Ratepayers letter to Municipal Affairs + Russell Farmer

Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association


General Delivery
Hillcrest Mines, Alberta - TOK lCO

May 24, 2013

Tim Morrison, Chief of Staff Department of Municipal Affairs Chris Hutchison, Principal Russell Farmer & Associates Consulting Ltd.


Dear Mr. Morrison and Mr. Hutchison,

Regarding our petition, we did not petition the Minister to remove our sitting Council because our hope was the Municipal Review itself would be enough to bring about better governance. Unfortunately, with the review well under way, it is now clear our hopes have been misplaced.

Our Council and administration keep behaving as if the petition never took place and the concerns of the petitioners are all but ignored. The Municipal Newsletter, copy included,has been used to tell us to, more or less, be quiet while important work is being done.

It appears our sitting Council, and the administration, are of the opinion that the problems in which they find themselves with the voters are mainly due to poor communication. The petitioners, on the other hand, strongly feel that the real problems are not due to poor communication. We are convinced, now more than ever, the real problem is poor municipal governance.

While change is always difficult, change should not be used as an excuse for poor governance. If, as the municipal newsletter claims, our council is developing a policy driven governance,then the proper policies, first and foremost, must be applied to Council work. It appears to us our Council is prepared to bend, or stretch, policies when it comes to its own behaviour.

The criticism most often heard on the street is still about the lack of open debate in council. Decisions were, and are, made without the ratepayers understanding the rationale for these decisions.

Now we learn our Council has been having Secret Meetings, they have conducted these meetings under the name of Administrative Meetings for more than two years. They feel it is alright to have secret meetings and the Privacy Act is the legislation used to support this belief.

There is no provision in our current Procedural By-Law for having secret meetings of the Municipal Council, without minutes taken, and with a quorum of councillors present. There is also no record of a motion being passed to have such Secret Meetings. Using the Privacy Act to justify such secret meetings appears to be taking the Act into an area where it was never meant to go.

A Municipal Council Meeting, with a quorum present, is not a 11Cabinet" or a 11Caucus" or designated committee, or a few public officials debating policy in a relaxed environment.

Our Municipal Council is also our legislative body and it is having Secret Meetings (with a quorum present) outside our Procedural By-Law. This appears to be much the same as if the Alberta Legislature, with a majority of the MLAs present, were having secret meetings at the legislature without anyone keeping minutes. No one would tolerate such behaviour at the Provincial level and the same can be said when it comes down to municipal governance.

Changing the name of the meeting from Administrative Meeting to a CAO Report half way through a Provincial Municipal Audit,with the hope to legitimize these meetings, does not change anything. In fact, if it were not so serious, it would almost be comical.

We feel these Secret Meetings are a serious breach of municipal protocols. The knowledge these meetings taking place also helps us understand why we have witnessed so little debate in open forum. While the CAO claims "he seeks no input, direction nor do we develop strategy," he offers no records to back his claims. If no records are kept, imagination wanders. This is not good governance within a public body.

It is also unfortunate our CAO used the name of George Cuff to legitimize the format of these meetings once questions were raised. We are not sure that a respected and experienced municipal expert like Mr. Cuff would have supported such format if he was given, what looks to us, the full context of how these meetings seem to have come about and how these meetings appear to have been held.

These Secret Meetings involving the quorum of council and the lack oftransparency in the decision making process is at the root of our governance problem.

There are many examples of decisions and actions taking place without a transparent council debate and a proper council resolution. A few examples which underline the problem are:

• Municipal review of our electrical system with a possibility of future sale of our municipal assets to Fortis Alberta. The community has been aware such a review has been taking place. When we contacted our CAO about the review, he acknowledged the review. When we asked him if there was a Council debate and resolution to such effect, he replied that it was not necessary because it is in the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is not there to replace processes which normally take place in the administration of a municipality. The Strategic Plan is also very clear about the need for transparency.

• Our community has also been aware that the municipality hired consultants to conduct a forensic audit of our former fire department. While such audits are sometimes required, it is not a common occurrence in a community of our size. These types of audits are very expensive if done right and costs and benefits should be debated. We have enquired of our CAO whether an audit of this type is being undertaken and whether there was a council resolution to that effect. Our CAO replied to us that while such an audit may not be common, there was no council resolution because it was within his administrative purview to order such an audit on his own. It appears that only one part of the municipal operations was singled out for this audit. In the end,we may be faced with expensive and unproductive legal costs. Only a proper debate can bring out both sides to a story.

• Since there was no visible debate on fire department restructuring, we feel that Edmonton may have not been presented with a clear picture of our former fire department. We don't know what was presented, but is not hard to paint an organization in a negative light if enough effort is put into the task. A couple of examples which may have been used were the storage of fireworks in a building constructed for that purpose behind the fire hall or the presence of alcoholic beverages at the fire hall. The alcoholic beverages were kept under lock and key and were mostly leftover from the many charity fund raisers in which the firemen were involved with. Since the liquor store will not take back open case or open bottles, that liquor was being held for future charity events. One can use these two examples to paint a good picture of the fire hall or to paint a bad picture of the fire hall; it all depends on who needs the picture.

• We don't know who called the police about the fireworks being stored in a purpose built building behind the fire hall, but it is clear to the community that the removal of the fireworks could have been affected in a more mature manner by everyone involved. After all, these fireworks were purchased through the joint effort of the municipality and the fire department and were stored on municipal premises with the full knowledge of municipal authorities.

The current forensic audit of the fire department can be viewed through the same lens as the calling of the RCMP to the Fireworks storage building. When an organization as large as our municipality finds problems in only one area of its operations, it seems to us the question should always be asked whether other areas of operations are also a contributing factor to these problems. This is why escalating such issues into the legal arena usually ends up costing a lot of money for legal work.

• We have a recorded instance, as described by Councillor Andrew Saje in his report (attached) where the council discussed something in camera and then subsequently, when they came out of camera, instructed the CAO to take action without an appropriate motion taking place. One can only imagine that the hiring of Calder Batman from Edmonton to give advice on public relations and crisis communications was something that someone wanted to keep off the record; this is really not how things should be done in a small community such as ours. When the news finally came out, the whole affair appeared to us as an unnecessary public relations disaster. Excuses were given why there was no resolution to hire the company, but since there was no budget for this kind of thing, we feel a resolution should have been taken. A policy should not be avoided just because it is inconvenient and appears easy to avoid.

There were many different reasons which led to the petition and we feel our council has failed to address our main concern, which from day one, was a very apparent lack of transparency in council's decision making process. We would like to thank the Minister for granting us the Municipal Inspection. It is still our hope that the review process will allow all of us an opportunity for reflection and, ultimately, lead to better Municipal Governance in the Crowsnest Pass.

Sincerely,

William Kovach, Petitioner's Representative

Cc: Myron Thompson
George Cuff
Pass Herald
Pass Promoter
Municipality of CNP council
Lethbridge Herald

MD of Ranchlands and annexation

At the last Council meeting CAO Myron Thompson reported that the MD of Ranchlands council were meeting the same day (May 7) and that he was hopeful that they would respond to our municipality's request for further discussions on the issues of either amalgamation or annexation.
Having had some interaction with the CAO and council of Ranchlands during my terms on council I expect that in the not too distant future possibly as early as next week it appears they will lay out their position.

My fellow blogger John Prince has the following post available @. http://blog.johnprince.ca/2013/05/news-tip-what-goes-around-comes-around.html

If the speculation proves to be true that they are taking out advertising in the local papers both here and in Nanton, that advertising may appear at first to be directed towards the residents of the Crowsnest Pass and the MD of Ranchlands.
Keep in mind the real audience is in Edmonton at municipal affairs our local politicians can make the case all they want about inequalities of linear tax bases but at the end of the day a decision will be made by the Minister of Municipal affairs.
Bottom line, will we be seeing Ranchlands tax base has our financial saviour anywhere in the next few years? Call me negative call me what you want the answer is No.
Edmonton will not make this process easy for us and neither will Ranchlands, give me one good reason why they would, and don't think for a second that every MD in the province isn't watching this. We all know how much sway the rural areas have amongst the provincial conservative party.
Will our Mayor try to spin this into it's now critical to keep myself and those other six fellows I spend Tuesday nights with in power to finish of the process of annexing Ranchlands?  
 

Cremona does this ring a bell

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/cremona-council-cracks-under-pressure-1.1211128

http://www.cochraneeagle.com/article/20130306/COE0801/303069992/-1/coe/cremona-council-increases-its-number-to-five

They just don’t get it……… or are they?

Now both Councilors that blog have spoken plus the Mayor’s press release from last week, it appears to me that they and the rest of council are not getting the message about the petition. (See links below)

They are all welcoming Municipal Affairs, they all have nothing to hide, and the people have been misled or intimidated. I have this vision in my mind of the Mayor and Council waving their arms and telling the Minister to “bring it on”.

Personally, I do not and I think most people would agree expect Municipal Affairs to send somebody in here that is going to find massive incidents of fraud or other criminal activity.

We all know that we have had petitions in the Crowsnest Pass before; they failed for one reason or another. From the research, I have done other communities that have been involved in petitions some succeeded some failed. I cannot find one other community where such a high percentage of the population signed a petition so fast. In less than twenty days, every second voter in this community signed the petition.

Does that not say something? The message Council and administration should be getting, is that the taxpayers are not happy. Rome was not built in a day and yes people will accept “change” it always a matter of how much and how fast.

Some people say to me that this Council due to some of their member’s arrogance, naivety, or just plain state of denial will never get the taxpayers message. We should not lose sight of the fact that since the petition was presented to Municipal Affairs, the municipality has changed course on a number of issues, removing the Swimming Pool Authority, The Quint Ladder truck, Franchise Fees. What is next? May be we will all be seduced with the ultimate in vote buying a smaller tax increase.   

Weather they are getting the message or not one thing they will not be able to beat is time. All politicians find out that the same people that put them in power can remove them just has fast. Come October 22, 2013 people will analysis the results, some people will be very happy and some will claim the voters were misled, intimidated or any other excuse that makes the speaker feel better.    

http://emilesaindon.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/its-been-awhile-2/#comments

http://briangallant.ca/wordpress/2012/11/03/the-other-side-of-the-petition/

A community divided, the real fix is eleven months away.

My fellow blogger Mr Prince is calling for a town hall meeting, the people that signed the petition are waiting for municipal affairs.

I think this municipality at this point in its short history is deeply divided, unfortunately it is not going to be repaired in the next eleven months. Any one of us can wish for a different out come but realistically it is not coming in the short term. The petition and municipal affairs will run its cause and hopefully something will come of that, if not then people need to be preparing for October 21^st 2013 that will be the communities next real opportunity for “change”.

Why do I feel it’s too late for real change with this council, the issues that have been put in front of the taxpayers over the last two years have been too numerous and two divisive.

Can a town hall meeting fix these issues? I don’t think so, most of the people I speak to could care less about a town hall meeting they have seen them become a platform for our leader to pump his chest, berate anybody that disagrees with him. I was so shocked when I watched a highly educated seventy year old man walk across a room to the sound of a few boos, waving his arms and telling the people to bring it on. (Leadership?)

I sat down last Friday and listened to a veteran administrator tell a reporter the way it is. (Yes it was as bad has it sounds). Communications has not been this council’s downfall in all honesty they have probably done a better job of communicating than any previous council, the problem is not so much communications it is what they have said and done. 

This Council believes in building a Bureaucracy by the time they have restructured they will have gone through more administrators in eighteen months than any other council in our history and have more upper management in place then we have ever seen before. Mean while we have a demoralized workforce that is scared and bullied to the point where a large percentage of them are in fear of their jobs.

This community has no commercial tax base, if we only did what we could pay for three quarters of what happens in this community would not happen. The key for this community is volunteers I came to learn this lesson over the last ten years, are there any volunteers left? Sure there are but not many, with what happened with Thunder in the Valley/Rum Runner Days and the Firemen situation who’s going to step forward. Want more proof of that look at municipal boards despite three months of advertising nine boards are short of members. Why do you think council backpedaled on getting rid of the Swimming Pool Authority two weeks ago? They desperately need to reverse the perception in the public forum as to how volunteers are being treated. What we did not  need is a member of council slamming the public because they didn’t support their way of doing things on the Rum Runner days weekend maybe just maybe the silent majority did not want it to change.  

The public has spoken about how they feel, despite the fact that 2500 people signed a petition in less than three weeks (more than double what is legally required). This council and its members can only focus on the “silent majority still supports us”, “or people were bullied and intimidated into signing”. Tell those people to contact municipal affairs I am sure the powers to be would love an excuse not to deal with this petition. Does it not say that the public has a problem with where you are going?

Look at our tax situation we hear great fanfare about a three year budget that only had annual increases of 2.5%, I didn’t hear anybody from council or administration tell us that Franchise Fees were going to increase more than 300% in three years.

Will the books balance at the end of the year? Of course they will I could spend hours writing about how numbers are shuffled. For example  take a look at Manager of Corporate Services, that position was only filled for three months this year. The other nine months of monies set aside for that position will be used to make the numbers work. My concern is the million dollars a year of administration moving forward how do we pay for that in future years when all the positions are filled year round?

Financial credibility is there any out there, after waiting for three and a half months look at the numbers that were presented for Rum Runner Days, remember the talk about $150-$200,000 not even close.   

Community Peace Officers all those that think these positions are going to pay for themselves raise your hand now. That’s a fallacy that will be proven over time, I can remember the consultant telling council at a G+P meeting that there were 290+ locations in violation of the unsightly premises bylaw how many of them have been cleaned up? Is there a date that they will be cleaned up by? So what happens with the bylaw officers once they are cleaned up?

Promises even though they were followed with a “you can take this with a grain of salt”

CLC gone before first snowfall, sharing Ranchlands tax base, Quebec manufacturer, deal with the hotel developer done in two weeks, two more, thirty days, heavy industry with up to 700 jobs. Politically you can sell hope all you want but sooner than later it has to be realized or you lose creditability.    

I think we have reached the point where the majority (be they loud or silent) do not pay a whole lot of attention anymore to what this council has to say or do. Most people are counting down the time until Oct 21,2013. Will a town hall meeting change that?   

Ratepayers Petition Give the process a chance.

I am sure by now most people have read the response from municipal affairs to a friend of John’s after that individual had wrote a letter to Municipal affairs regarding the present situation in the Crowsnest Pass.

How will Municipal affairs respond to the concerns raised by residents of the Crowsnest Pass?

On an individual basis I expected nothing less than what you see in the letter on Mr Prince’s Blog. From my reading of the MGA there is no legal requirement for the minister to do anything unless the threshold of 20% is reached.

http://www.johnprince.ca/documents/Doug%20Griffiths.pdf

There is a difference between an individual complaint to Municipal Affairs and the petition that will be delivered to the minister’s office. First of all if Municipal affairs looked at what was going on in a community every time somebody complained they would need a staff of hundreds. That is why there is a process in place that requires a substantial number of voters to speak up before they do take a look at a municipality. Let’s face it even if one hundred individual complaints came from the Crowsnest Pass to the government that sounds like a lot but it’s less than two percent of the population.  

We all recognize that municipal politicians have to face the test of the public every three years, for the most part that process should be respected and it is. There are very rare occasions where governments do not represent the wishes or direction of the people that put them in office, at provincial and federal levels you have official oppositions to keep government accountable and to point out when they are misleading the voters.

In Alberta Municipal politics you do not have official oppositions to make government accountable, councils are made up of seven individuals that are suppose to have their own minds, be willing to speak up and represent all the members of their communities. Again for the most part this takes place but for when the system fails or a substantial part of public has a clear disagreement with the direction their community is being led, then under the MGA you have the right to start a petition. It is not an easy feat you must collect 20% of the populations signatures on a piece of paper in 30 days maximum.

Only then will you get municipal affairs to look at what’s going on in our community, first of all they will validate that you have 20% of the population, we all remember a petition failed previously because it could not reach that number. There will not be a problem there, with over  40% of the population signed in just 20 days. It would be hard to believe that just this fact alone would not catch the attention of Municipal Affairs. Then I believe they will take a closer look at what is going on here, I think they will talk to the Council, administration and the Ratepayers executive.

Will anything happen from there? That’s the million dollar question that only municipal affairs can answer. Is there any guarantee’s that Municipal affairs will do anything? None at all. I do know for sure that they will not look at our issues based on one or even a hundred taxpayers letters, complaints or phone calls.

If the petition fails, we could have done nothing but the people of the Crowsnest Pass choose to use part of the democratic process provided to them by the Alberta government under the MGA. "53% of the eligible voters choice to exercise that right" 

At a minimum to have 2500 people sign a petition in less than three weeks should send a message to somebody.

Municipalities of Alberta receive a clear message from the province

Cold Lake is a municipality in Alberta that was formed a number of years back by the province bringing a number of communities together and making them into one larger municipality. (Sounds familiar?)
Over the last ten years the community as grown substantially incurring added demands on its infrastructure and making it more difficult year after year for its leaders to balance the books.
In a nut shell the communities revenue base as not grown as fast as its added burdens. While around the community are a number of Municipal Districts whose tax base as grown tremendously due to increased industrial activity but most of the people that work in those areas live in Cold Lake.
Cold Lake as attempted to gain financial assistance from those surrounding communities to assist with its growth issues a satisfactory resolve could not be achieved so in an unusual move last year the Council requested the province to dissolve their municipality and merge them into the surrounding wealthy MD problem solved, right?
The province understanding that this issue would be watched closely by many municipalities in the province, commissioned George Cuff to do a study on the sustainability of Cold Lake which he did, that report was presented to their council last week. (Available at the link below all 206 pages of it)

http://municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/documents/msb/ReportColdLakeFinal_30_04_10.pdf

Summed up in Layman terms with out any sugar coating the report basically says the following:

The municipality will not be dissolved, (so why would the province allow it elsewhere? addresses one of the craziest ideas I have heard around here recently)

Get along with your neighbours and try to workout an arrangement with them to share revenues if they are willing, with no legal requirement for them to assist you, (kind of like going cap in hand and hoping your neighbours will bail you out)

Improve your financial situation by raising taxes, or reducing spending. (Cutting services)

In one part of the report it talks about the wisdom of the city building a new arena when its facing serious financial difficulties.

The point of this post and I believe the message the province as just given to Cold Lake and more importantly every other community watching this situation is?
Solve your own financial problems, there is no easy way out, do not expect your neighbours or the province to do it for you.

Get your financial house in order.

Petition fails in the Crowsnest Pass

Well the results are in the petition to Municipal Affairs failed, 1150 valid signatures were required the Representative from the "Citizens to save the Crowsnest Pass" claimed they had 1201 signatures so somewhere between 51 or more signatures were determined to be invalid.

Will we ever know how many signatures for sure were thrown out? No the ministry only rules wether the petition was valid or invalid. So in theory there is somewhere between one and 1149 valid signatures on the petition, I'm sure either side of this debate will argue in the direction that works for them.

Some questions that were asked of myself regarding this petition, my answers are purely my opinion.

What started this petition? Some very vocal members of the public who disagree with the position of the majority of council.

Who was behind the petition? A group called the "Citizens to save the Crowsnest Pass"

If these people were so concerned why did they not run in the last election?
Maybe they did, or maybe they are laying the ground work for the next election

Did I believe that 20% of the taxpayers felt council was heading in the wrong direction?
No and obviously neither did the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Did I believe that some people felt they were misled into signing the petition? told that to clean up the river run mess, or to save the Blairmore arena they should sign the petition for example?
I have a tough time believing those statements that would be dishonest and misleading!

Should council be concerned about a large group of taxpayers signing a petition?
Of course we should, that is why the majority of council dealt with issues that were raised by the "Citizens to save the Crowsnest Pass" and many other taxpayers.

What issues were raised by this group that the majority of council as recognized?
Corporate review, taxes last year over 11% increase this year 3.8%. We preserved our reserves by not moving forward on the Coleman Shop and yes we should be building them. Services we had some minor reductions but the vast majority of our core services remain in tact.

Was I has a councilor concerned about a municipal review? not one bit the issue here in the Crowsnest Pass is not that democracy is not working, of course its working just not the way some people would like it to be.

The other reason I was not concerned about the review, prior to this petition being started the majority of council took the position that we should have a review of the municipality, that we need to determine where the strengths and weaknesses are.

The Minister's letter stated the following:
"However, I suggest that the municipality consider engaging a third party to conduct a review of the administrative and governance processes in place. The review presents an opportunity to evaluate the municipality's strengths and identify potentials for improvement."
Does that not sound like a corporate review?

Do I respect the opinions of the people that signed that petition? of course I do 99% of those people are good people but lets move forward now, lets recognize that some people are using the tools they have at hand to promote their future political ambitions.

Elections are a great part of the democratic process, I would encourage anybody that as the interest to step forward in October of 2010.

The Big Petition in the Crowsnest Pass

Yes I have a large number of people calling me with concerns regarding the petition:

What can we do? I feel like I was tricked in to signing the petition.
I have had the following comments made by people that signed the petition, they claimed to have been told by various people that encouraged them to sign the petition:
If you want to keep the Alberta Stella open sign up
If you want to stop the coal dust sign up
It's doesn't matter if you are a primary resident of the pass you can still sign
It doesn't matter if you are under 18 sign up
Do you really need to know whats on the petition just sign up and help us out

There is something you can do call the numbers at the bottom of the blog and let the minister of municipal affairs know what really happened here. Ask them to verify the signatures on the petition. And please remember your name will be held in the strictest confidence.



Read article 572 of the MGA:

Inquiry
572(1) The Minister may order an inquiry described in subsection (2) if the Minister receives
(a) a sufficient petition requesting the inquiry that is signed,
(i) in the case of a municipality other than a summer village, by electors of the municipality equal in number to at least 20% of the population, and
(ii) in the case of a summer village, by at least 20% of the electors of the summer village,
or
(b) a request for the inquiry from a council.
(2) An inquiry may be conducted into
(a) the affairs of the municipality,
(b) the conduct of a councillor, or an employee or agent of the municipality, or
(c) the conduct of a person who has an agreement with the municipality relating to the duties or obligations of the municipality or a person under the agreement.
(3) The Minister may appoint one or more persons to conduct an inquiry under this section.
(4) The person or persons appointed to conduct an inquiry are entitled to the fees and expenses specified by the Minister and the Minister may direct who is to pay for the inquiry.
(5) The person or persons appointed to conduct an inquiry have all the powers and duties of a commissioner appointed under the Public Inquiries Act.
(6) The person or persons appointed to conduct an inquiry must report to the Minister and the council and, if there was a petition under subsection (1)(a), to the representative of the petitioners.


No where in this section does it state that this action will force the municipality to keep over an arena, nowhere does it state that the municipality will be forced to clear up the coal problem.

If you really felt that you were misled on the petition, phone municipal affairs you can do it for free.

1. Phone 310-0000 they will ask you to put in a 10 digit number 780 427 2225 you will get through to the Municipal Advisers number explain to them your concerns

2. Phone 310-0000 they again will ask you to put in a 10 digit number 780-427-3744 you will get through to Ray Danyluks the Minister of municipal affairs number explain to him your concerns.

3. Remember the numbers above are for free.