Contribution from Anonymous

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

The Blame Game....

Moments ago one of my readers wrote a lengthy comment much of which had nothing to do with the issue of SWSDA Accountability..... which is what this blog is about.

However, I wanted to share with my readers Anon 3.53's thoughts of relevance to this blog.

Anon,  your suggestion that I not rant "... as it will not serve you well." is interesting and I thank you for it.... It helps to put the rest of your comments in context. Anon 3:53 went on to suggest that Mr. Hardy might be excused from doing his job properly and obeying the law because "... he answers to the Mayor..." adding that blame should be put in its proper place and that I should "... not brow beat the innocent."

First let me deal with the substantive portion of Anon 3:53's comments that are relevant to this blog about SWSDA Accountability. First, I wrote about Mr. Hardy because it is exactly his kind of behaviour yesterday that in my view has permitted SWSDA to become a rogue organization over the past fourteen years.

As far as I know, Mr. Hardy is his own man, employed in a senior position of trust by the taxpayers and citizens of this community and paid reasonably well to do the job. He is hardly the "innocent" suggested by Anon 3.53... It is his decision alone to do or not do his job as the law requires him. No Employer can oblige you to do things that are wrong, or ignore or subvert the spirit and/or the intent of the law. No Employer.... and certainly no Mayor. What Mr. Hardy did yesterday was wrong. Plain and simple.... in my view.... and if his employer wants him to do things like that, Mr Hardy has a responsibility to advise his superior that the action he has been directed to take is wrong and he won't do it. May not be easy... but that would be the right decision and action to take.

As for Mayor Delaney, I don't even know if he is aware that this is being done in the name of the Town or how many hours a day he is actually spending in the office or working on Town affairs given his state of health. No dear Anon 3:53.... can't buy your argment ... but thank you for providing another perspective!

Two Sides to Every Coin

REPLY TO ANON 6:49

Dear Anon 6:49..... The arguments you pose for withholding information from the public, contrary to the intent of the Freedom of Information Act have been used to abuse the system before.

1. I believe that if correspondence has been sent to any municipality for a decision of council, it should be forwarded to councillors immediately.... not hoarded by theMayor/Warden and the Clerk/CAO until the next meeting of council.

2. If councillors are sent correspondence received by the municipality, when it is received, public access to these documents should be ensured as stipulated in the Municipal Government Act.

Otherwise, how can they consult with taxpayers and voters before reaching a decision about a subject that did not come up in the last election..... do they really need more time than the average citizen to digest the document... and do they have to come  to a conclusion about it before they've consulted the great unwashed masses and before they meet and hear the views of other members of council?

The purpose of this legislation is to provide an opportunity for informed public participation in the management of our communities. Any actions in my view that subvert that intention as spelled out in the Municipal Government Act is wrong.....

In my humble opinion... I would like to think that Brian Holland and Kirk Cox would make the document available to the public if asked .... however, since I live in the Town and my taxes pay a part of Mr. Hardy's salary I would have hoped that he would have done the honourable thing by a local taxpayer... he didn't!

No.... dear Anon 6:49... you're entitled to your views..... but... I don't buy your logic.

OBSTRUCTION ... YOUR NAME IS FAILURE!

THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGING!

Well dear reader.... my faith in the good guys winning has been renewed .... after my rampage this afternoon about what I viewed as Wilmont Hardy's efforts to subvert my rights and ignore his legal and moral obligations respecting access to public documents I embarked on a plan to rectify the situation....

It wasn't long before I received a copy of the very letter Wilmont had decided to deprive me of .....  from another source in the leaky SWDSA support boat ... abusing citizens' rights to access to information and informed participation.

First.... let me thank the ethical Board or staff member of SWSDA who leaked the document.

Second.... let me share with you why getting this document before the December 1st meeting of municipal politicians is so critical.

You probably do not know that many of our Councillors have not been provided with a copy of the letter in question. To my knowledge, no Council in Shelburne County has as yet had a fullsome, informed discussion about the letter or detemined what action if any they might take in response to Mr. Anderson's demands.

YET .... next Tuesday they are scheduled to come together to discuss what to do about creating a new RDA...NOW I ASK YOU.... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!?!

Come on Mayors, Wardens CAOs and Clerks.... make copies of this letter and let's get it on a public agenda for discussion as quickly as possible....... so we can have an informed public discussion about this important issue that may shape public dialogue and action respecting socio-economic development here at home for a number of years to come. Public input muight even prove beneficial in guiding your decision-making

LET US FINALLY CUT OUT THE MALEVOLENT SECRECY THAT HAS PLAGUED OUR COMMUNITIES FOR FAR TOO LONG....!!

ps... Tomorrow I'll publish the letter that Wilmont Hardy refused to give me today..... gotta love the sweet irony ..... with thanks to our sources..... I now prepare for my nightly retirement with a clear conscience and a renewed faith in the inherent goodness of human kind!

Ed

!!! OBSTRUCTION !!!

YOUR NAME IS WILMONT HARDY

Next Tuesday, elected officials in Shelburne County will meet to begin discussions about the future RDA that will service municipalities and communities in Shelburne County. When they do, I am told, they will do so facing a letter from Mr. Anderson of SWSDA fame, demanding that each municipality pledge their future alliance and allegiance to SWSDA as each municipality's choice of RDA for the future. They have been told by Mr. Anderson that they have until December 11 to do so.

Now..... I am reporting this information third hand or fourth hand because I haven't seen the letter from Mr. Anderson. It would be nice to have a copy so that I can share it with my dear readers and communicate my views on the subject to those elected officials whose salaries I pay - before they meet December 1st. However, I am told by Mr. Hardy our erstwhile Town Clerk that I must wait until the day after the December 1 meeting of elected officials, "because Council has not yet reviewed the letter."

As I explained to Mr. Hardy, the law is clear. The public has a right to see or have a copy of any letter in the possession of the Municipality, when it receives the letter. Of course, there are limited exceptions for withholding documents, however this document doesn't fall into any excluded category.

However, to provide municipalities with the necessary time to determine if documents should be withheld, the law provides municipalities with up to 30 days to respond to a request for information. The use of this clause by Mr. Hardy to withold this document until some later date (he said I could have it after the Council meeting on December 2nd) is wrong and contrary to the intent of the law. Further, it is a clear, unadulterated abuse of a position of trust given to those like Mr. Hardy who are entrusted with the responsibility to apply the law correctly and justly.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Hardy's disregard for his responsibilities to the citizens he is paid to serve. He is the same fella who has the temerity to charge $0.50 a page for copies of documents provided by the Town of Shelburne, when the law clearly states that municipalities are only allowed to charge the actual cost of making a copy. When I pointed that out to Mr. Hardy some time ago he smiled and said that was not the way he interpreted the law.

LITTLE WONDER CITIZENS FEEL DISENFRANCHISED

SWSDA Finances September 30, 2009

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

Highlights From SWSDA's

Latest Comparative Balance Sheet

At at 9/30/2009 and 8/31/2009

Total Accounts Receivable

9/30/2009 ... $887,333.61

8/31/2009 ... $906,921.66

Total Current Assets

9/30/2009 ... $3,405,285.46

8/31/2009 ... $3,398,018.48

Accounts Payable

9/30/2009 ... $901,767.05

8/31/2009 ... $604,589.42

Total Liabilities

9/30/2009 ... $3,792,160.18

8/31/2009 ... $3,718,895.88

SWSDA Project Report Shelburne County

September 30, 2009

Shelburne Sound Stage

Budget ..... $75,000.00

Expenses...$27,768.00

Shelburne Tourism

Budget ..... $140,000.00

Expenses ..$13,588.00

Shelburne JCP

Budget ..... $ 48,500.00

Expenses ...$21,527.00

Does anyone know what the Shelburne Sound Stage Project is and who is paying for it?