Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Lies and truths in the Crowsnest Pass

Issue of advertisng: Very interested to read the editiorial in the Pass Herald this week I will quote "For example, stating that it was costing taxpayers in the Crowsnest Pass $50,000 a year for advertising is a blatant lie"

Well folks lets set the record straight first of all the issue of advertising was on the G+P meeting agenda last night which was discussed by council for almost a half hour. Within that discussion is was pointed out by administration that the sum of between $6-700,000 as been spent in the last seven years on advertising. I have trouble with my math but that comes out to close to $100,000 per year.

Second of all I would like to point out the following:  http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/council  go to November 2, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes on page 2 is a report on Ms Lisa Syguteks presentation to council regarding advertising it states the following regarding 2008 advertising costs  (remember it was tendered out for 2009 and 2010).
  • 2008 advertising in the Crowsnest Pass Herald – approximately $30,000
  • 2008 advertising in the competitor– approximately $35,000
For those of you that don't know Ms Sygutek is the publisher of the Pass Herald. If anybody requires further information I have the numbers for at least two years prior to 2008 just have to spend a little time digging them up.

But you don't have to take my word for it check with the municipality $700,000 for the last seven years and check the minutes from Nov 2,2010

More to follow:

Always intrigued me to watch a politician attempt to play both sides of an issue, the MGA does not require municipalities to advertise everything they do, the legal requirement calls for just a few issues to be advertised.
So last night within the debate about advertsing administration states that $6-700,000 as been spent in the last seven years. One of the councilors asks the question what would that number have been if we had only advertised what we were legally required to. Administration states that it would have been approximatly a $100,000.
Then Councilor Gallant speaks up he states the following "You know I supported us advertising in both papers it was important to communicate with the public to get our message out, but I also believe that we should only be advertising what the MGA requires us to do"
Well you can't have it both ways the CAO as just told you that if the municipality had advertised what it was legally required to do the advertising would have been cut by 85%. But on the other hand you stated it was important to advertise in both papers to communicate with the public!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stop confusing us! we don't want to have a debate based on facts.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the reporter on Bud's payroll that he has such high regards for will follow up next week by correcting her boss on the repeated errors of his ways, with respect to his distortion and misrepresentation of his true portion of the double dipping meal ticket called municipal advertising.

JP

Anonymous said...

Why am I not surprised with this high level of incompentence.
Maybe next week they can do an editorial on how much money the center made. In light of that revelation there will be a task force struck up to look at the viability of reopening the building.

Anonymous said...

Next time they need tools for the town shop will they buy half from one local supplier and half from another?
I suspect they will go with the cheapest supplier.

Jack

Anonymous said...

Hey Jack

Great analogy ... But

This is CNP! They will order the same tools from EVERY supplier and then raise franchise fees to pay the bills.

LOL

Anonymous said...

I was sure I read on the municipality web page, on the agenda for Oct 11, they were going to be discussing“Transparency.”

Maybe I'm wrong, because now I do not see Oct 11 council package even on the web page.

Did they discuss, and if so what did they have to say about their lack of transparency?

Anonymous said...

The only way they could reduce advertising to 1 paper would to have a vote of 7-0. That way the papers would have to pick on all of them instead of just 4.

Crowsnest Pass Home said...

Council decided to put of being transparent until the Oct 25th meeting

Anonymous said...

ha-ha-ha-ha-ha "put off being transparent"

Anonymous said...

Very interested to read Mr Gallants comments. Did he really make those comments? I hope you are not twisting words here Dean

Back to his election promise about taxes I assume that he did not include franchise fees in his interpretation of a tax.

Alex

Crowsnest Pass Home said...

2:23

The meeting are all taped for about $35 I think you can get a tape.

As far as Mr Gallant's interpretation of what is a tax you would have to ask him.

Anonymous said...

Its easy to vote NO on tax increases when you know its going through irregardless.
If you are truly that opposed to tax increases you will fight them to the end.
Not just raise your hand when the Mayor asks for who's against.

Larry

Anonymous said...

Crowsnest Pass Home said...
2:23

The meeting are all taped for about $35 I think you can get a tape.

But where can I get a tape player? All I have is a computer with an Internet connection. Oh, wait, I also have a gramophone - do they also have it on 78 RPM records?