,,that is what this is all about. secret meetings, is not democracy. Tax payers have the right to know how their taxes are spent, they have the right to make comments, about how the tax is spent. Elected officials should not hide what they do, If you are an elected official you shopuld make some response.
Jim
Post a Comment