In response to my last post I will present questions that I have been asked and the answers to the best of my ability.
Good post Dean, and thanks for keeping us informed and up-to-date on this ‘dirty’ business. I hope you send this in as a letter to the editor. The public needs to be made aware of these latest developments on the Centre's 'profitability', as expounded on by the Chairperson of the board who stated “we do not need financial assistance from the municipality for 2009”. Another $30,000 plus in unpaid bills you say, along with legal bills to date passing the $50,000 mark. In addition, by the time the lease/relocation business issue is dealt with, all told, this whole ‘rotten business’ will most likely cost our local taxpayers’ in the neighbourhood of several hundred thousand dollars. All because a certain group did not want to let go and respect the wishes of a duly elected majority of council. And let’s not forget the “Block of three on Council” involvement in this sordid affair. How can a mayor and councillors be so cavalier with taxpayers’ money? How could these three be so intransigent in their position that the public purse be damned?None of these people should ever see the inside of a board again, never mind sitting on council, for such poor management in the public interest, and lack of due diligence. I'm sure at least one newspaper will print it, whereas, the other will most likely have issues with 'liability', which is their standard lame excuse for not printing what they don't like, or they find potentially damaging to them personally, or their 'friends', and/or their cause.The people involved in this whole fiasco should be held liable and accountable. The blatant disregard for the public purse cannot, and must not, be tolerated. It is time this type of governance came to an end!
November 25, 2009 2:20 PM
John very good comments, and I agree with you on most of what you had to say. You know better than most how politics work in this town.
Why are you saying this nonsense?
Of course the Center is making money its been full every weekend.
The bills you talk about must be a mistake.
Jay
November 25, 2009 3:29 PM
Well that's what I have been hearing for the last year, in council chambers, in the media everywhere you go. Well somebody made mistakes.
We have 2 community centres?
November 25, 2009 5:50 PM
Yes we do the Crowsnest Centre and the MDM facility
WOW!
Please send a letter to the editor of both papers...
The truth has come out!
November 25, 2009 5:10 PM
I sent a letter to only one local paper because the other has taken a position that they are not going to be involved in this debate
Turn the power off, turn the gas off, turn the phones off. I know you probably can not do this.What a shame that such a small group can cost the majority so much money.I wish there was an election today because the mayor and his group would be out on their ears.Maybe then we could move forward.
November 25, 2009 4:45 PM
I know where you are coming from and understand your frustration, but we have been receiving legal advice that we need to follow, the municipality has already been exposed to enough liabilty due to the actions of others.
What have we paid out on legal costs?
November 26, 2009 4:58 PM
Council was supplied figures a few weeks back, it breaks down to the following:
Cost to hold plebiscite $13,355.18
Costs regarding the petition and injunction $25,703
Cost to deal with Leases and CLC Bylaws $30,353.30
Total of $69,411.48
I think if any business stopped paying their bills that they would show that they have a positive cash flow (at least temporarily). However, that doesn't make them ‘profitable’. I'm surprised that so many people have bought the line of bull that they are selling. To me it was an obvious sham. The week before the plebiscite they were requesting $$$ from the municipal budget, the week after... they're profitable. Their claims to profitability are a poorly disguised desperate attempt to keep the Centre open.
November 27, 2009 9:39 AM
I don't see a question in here more comments, but I certainly understand and appreciate your comments. Last year much fanfare over a $30,000 profit in the media but no mention that 25% of their income ($100,000+) was municipal grants.
WHY is there such a problem getting the books for the center? FOIP is not a reason when the municipality owns it. Council has to do whatever it takes to have them audited. Enough of the BS!!!
November 27, 2009 8:19 AM
I agree totally with you, I have always had a problem understanding why a municipal owned facility, subsidized by the taxpayers is not accountable to the taxpayers through their elected representives. We have two other areas that are ran by societies for various reasons (Swimming Pool, Ski hill) but unlike the centre all of their financies must pass through the municipality. Our finance department can tell us at any time what is happening in those facilities. I am yet to hear that "I can not tell you who the tenants of the MDM are due to FOIP"
Do yu not answer questions put to you??
December 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Look above I have given it my best shot
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
If you say it is true enough times, will people really believe you?
If you say it is true enough times, will people really believe you?
Over the last number of years the debate as raged in the Crowsnest Pass over the Crowsnest Centre.
My position as always been that we do not need and cannot afford two community centres. My position was confirmed numerous times in the recent corporate review, which talks about us needing to rationalize services and facilities, that we have numerous areas of duplication.
Well the supporters of the centre have stated over the last two years that the place as gone through a massive turn around and that the place is profitable and paying its own way. In fact, at a Council Meeting held on Dec 16, 2008 the Chairperson of the board stated “we do not need financial assistance from the municipality for 2009”. All of this despite the fact that the place as been heavily subsidized by taxpayer’s dollars for twenty years, and as had more failed business plans than GMC. Over the last ten months every time the issue as been raised the “Block of three on Council” that supports the centre as cried shame on anybody that dares to challenge the Centre, how dare we challenge this facility when it is doing so well and making money?
Last night November 24,2009 council is presented a bill from Nexen for $12,000 told that it was not up to date its now more like $18,000, a Telus bill for $3,700 and a Epcor bill for $6,700 with these balances only being to the end of September. It was only back on June 2 of this year that we were presented a Nexen bill that the Mayor claimed was only a problem because it had been sent to the wrong address.
So much for being profitable, when I questioned the Council member who used to be on the board, who as spent the last ten months telling us the Centre is profitable, as to why the bills have not been paid he tells me that he was removed from that board and can not explain why.
In the Crowsnest Pass we have to change the way we do business we can not (as indicated by our Corporate Review) continue doing business the way we have. The taxpayers of this community have to make a decision if we continue on this path we will have to accept that we are going to pay a lot more in Taxes. If we are going to maintain everything we have, and then we must adequately support all of these facilities, both from an operational point of view and investing the dollars we need to upkeep these facilities. The Corporate review talks about us needing to spend $7.8million a year for the next ninety years just to replace what we have today, let alone doing anything new.
Over the last number of years the debate as raged in the Crowsnest Pass over the Crowsnest Centre.
My position as always been that we do not need and cannot afford two community centres. My position was confirmed numerous times in the recent corporate review, which talks about us needing to rationalize services and facilities, that we have numerous areas of duplication.
Well the supporters of the centre have stated over the last two years that the place as gone through a massive turn around and that the place is profitable and paying its own way. In fact, at a Council Meeting held on Dec 16, 2008 the Chairperson of the board stated “we do not need financial assistance from the municipality for 2009”. All of this despite the fact that the place as been heavily subsidized by taxpayer’s dollars for twenty years, and as had more failed business plans than GMC. Over the last ten months every time the issue as been raised the “Block of three on Council” that supports the centre as cried shame on anybody that dares to challenge the Centre, how dare we challenge this facility when it is doing so well and making money?
Last night November 24,2009 council is presented a bill from Nexen for $12,000 told that it was not up to date its now more like $18,000, a Telus bill for $3,700 and a Epcor bill for $6,700 with these balances only being to the end of September. It was only back on June 2 of this year that we were presented a Nexen bill that the Mayor claimed was only a problem because it had been sent to the wrong address.
So much for being profitable, when I questioned the Council member who used to be on the board, who as spent the last ten months telling us the Centre is profitable, as to why the bills have not been paid he tells me that he was removed from that board and can not explain why.
In the Crowsnest Pass we have to change the way we do business we can not (as indicated by our Corporate Review) continue doing business the way we have. The taxpayers of this community have to make a decision if we continue on this path we will have to accept that we are going to pay a lot more in Taxes. If we are going to maintain everything we have, and then we must adequately support all of these facilities, both from an operational point of view and investing the dollars we need to upkeep these facilities. The Corporate review talks about us needing to spend $7.8million a year for the next ninety years just to replace what we have today, let alone doing anything new.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Reporting the News in the Crowsnest Pass
Reading a post on my fellow Bloggers site, regarding the issue of "media censorship" in the Crowsnest Pass.
http://blog.johnprince.ca/
I was a little surprised in my five years on Council I have not noticed any kind of censorship in the local papers until now. (Hate to be sarcastic)
Now if we want to talk about bias that's a different issue, some examples.
The four to three vote on council some of the media makes this sound like it's the regular way of doing business, they fail to report that 90%+ of all motions at council record a vote other than 4-3. Even in our corporate review it reports that the 4-3 is only common on significant issues (Crowsnest Centre).
The greater problem where the issue of bias comes in, is that the previous council and every council prior to that had some kind of spilt but because the spilt favoured the Mayor and his supporters that was acceptable and obviously not news worthy . Bias? maybe.
The Corporate Review itself after numerous discussions with various members of our community, I discussed with as many people as I could what came out of it based on what they had read in the media. Depending on the time of the week I spoke to people (One paper comes out on Tuesday the other on Friday) the first comments were all focused on the 4-3 and the perception that the issues Council faces are the fault of one part of council. The group of people I spoke to later in the week seem to feel that there are many issues related to council and its the fault of all of them. Bias? Maybe
The issue of the Crowsnest Centre from what has been printed in the media a total stranger to the Community not knowing the problems, would assume that Council is shutting down a solid, financially viable, some people have even suggested profitable, operation. Of course I do not believe that nonsense but I guess we will find out the truth at the end of the year when the Municipality takes it back over. Bias? Maybe
Speaking of the Corporate Review and thinking about Mr Prince's comments what did the Review have to say about the local media.
Page 69 "The relationship to the local newspapers appears to be mixed and may be based on the degree of support shown by one relative to the other to one "side" of Council" Does that say Bias?
Anyway I tip my hat to Mr Prince for raising this "new issue", I'm sure when he was on Council there was no issues with "Censorship, Bias, One sided reporting, Spilt votes, etc etc"
http://blog.johnprince.ca/
I was a little surprised in my five years on Council I have not noticed any kind of censorship in the local papers until now. (Hate to be sarcastic)
Now if we want to talk about bias that's a different issue, some examples.
The four to three vote on council some of the media makes this sound like it's the regular way of doing business, they fail to report that 90%+ of all motions at council record a vote other than 4-3. Even in our corporate review it reports that the 4-3 is only common on significant issues (Crowsnest Centre).
The greater problem where the issue of bias comes in, is that the previous council and every council prior to that had some kind of spilt but because the spilt favoured the Mayor and his supporters that was acceptable and obviously not news worthy . Bias? maybe.
The Corporate Review itself after numerous discussions with various members of our community, I discussed with as many people as I could what came out of it based on what they had read in the media. Depending on the time of the week I spoke to people (One paper comes out on Tuesday the other on Friday) the first comments were all focused on the 4-3 and the perception that the issues Council faces are the fault of one part of council. The group of people I spoke to later in the week seem to feel that there are many issues related to council and its the fault of all of them. Bias? Maybe
The issue of the Crowsnest Centre from what has been printed in the media a total stranger to the Community not knowing the problems, would assume that Council is shutting down a solid, financially viable, some people have even suggested profitable, operation. Of course I do not believe that nonsense but I guess we will find out the truth at the end of the year when the Municipality takes it back over. Bias? Maybe
Speaking of the Corporate Review and thinking about Mr Prince's comments what did the Review have to say about the local media.
Page 69 "The relationship to the local newspapers appears to be mixed and may be based on the degree of support shown by one relative to the other to one "side" of Council" Does that say Bias?
Anyway I tip my hat to Mr Prince for raising this "new issue", I'm sure when he was on Council there was no issues with "Censorship, Bias, One sided reporting, Spilt votes, etc etc"
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Crowsnest Pass, Budget process!
Just an update on the process, Administration will be providing us with a brief overview of the budget to night (Nov 10).
Then Council and Administration will be meeting on Nov 28 and Nov 29 to review the entire 2010 budget. Administration was given direction to bring back a budget with no more than a 3% increase in expenditures.
Then Council and Administration will be meeting on Nov 28 and Nov 29 to review the entire 2010 budget. Administration was given direction to bring back a budget with no more than a 3% increase in expenditures.
Notes from the Corporate Review Crowsnest Pass
Council
This council has become divided and views itself as a 4-3 Council (which we believe does not apply "across the board" but to those issues which council members may view as very significant).
Mayor
He is perceived by the majority as being unwilling to change or adjust to the new circumstances resulting in a council and a community at loggerheads with no particular course of action planned to move forward.
He has not reached out to the majority bloc on council in any meaningful way and appears willing to ride out this term in the anticipation that the next election will bring about changes to the make-up of Council.
This council has become divided and views itself as a 4-3 Council (which we believe does not apply "across the board" but to those issues which council members may view as very significant).
Mayor
He is perceived by the majority as being unwilling to change or adjust to the new circumstances resulting in a council and a community at loggerheads with no particular course of action planned to move forward.
He has not reached out to the majority bloc on council in any meaningful way and appears willing to ride out this term in the anticipation that the next election will bring about changes to the make-up of Council.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Crowsnest Pass Corporate Review
Interesting comments from the Crowsnest Pass Corporate Review
Council’s focus on day-to-day management and lack of attention to long range planning and bigger picture issues.
Aging infrastructure, lack of maintenance and planning
Planning for future growth and development
Dysfunction in Council. This issue, often defined in terms of personalities and personnel conflict, has continued on even though a number of members of council have changed. In fact, it has been recorded as a legacy over the life of the Crowsnest Pass, from its creation some twenty years ago.
There is currently a perception of block voting by the Mayor and other councilors, with many items receiving the same split vote.
The absence of longer range planning by Council is reflected in the administration. Management is distracted from its planning and evaluation functions by the effort required just keeping the ship afloat.
Concern over the increasing reliance on the residential tax base.
Concern with the lack of vision for the future
Another area of concern for the Crowsnest Learning Centre is the lack of financial reporting and abilities of the Society staff to do the necessary accounting work. The last annual financial statements are for 1997 and the current financial records are not considered adequate for the auditors to review. There is no budget process evident, including no Business Plan or no current operating budget for the Centre.
For the reader if you have not noticed yet all of these comments were taken from the Corporate Review of 2000, available on the Municipal Web site.
The more I read the present report and compare it to the previous report the more I realize that they are the same. The only thing that as changed is the cast, with one exception our leader, the Mayor.
Now it comes clear to me why the Mayor was so opposed to the Corporate Review!
Council’s focus on day-to-day management and lack of attention to long range planning and bigger picture issues.
Aging infrastructure, lack of maintenance and planning
Planning for future growth and development
Dysfunction in Council. This issue, often defined in terms of personalities and personnel conflict, has continued on even though a number of members of council have changed. In fact, it has been recorded as a legacy over the life of the Crowsnest Pass, from its creation some twenty years ago.
There is currently a perception of block voting by the Mayor and other councilors, with many items receiving the same split vote.
The absence of longer range planning by Council is reflected in the administration. Management is distracted from its planning and evaluation functions by the effort required just keeping the ship afloat.
Concern over the increasing reliance on the residential tax base.
Concern with the lack of vision for the future
Another area of concern for the Crowsnest Learning Centre is the lack of financial reporting and abilities of the Society staff to do the necessary accounting work. The last annual financial statements are for 1997 and the current financial records are not considered adequate for the auditors to review. There is no budget process evident, including no Business Plan or no current operating budget for the Centre.
For the reader if you have not noticed yet all of these comments were taken from the Corporate Review of 2000, available on the Municipal Web site.
The more I read the present report and compare it to the previous report the more I realize that they are the same. The only thing that as changed is the cast, with one exception our leader, the Mayor.
Now it comes clear to me why the Mayor was so opposed to the Corporate Review!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Corporate Review now available.
Got a couple of hours to spare, go to the address below and have a read of the Corporate Review conducted by George Cuff and Associates. If you would like a paper copy they are available at the municipal office.
The report was presented to Council and Administration on Oct 29th, and then at a public meeting that same night. It as not been formally accepted by council yet, because it takes a formal council meeting for that process to happen. Next council meeting is Nov 3 at 7pm in the council chambers.
http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/
The report was presented to Council and Administration on Oct 29th, and then at a public meeting that same night. It as not been formally accepted by council yet, because it takes a formal council meeting for that process to happen. Next council meeting is Nov 3 at 7pm in the council chambers.
http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
