"The CNP Employee Code of Conduct says don't:
Post, solicit, distribute, wear or otherwise display political material or Messages in or on Municipal Assets."
An employee code of conduct is a very important document that lays out to the employees of an organization how they should be conducting themselves in the way they perform their jobs. It really is an issue of ensuring that everybody in that organization acts in an ethical manner, especially when the employer is in essence the taxpayers and so much of the employees duties are conducted in the public eye. Rules are good, should be enforced and should apply to everyone in an organization.
This leads to the issue of leadership, in any organization if you are going to have a code of conduct then the weight of enforcing it usually falls on the leadership of the organization. In this day and age how can you expect the employees to adhere to the code of conduct when the "leadership" chooses not to? The Mayor states the following "As to our newsletter being political; well, I am the Mayor and I will make some political comments" please take a moment and reflect on his comment versus what the code of conduct says above.
The Mayor has taken the monthly newsletter that should be informing the residents about what is going on in the municipality and turned it into a tool that pushes his political agenda and becomes an opportunity to attack his opposition. In the USSR they used to call it "Pravda" lets face it there is a reason the Mayor's comments come first.
Lets get to the $44,000 issue the Mayor states "Please note that this newsletter is budgeted for and falls within our plan to improve communication and transparency. It costs you about $0.65 per month"
By itself $0.65 does not sound like a lot of money but lets do the math 5600 people at 65 cents a month is $3640 on an annual basis that is $43,680. Is that really necessary? that's a lot of money, imagine for a second how many pot holes could be filled for $43,680.
Note: Cost of administration $4325 per day
20 comments:
I think the key point is that our Newsletter is put out by our civil service employees. This includes the CAO who has ultimate responsibility for spending and use of municipal facilities.
Employees should not put their own political bumper stickers on our municipal trucks. They also should not put Bruce's mudslinging political rumours in our Newsletter.
The Mayor has no authority to order the CAO to do this. It would require a Council resolution. That might make it legal, but it would still stink.
"An employee code of conduct is a very important document that lays out to the employees of an organization how they should be conducting themselves in the way they perform their jobs. It really is an issue of ensuring that everybody in that organization acts in an ethical manner, especially when the employer is in essence the taxpayers".
All this is fine and dandy...unless those that make the rules are actually corrupt themselves. Someone should hire a personal consultant to help himself understand his own policies.
5600 people at 65 cents a month is $3640 on an annual basis that is $43,680.
Now take that number and divide it amongst the amount of taxpayers that actually end up paying the bill. (Nice twisting the numbers there Bruce)
Does anyone remember a certain councilor that stated "what's another 25 cents a day?" Well, I have an issue with being taxed, once again, to finance a politician's grandstanding.
Isn't that pretty close to the amount of money that it cost us for all the (inflated?) costs for extras (police,? security,?) that we (needed?) to have, to continue with letting TITV be held in our community? Of course, with deferring that event, this freed up a little cash in the budget to sponsor Brucey's little "newsletter." Umm.....not a fair trade I would say. I'm pretty sure the businesses in town would agree with me!
Our Mayor has zero political skills. Annexing Ranchlands is all about politics and Bruce is completely out of his depth there. Does he not realize having a municipal inspection is not a badge of honor as far as Edmonton is concerned? The word they may think of is " nuisance."
2:53 wrote:
"Someone should hire a personal consultant to help himself understand his own policies."
The province hired Russell Farmer. I wonder if RF is still watching the Gong Show or if he is into the report writing stage of his inspection?
My bet, Ranchlands get's tired of it all and in response comes to annex a piece of CNP and probobly get's it. I couldn't really blame them if they did.
Election Plank: two months before municipal election, start the paperwork (easy part) for the annexation process of Ranchlands.
After filling the papers and spending additional dollars (senirs reserves?) on lawyers, tell the residents: "all the heavy lifting for annexation is now done, all you need is four more years to see it through.
Result: the experiment cannot be replicated for the second time.
I think Ranchlands is both shocked and laughing at the same time, while we have thrown them another brick for a firewall that will haunt relationships with our neighbours for years to come.
Do not be afraid re-elect either myself or mini-Bruce and in no time we will have $3.8 million a year coming in. Our CFO just informed me if we put that in the bank for 40 years we will have $152 million more than enough to build an indoor swimming pool in each community. Plus then we can hire four Pool managers who will all report to the new Director of Aquatic Facilities.
Now if we could convince Ranchlands to throw in an extra $1 per year we could build a new office to fill with our administrative team.
Larry
05:30,
TITV may have gone ahead. Brian should have lowered the projected RCMP budget with an offer of free camping for the RCMP and their families.
It seems to be that there is a real double standard here. What benefits 'certain' ventures is OK... all other ventures were made to pay.
I do agree that the use of municipal land, right downtown, for camping during events is a great idea and a terrific asset.
Maybe the Muni should establish a 'policy' on this, as they do with business licences, establishing certain fees so that organisations can integrate this into their events.
A split with local charity groups is a definite possibility and the taxpayer would benefit.
Lets say I work for the municipality and let's say I wear a shirt to work that says BLAIR PAINTER FOR MAYOR would that be against the code of conduct? Because if any of those shirts happen to get made drop some off at the municipal shops and they will be proudly worn
I do not agree that municipal land downtown should be used for camping. Very tacky, and looks ugly for tourists. And, most importantly, they are camping across from private houses. Taxpayers should not have to have campers across from them in their community.
Imagine all the inconvenience Stampede and Klodike Days bring to certain neighborhoods in Calgary and Edmonton. Our Mayor and Council must have had all this on their minds when they cancelled Thunder in the Valley. CAVERS and their friends must find something else to do on that weekend.
Who is Blair Painter please.
Anon 9:34 Spoken like a true lover of this administration. Up yours, that they had this on their minds. What minds??
Does anyone know whether our council is still conducting secret deliberations about the sale of our electrical transmission lines? This would be a mistake without a proper open debate in council.
You do not have people camping in downtown Calgary or Edmonton, or any city or town that I know of for that matter. Just not good. Lots of camping around here. Doesn't have to be on somebody's doorstep.
Have you lived near the Stampede Park during the Stampede? Would make you wish for few campers in Blairmore. We used to have a special event here and now we have a petting zoo, both on and off council.
What a waste of money
Post a Comment