So, in the previous post I covered the meeting last night as factually as possible from the notes I took. Now I'm going to throw my observations and opinions out there, and I do so not from any partisan motivation at this point but out of real fear for the future of Montague.
Right from the top of last night's meeting the atmosphere was very different from the first meeting. There were a few more people present, I think, although many of the same faces were there. But there was much more tension in the room even before the event began.
Reeve Doyle's approach was confrontational and defensive from the beginning of his opening statement. He looked worried this time out. At the first meeting he was almost bored, but last night the impression was of a man realising his grip on power could be beginning to slip.
Things started out reasonably enough with the opening statements and even the first questions. Tensions didn't really begin to rise until a firefighter took the microphone and in what was clearly a personally motivated move asked Hal MacGregor to identify the causes of division within the township. There was some banter back and forth at this point, but even here it was really a predictable fencing match between the two. Obviously personal but not venomous
The question that started the downward spiral for me was the question of the $25 donation to the seniors club. That Reeve Doyle could actually stand there and defend the decision not to make this donation, basically because his precious feathers had been ruffled by some individuals in the seniors club, was beyond me. Peter Kavanagh used the word 'unworthy'. I don't have to be so polite; I'll call that decision what it was and is: petty, vindictive, and contemptible. It was nicely followed up by Vince Carroll's innuendo that the seniors had faked vandalism of their heat pump. Great work there. Good to know council's really got their heads screwed on.
The question to Dianne Coates about her alleged 'volatility' was predictable, but was asked and answered civilly. Throughout the evening, Dianne's cool, articulate handling of some inappropriate comments was a living answer to all of the questions of this nature that she's been asked. She was accused of being disrespectful to Doyle and Schoular; in fact this didn't happen, but plenty of disrespect was thrown her way.
Then, the lawsuit can of worms was opened good and proper. Again, Doyle was asked what he'd learned. Last time he'd been 'blindsided' by the Charter. This time it 'interfered'. Yes, your Reeve thinks the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an 'interference' in the way he does his job. He'd rather we didn't have such a thing, because it really does make running Montague Gary's way an awful lot harder. All those inconvenient things like people asking questions, speaking their mind, talking about him. How dare we. To me, this answer, the choice of the word 'interfere' is extremely revealing about Mr. Doyle's attitude.
It got better. Nobody wanted a lawsuit, said Doyle. It was a last resort. How does this square with the threat of 'immediate legal action' that was made on January 13, 2005 in writing by Mr. Doyle? Mr. Doyle apparently goes from zero to last resort in three weeks. Quick work, sure, but not necessarily mature, smart, or appropriate in an elected official. Evidence has since been provided to me that Mr. Doyle's issuing of threatening letters is a long term pattern of behaviour in matters other than the Don Page suit.
David Schoular, not to be outdone, followed up with an outright lie. The Charter, he said, was not an issue until the day of the court hearing. Uh huh... So those CCLA lawyers you refused to hear, what did you think they'd come to talk about? Also, the township must have been served with the pre-trial motion to dismiss well ahead of the actual court date. So David Schoular lied, on record.
Then we hit the low point of the evening when a grinning individual took the microphone and asked John McTavish about his alleged bankruptcy. The question was out of order. The motivation was purely personal animosity; it was visible and palpable. Pure vindictiveness at work. Almost worse was the sight of this individual returning to his place with a series of handshakes and high-fives from friends. Good one guys. Be proud of yourselves. It takes real heroism to crow over anothers personal misfortune.
The question to David Schoular about his dismissal was ruled out of order, although in fact it is highly relevant, because it concerns a conflict of interest related directly to his serving in elected office. So, since no question is out of order here, here's a reminder of the answer.
I've got a free piece of career advice for David; join the McGuinty Liberals. I think you'd make an excellent McGuinty MPP. You'd fit right in.
Last night, although the MRA folks haven't behaved anywhere near perfectly, it was my genuine sense that they are ready to move on and put things behind them. It was very interesting to watch the group at the back of the room all evening. Obviously they have their preferred slate of candidates. No secret there. But what I noticed was that even when one of their own talked about moving on, about leaving the division of the lawsuit behind, not one of them applauded. They stood stony faced. Didn't look too much like any of them actually want to move on. They struck macho poses and grinned that grin that teenage boys get when they're acting tough. To me, they looked like nothing more than a group of schoolyard bullies.
So here's the deal as far as I see it. Yes, some nasty things were said about the fire department. Yes, some were untrue and possibly defamatory. But, they had their day in court and the matter was resolved - and if not, then individuals should go ahead and sue Mr. Page themselves. They have every right. But they no longer have the right to paralyse the township by pursuing the feud or their personal vendettas against John McTavish, Dianne Coates, or anyone else, and neither do their supporters.
Neither do the MRA have the right to keep up with this. But life being what it is, sometimes one person or one group have to step up and make the first move. Sometimes you have to swallow a little pride. It makes you a better person and a stronger person. Last night showed the MRA group is ready to step up and move on. Will Doyle, council and the Fire Department? Vince Carroll tried; pity his colleagues couldn't join him.
It seems Mr. Doyle isn't prepared to listen to anyone, or to acknowledge any weakness or fault in his handling of anything. He uses secrecy and threats on a regular basis. Without openness and a willingness to listen, compromise, forgive and forget, we won't be getting anywhere. And last night I became convinced that we need a new council if that's ever to happen in Montague.
It's no longer about who's right and who's wrong. It's about who will and won't move on.
55 comments:
clive,
Please be careful with your generalized comments of the fire fighters. Please comment on individual behaviour and not paint all with the same brush. Just as all MRA members are not stirring any pot, neither are all firefighters. In fact, I don't even remember seeing many present members of the department there. In fact, there was only one who even spoke last night. (The other individual, who spoke quite harshly with his "adjectives" is not a fire fighter.) I fear that painting them with the same brush will just add fuel to this fire, and I do not sense that that is your intention for this blog. (Generalized comments about a group of people are rarely fair or accurate.)
I too was disturbed, and saddened at the level of anger and vindictiveness from both sides. What is going to become of this mess??? So many people are hurt. It certainly must end. Aren't people getting tired yet???
Thanks for the correction; no, I don't intend to paint all with the same brush. It was my mistake that the individual who took the evening to a new low was a firefighter; I have made the correction above. I stand by my opinion of that individual, however.
In the end, moving on requires both 'sides' to move on - and that requires the Reeve to move on. It's his leadership or lack thereof that really controls where we go at this point, I think. Everyone else is willing to talk but until Doyle takes responsibility for his choices, that 'side' won't be able to move on.
Clive,
I too was at the event last night, and I was standing at the back with the firefighters and I would like to point out to you that you are incorrect in your observation of the stone face and no clapping. I did clap with the mention of moving on. Also you state that the fireman don't seem to want to move on...I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure that Mr MacGregor, Mr Dobson and also Mrs. Coates still brought the incident into their speeches and answers. I don't disagree with you that this needs to become a part of the past and we need to proceed into the future, however I think it needs to be stated that it was not the fireman who continue to send newsletters etc. but I have read letters etc from members of the MRA group in regards to the incident and "how we must remember come election day". I am a Mom and it makes me proud and yet somewhat sad that my children have more maturity than a adult who is running for coucil. Also, I agree how the question was posed to Mr. MacTavish in regards to his bankruptcy may not have been appropriate, but in the same sense it does not sit well with me that someone who cannot not run his business wants to run MY business and MY money. As for hard feelings, I have read the remarks made by Mr Page and if it were me I think I would have a hard time trusting anyone to not hurt or defame myself or my family who had ties to this man. I hope on the fourteenth of November it will be a different place but I have a feeling that if certain people don't get elected to council, it will start all over again....
As the old saying goes - "A new broom sweeps clean". I think this is the case with our township, we need an all NEW council. We need a new council because the existing council has gotten bogged down, they have been in council too long and they take things personally and I don't think they can get over it so how can the township get past this with all this animosity.
Let's all pull together and get something done in our township. We need some recreation in our area, a meeting place for ALL to get together and enjoy our area. If Beckwith Township can do it, why can't we. A bandstand, horseshoe pits, BBQ area with picnic tables would be nice as well and wouldn't bankrupt us.
We need our firemen and their families, they do a lot for the area by way of volunteering and as well their fund raising. I for one want to thank them for what they do. Maybe a thank you dinner once a year would be something that the township council would be interested in.
Just my thoughts.
I believe that the current council does indeed host an appreciation dinner for all employees, including firemen, every Christmas. But you're right that they should be publicly appreciated. I'm worried that some of these men just might pack it in if these continued unproven attacks against them continue. Let's face it...they come to our assistance, day or night, 24/7 as volunteers = it's not like they're well paid to put up with this MRA crap! As far a the monetary issue is concerned, I fully agree that I do not want a man that cannot run a business in charge of my tax dollars! Personalities aside, that thought is just plain scary!
Good comments. I think we should be careful not to rush to judgement of Mr. McTavish; businesses fail for all kinds of reasons and unless you actually know the circumstances it's not really fair to say he "can't run a business". I personally know people who've lost businesses through absolutely no fault of their own.
As for 'continued' attacks - I don't believe anyone is attacking the firemen at the moment. It's in the past. Nobody is making any new allegations at this time, nor will they - at least, I hope not. Now the question is what happens next.
I would hope the firefighters are big, strong and courageous enough to put it behind them. The community supports them in what they do. The 'attacks' are over, the court case is over, and I think the firefighters need to leave it behind.
At the political level, though, it's still legitimate to hold Gary Doyle and his merry men accountable for their poor handling of the case. Doing that does not indicate any kind of attack on the firefighters, continued or otherwise.
Mr Doyle should feel shameful at what he has allowed to happen in this township. Yes he has stood by, posibily helped and certainly ensured that it continue. What can he be proud of? I, and do not feel am alone, feel only disgust for the goings on in the township.
As for the firefighters, grow up, stop acting like little children, you are not the first department ever to be critized no will you be the last. Not all but some of the members have been vocal in their position and it has frightened and even taken as threatening to some of the residents. Is this what you want from us? Are you proud of some of your boys that behave in this way? Yes you all work hard as firefighters, and it is a sometimes dangerous job, but does that mean that you are to be respected even when you behave disrespectful, act like bullies, and believe that you are untouchable.
The only ones to blame for the negativity towards the firefighters, are the extising council and the firefighers themselves. Take a look back on what this group (I do not include all fire members, those of your know who you are)has being doing and saying. But remember being part of the group reflects on you as to what your members are doing. I think it's frightening that some of the residents live in fear of their houses burning as they believe rightly or wronly that they might not get the service needed because they stand on the other side of opinion. The reeve of the township made it the firedarptments problem. If he had being doing his job and not taking the cowards way out to handle the situation there would be no negatively to the firedepartment. He used them to put in front of him as a shield at their cost. Not one of the members figured that out. The gentleman that attacked Mr MacTavish, I beleive he was a montague fire volunteer at one time and now a full time fireman for Kingston...shame on you, you lost a lot of respect I think, and if you are a product of the montague fire department, that's scarey. What makes the council,and the firedpartment, think they are untouchable? Read your papers, follow some political history, check other cities and townships, you will see when coruption is broken open to the public and how their departments were changed in a blink of an eye along with charges and lost careers.
I only hope that all the residents are not afraid to make a change in the township on election day. If the change is not made, I can only imagine how hard it will be for the residents for the next 4 years living with the strong arm of council and the associated departments controling and bulling.
Those of you you pass judgement on Mr MacTavish, re his business, you and anyone can be walking in his shoes in a blink of an eye, compasion not judgement is needed to put the townhsip back together.
I too remain unsigned, out of fear? Yes and I can't believe anyone reading this would not understand.
Enough of your kindergarden shunanigans. People are getting very bored with this playground he said/she said fingerpointing crap.
Regarding the previous post:
Lois Bennett, Past President of the MRA, was quoted in Macleans Magazine as saying "..we're all simple country folk..." (Jan.09/06 issue)
The statement implying there exists fear on the part of some Township residents of not getting fire service because of a difference in opinion gives way to an entirely different interpretation of Mrs. Bennett's statement that we're all SIMPLE country folk.
Perhaps her second quote in the Macleans article ("it's like back in the '30's in the hills of Tennessee") is a more appropriate description of the thought process of some Township residents.
whoever that was, needs to give their head a shake. The firefighters are the reason that they are being harassed and talked about? MAKES TOTAL SENSE! So basically, they 1) showed up...2)deal with the fire and 3) paid Mr. Page to make defamitory and slanderous comments about them....something is weird about that. (If they had, at least his accusations would have made more sense to me...oxygen?)
I think that the problem was an issue that was had between some individuals and present council, and the rest of the MRA and the firefighters were brought into it. It's sad to see that you can possibly think that they could bring it on themselves. Yes, maybe there is some hostility now, but before this all happened, there was nothing i didnt like about these men. I think that just as Mr. Page has his "right" to blame the firefighters for the death of that poor lady...the firefighters have every right to be angry and fed up with it still being in the air...and you cannot say that everyone but council and the firefighters have dropped it. I believe that it was Mr. Page himself that blew up at the first meeting...and it was a question posed by MRA affiliates (if you will) that brought it up in both meetings. Whilst you are open to your own opinion, i trust that you can at least accept all the facts and don't blur the truth to jutify your beliefs.
hi clive,
I also would like to offer a "view" of the meeting, live from the back row. We didnt sit there because we felt like "possying", we sat there because there were few chairs left when we went to sit down. As well, by sitting in the back row, I had the first hand view of my hands as well as those of many around me clapping when the suggestion was made that the lawsuit and surrounding questions/comments/bull be dropped. Moaning, bickering and complaining isn't going to help anything. Whats done is done. Lay the story to rest.
As well it seems that everyone thinks I am lying about what happened with Ms. Coates, why would I lie about something like that? I think you'll understand in my "gloating" and saying that I am smarter than that. First off, I don't feel it necessary to lie about anything, there is obviously enough to talk about in this election (haha.)And secondly, if someone were to make up a lie...do you not think it would be much more appealing to the public eye than one woman throwing comments at another?
I am re-sending my response to the posting from 'Anonymous' regarding a possible non-response by the Montague Fire Department personnel.
Regarding the previous post:
Lois Bennett, Past President of the MRA, was quoted in Maclean's Magazine as saying "...we're all simple country folk..." (Jan.09/06 issue)
The statement implying there exists fear on the part of some Township residents of not getting fire service because of a difference in opinion gives way to an entirely different interpretation of Mrs. Bennett's statement that we're all SIMPLE country folk.
Perhaps her second quote in the Maclean's article ("it's like back in the '30's in the hills of Tennessee") is a more appropriate description of the thought process of some Township residents.
To clarify why the last commenter thinks his/her comment was not published the first time; it came in at after midnight. Dedicated as I am, I was sleeping at the time... I publish all comments, except for one case where a thread reserved for non-political content veered off course. Even then, people posted their comments to an alternative thread.
To answer the question posed by the 'double commenter':
Of course I have absolutely no doubt that should my house catch fire I would receive an excellent response from our fire department.
My apprehension is based on something entirely unrelated to fire service, involving particular individuals. That is all I am going to say in public on the issue.
I am not living now, nor have I ever lived in Tennessee.
Stated to me by a respected member of our community:
"They accuse us of bein' country bumpkins, and here we are provin' it..."
How profound.
I'm a new reader and my quick review of your blog indicates that, not suprisingly, hard feelings across 'party lines' still exist. While most seem to realize that, based on independent experts, our firemen did nothing wrong at the fire that seemed to start this whole issue, the underlying issue of 'corruption at the top' is still alive and well. I'm curious to ask why then these claims of corruption and fraud have not been made public. If the MRA and others have proof of this fraudulent behaviour by the council and fire department management, why has your organization not pursued this matter with the authorities? If this is just a ploy to get some of you elected, shame on you all. And may the polls judge your efforts at deception accordingly. However, if you indeed have facts and proof, let's get it all out in the open and resolve this conflict once and for all. And then, your controversial opinions and actions can be fully justified and you will all stand as heroes of the township. It's time to 'put up or shut up' for all involved...or alternatively stand up, be proud of yourself and tell the truth with the proof! No proof = pure gossip = please, please, please, grow up and move on!
A couple of things. On Mr. McTavish and the question about bankruptcy, let's remember that he offered to meet one to one with the questioner and explain the circumstances. Presumably he would be willing to do that with any concerned voter. If people feel it's relevant they can ask him in private. That he didn't want to address it in the meeting I think is reasonable.
As to the last commenter, I'm not sure what allegations of fraud or corruption you're referring to. I haven't made any such allegations, or heard any. There is a lack of openness and accountability in council at the moment.
Council made a grave error in sueing Mr. Page as a government. They are taking no responsibility for that mistake, and they have no respect for anyone questioning that decision. Council cancelled open questions. Council holds more than one in-camera session a month, on average, as compared to zero in Smiths Falls. Why? What are they doing that requires that much secrecy when other councils don't?
These are not allegations, but they are serious questions.
To the previous post:
Yes! Well said! I totally agree ... put the cards on the table and let chips fall where they may. Let the truth rule!
To ALL Candidates: Here's an opportunity to respond and clear the air in a (potentially) highly constructive manner.To all the candidates who are running who admittedly have MRA affiliations, to you I say this: I am from, what you may perceive to be, "the other side"i.e. not a member of the MRA. Believe it or not, my intentions for November 13 are NOT written in stone. This is YOUR chance to convince me why I should vote for you. If you have something valid to say, something to substantiate the allegations of "corruption at the top" or factual proof of negligence on the part of the Montague Fire Department ...PLEASE...say it now!I would also like to know your plans for the future of our Fire Department.( I have heard that there may be candidates who wish to eliminate our department and contract out the service... Of course, this could wll be another case of pure gossip and misinformation).
I'm sure you all have something to say, but you may not show up at my particular door. It will be a little late once the 'X" is on the ballot. Say it now, please! I do not want to vote for a "side", I want to vote for the candidates who will make my township the community it can and should be; the community it once was.
C'mon now Clive, are you capable of even an inkling of impartiality? If Gary Doyle, David Schoular, Bill Eckersley or another incumbent had declared bankrutcy but wanted access to our tax money, you would have made it front page news! Bottom line is if you cannot run a business and avoid bankruptcy, for whatever reason, you should not be trusted with our tax dollars. Period. And, if I recall correctly, all candidates were asked about outstanding legal issues or bankruptcy matters at the first MRA candidates meeting and yet McTavish said nothing until directly confronted with the truth?! And you accuse the incumbents of deceit?!
I also agree with the above people who feel that, once and for all, it's time to bring out this "truth" all the MRA newsletters have implied exists about fraud, cover-ups and other grave issues at council and in the fire department. Until I can sort the facts from fiction, I too remain undecided in my vote (other than the certainty that I won't vote for a bankrupt Reeve) so if any of the declared MRA members want my support, I also expect you'll provide public, written proof of all your accusations and sign your name to it too. If all your claims are indeed not defamatory and you can prove your position, why continue hiding behind this freedom of speech issue and insist on your anonymity? And if you can prove all the bad things you've said, trust me, you've got my vote. I agree that it's finally "put up or shut up time" for the MRA and it's slate of candidates. You all openly supported Don Page and his comments, now let's see your proof. Maybe we can expect another MRA meeting prior to the election when you will invite Don Page, the OPP, Fire Marshal and the local Fire Chiefs to get the facts straight and finally put your issues to rest? I look forward to it!
See my comment just above. Of course, bankruptcy may be relevant to your voting decision. However, I do think Mr. McTavish's response and willingness to discuss the circumstances one-on-one rather than in the midst of a volatile meeting was appropriate. If you want to know about it, call him and ask him about it. Someone who is personally bankrupt may not stand for council in any case.
I have never claimed to be impartial. As I have pointed out before, this whole blog exists for partisan political purposes. Still, I try to allow a good discussion from all sides.
Re: to the person who I will quote - "I have heard that there may be candidates who wish to eliminate our department and contract out the service... Of course, this could well be another case of pure gossip and misinformation".
Could this writer be someone who wants to start a rumor to further their case for keeping the existing councillors. I don't see any other reason to mention something like this and I have NEVER heard ANYONE mention this before. (scare tactics)
Our Montague Firemen are a very important part of the township and they do a good job and are very dedicated.
To the person who wrote - "I have heard that there may be candidates who wish to eliminate our department and contract out the service... Of course, this could well be another case of pure gossip and misinformation".
Nice way to start a rumor and also help the existing council stay in power. (Definitely scare tactics) As a resident of Montague, I don't appreciate these tactics and would like to see a retraction of the captioned statement.
But why? In a deputation to council in early 2005, Don Page and the MRA specifically requested, in writing, that council review the cost of subcontracting fire services in some areas of Montague! There is a big difference between rumour and fact so why should someone have to apologize for bringing the truth to light? It is obvious that these are MRA candidates that are requesting a retraction of their very own information. Maybe it's time you all re-grouped and reviewed your own propaganda rather than foolishly try to deny it's existence?!
To the above poster:
You wish to see the above post that offends you removed. Hmmmmm,,,,,come on now. Isn't that what this whole law suit was about?????? You can be offended, insulted, and concerned about what others may say, but you do not have the right to prevent them from saying it. It is their right to say it. The Charter protects that right. Gossip and misinformation is certainly allowed within our constitution. What is not, is slander and defamation of character, I believe.
It is interesting though how one can try to gain power over that which offends us. Sometimes, I must admit to wishing to being able to stop some from talking completeley, but most of the time, I am very thankful for the charter of rights that protects us all. Can we all come to a kinder, more tolerant place, do you suppose?????
I am a member of the Montague Fire Department and for one am proud to be so.
There seems to be some concern that if you are associated with the MRA your fire protection is going to be jeopardized. I know for a fact that we do not know all the members of this group, and do not have all their addresses memorized. When the pager rings night or day you can be assured that whatever the call or whoever you are the fire department will respond as quickly as possible.
I have heard the rumors, gossip and have read accusations on this website and I now have a few questions in general.
First, I would like to know who and how anyone in this township has been threatened by any member of this department?
Second I like to know is who is living in fear and why?
Finally, what is the department and its' members being criticized for? Can someone please clarify this for me?
I have read on this website that some people think that members of the fire department think that they are untouchable. I for one know that I am not untouchable and anyone that feels they are untouchable is wrong. As long as you are employed by any government or municipality you should know you can be replaced any time.
I attended this all candidates night. I was a bit shocked when a former member used the words he did when questioning Mr. McTavish. I do not think that the question was out of line and I think Mr. McTavish did nice job answering the question. He did not hesitate. The gentlemen who ask the question should have used a different approach and different words. This gentleman is a former member of the department who is now a member of the Kingston Fire Department.
I was the third firemen on the scene of the Riceville road fire. Anyone who has any questions about what I saw or how the department handled this fire, please do not hesitate to talk to me in person.
To all citizens that have any doubt concerning their fire protection, please be assured that each and every time the pager rings there will be a bunch of volunteers drop whatever they are doing and respond immediately to assist in any way possible.
PROUD TO SERVE
Firefighter Peter Macpherson
Thanks Peter, for that well written, articulate comment. I think if only everyone could be as honest, respectful and open to discussion as you, we wouldn't have a problem.
Well People,,,,,In the above post we have a shining example of the quality of character we have on our Montague Fire Department. Peter has offered openly to do what many have accused the department to be unwilling to do. Go ahead and ask People. Stand up and own your concerns. Here is a man who is more than willing to talk openly and honestly about the fire. Does anyone out there truly have questions, or do you just want to hold onto your beliefs no matter what the facts are?
As for the threats from firefighters,,,,that needs to be dealt with openly, once and for all. Enough of the vague accusatons. If someone has been threatened, the same principle that applies with the bully in the school yard scenario should apply here. If the allegations are true, say it out loud for all to hear. Speak the threat, as well as identify the one who threatens. Only then does bullying get exposed and addressed so it can be stopped. These vague accusations of threats from firefighters make it so unfair to the good men who serve. IF there have been threats, and if anyone is truly afraid, you would do yourself a favour to stand up and expose this. If you won't do that, how scared are you? Are you afraid because you have had a personal experience, or have you had fear implanted in you by unsubstantiated stories you have heard from others? I am not for one second saying that it is not true, but I am saying that if it is true, it is isolated and not a representation of the entire department, and should no longer be addressed as such.
To you Peter, and all the other upstanding men on the department, please know this: You deserve to be proud, and we are all endlessly proud OF you all.
I agree...my hat is off once again in honour of these brave men and their contributions to our community. But hey there all you MRA candidates...and we know you're out there...how about a response to the blogger that disputed your request to retract the details of your very own deputation against the fire service??? Seems things are beginning to look more and more premeditated by your organization, no????
"MRA" Candidates may wish to speak for themselves, but to fill in some facts, the proposal to contract out fire service to Smiths Falls for part of the township was made as an alternative to the building of a satellite firehall and purchase of a second truck within Montague itself. Council made the decision to purchase the second truck with little public information and no public consultation and the MRA deputation suggested they should look at the contract option and compare it with the satellite firehall option for cost effectiveness. This is in council minutes and on the MRA website.
So the proposal was in fact a request for a check and balance before a major spending, policy and public safety decision was made by council. It did not involve any reduction in the current fire service, but simply a check on the proposed expansion of the fire service. Those are the facts.
Peter, let me start by saying that this whole mess could have been stopped at the top, at the very beginning. A good leader stops this from reaching his/her men . If it reaches the crew, it becomes a demoralizer and you know what happens after that, a total breakdown. Of course if a complaint comes in, questions are asked, but putting the firemen in the line of fire right off the get go is totally wrong. We will never know why they choose to do that.I'm sure if we had a council that would have investigated all avenues before going ahead with this lawsuit, it could have been solved.My family and I don't know any of you men but I hope we get to meet your soon. It's because of you that we all sleep well at night. Thank you for that.
How about ALL candidates running in this election use this forum to clearly state their vision for the future of the Montague Fire Department ... it would give voters a chance to enhance their decision-making process prior to November 13th.
Thank you Clive, for setting up what has been a most interesting forum for residents of the Township to express their comments and concerns regarding the impending election.
To Peter above, can you describe what you actually say that day.
Thank you
Again, nice try, but based on my research it again seems you have become the victim of the MRA version of the facts. Dig a little deeper Clive...you might find that such a proposal was once reviewed and was deemed cost prohibitive. I believe the Merrickville/Wolford also rejected an offer at one time for subcontracing fire services to Smiths Falls in certain areas due to cost issues. Your admittedly partisan opinions in favour of all that is MRA I can accept. After all, that's politics! You should however, do a little more research before you claim your opinions are indeed 'the facts'. Just because some issues may have been discussed before the MRA was hatched doesn't mean that due dilegence was not completed. You do remember that the township managed quite well to exist prior to the MRA don't you?? To help your memory, picture a place where people respected others rights and took responsibility for their actions.
Anyway, as requested by a few previous bloggers, if the MRA candidates care to actually sign their name to their comments and respond to the many, many questions brought forward (i.e. provide their proof of the alleged corruption and negligence their literature has outlined) I remain all ears in hopes they can influence my vote. However, their continued anonymous responses tells me, quite simply, they are not willing to stand up for what they truly believe in...not a great quality in an elected official.
I would also like to know the following...given they are running a significant slate of candidates, if they are defeated at the polls will they take this as a strong message from the public at large and agree to abolish their controversial organization?? Obviously, if elected they will have a strong platform and public support for change, but what if they are not elected?? Can we expect more outbursts, newsletters and accusations or will they agree with the majority and let the township move on with the business at hand??
The facts are indeed the facts. It's not an opinion. Council was deciding to purchase a second truck; the counter-proposal was for contracting-out. That's what happened.
Since council decides most of these issues with no public consultation, it's hard to go back and find out about previous reviews. Nothing's minuted about any previous consideration of contracting-out. If council didn't deliberate in secret all the time, I'd have more facts at my disposal.
However, it sounds as though the previous review was one of contracting-out fire service vs. the status quo volunteer fire department. Not the more recent question of contracting-out vs expanded volunteer fire department. Different times, different issues; where's the harm in revisiting the contract option when a major change is being proposed?
Out of curiosity, what were the facts of the 'contract issue' anyway. For example, was it an clear, majority decision for council based on cost alone to purchase the second truck and arrange for the second hall as compared to signing a service contract with a bordering town? After all, if the cost analysis made the decision an easy one from a taxpayer standpoint, it this not the kind of decision we elected them to make on our behalf? If council cannot make any financial decisions without the consent and blessing of the MRA, why bother with elections to put the people in place to make these very decisions? I look forward to seeing your financial data that you based your 'facts' on to help us clarify this matter.
You're correct. This is the kind of decision council should make. However, in this case council did not obtain any costing for the alternative. The only documented consideration of the contract option is a line in the Master Fire Plan where it says that council 'feels' contracting to Smiths Falls is not cost-effective. No data is given.
I believe the MRA simply would have liked the decision to be made on hard data, including a cost comparison. In fact the decision was made without any real consideration of alternatives. I can't give you the cost comparison, because it was never done. Ask council for it - that's all the MRA did. Maybe you can get the answer :)
Just to add, before getting bogged down on this one, my point was that (to my knowledge) nobody is advocating strongly for the contract option. As our decision makers, I'd just like to know that council hadn't ruled out a potentially good solution without data to back up their decision.
As it is, the documented reason for the decision is 'feel', and that's not good enough for me as a voter.
Does anybody remember why the MRA was started? Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t it started because some concerned citizens were upset with the way the current councils attitude and decisions were made. I am new to this so can anyone fill me in?
Enough already – our firemen are the best. The issue is the current Township Councilors, should we keep them?
I agree...let's move on. We elect council to make decisions and they made a financial decision on the second truck / second hall based on whatever data was available at time. It's no secret that special interest groups request information and involvement in government matters all the time but, in the end, it is we the voters that have empowered our elected officials to make these kind of final decisions. The end result in this case is better fire service coverage for all concerned so in my mind at least, the case is closed on that issue. Let's get back to hearing from the MRA candidates regarding these claimed issues of corruption. Hello...are you out there?!?
To the last commenter, can you provide a documented accusation of 'corruption'? It might make it easier for someone to respond to a specific situation? I have still not been able to verify that anyone has accused councillors of being corrupt.
Sorry to interupt your discussion with the above readers Clive but most of us have gotten a mailbox full of MRA newsletters insinuating wrongdoing, negligence and intimidation - all I think your readers are asking for is some proof already! Let's make it public and let people use their ballots to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
I've received some of the same newsletters, but I'm not seeing the accusations you're referring to. There are concerns, certainly, but I don't see accusations of corruption or fraud in any of those documents. Before you can ask someone to respond to something they've allegedly said, it's not unreasonable to produce the statement concerned. What statements in what newsletters do you wish to see proved or disproved?
Clive-
How about this (taken from Macleans magazine, Jan. 09/06 issue):
"There is a recent history of intimidation and worse in the Montague fire department," Page wrote in one of his letters, dated April 21 and copied to, among others, Monte Kwinter, Ontario's minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services."
Could that have been the point of origin of the "intimidation/fear"
accusations?
Perhaps it is... but that's from a letter by Don Page, not an MRA newsletter and not from a candidate for council.
I'm going to raise this topic to the level of a new post later tonight, because I do agree it is important and needs to be aired.
Good idea. After all, many candidates have referred to this fear and intimidation in the recent public meetings. It is now time they brought forward their facts and the issue clarified for all involved.
Ohhh... this is gettin' good ... don't stop now you two !
I am willing to respond to anyone personally that have any questions of the fire on Riceville Road.
I would prefer to do this on a one on one situation or by phone, so please do not hesitate to call me.
My phone number is in the phone book.
Peter Macpherson
I have NOT been intimidated or threatened by anyone in Montague Township and don’t know of anyone that has been. The only thing I have found is that during the first All Candidates Meeting the people wanted answers to their questions and did this in a civilized manner. The second meeting I found upsetting. So much anger and hostility, could this be what everyone is talking about because it made me a little afraid of people’s attitudes.
I have read a great deal on the MRA website, all the letters that were sent out as well as the letters that were submitted to council. IN NONE OF THEM was anything said about corruption or fraud so where are people getting this stuff?
As to our firemen, the Fire Marshall cleared you and also the OPP therefore you should have felt good about yourselves and Reeve Doyle should NOT have brought the firemen back into the fray. It was his and his council’s problem, THE FIREMEN WERE CLEARED of any wrongdoing. By Reeve Doyle bringing this lawsuit against Mr. Page (and I thought everybody knew that you could criticize the government or whatever and the law protected you), it was Doyle in his arrogance that has the townships dirty laundry aired to the world for everyone to see and therefore opened this whole can of worms up again when it should have been settled.
About fire protection service ---
Why was the second fire hall located in the south western corner of our township that was being also covered by Smiths Falls when there is no coverage in the pinery area with lots of trees to catch fire and no trucks available locally.
Where's the equallity of service?
Let's be reasonable. Exactly how many stations should we have? There most certainly is "coverage in the pinery area", just as there is in the rest of the township. Of course we all live in different proximities to the station, but we choose where to buy our homes. Please tell me that when you chose to live in the Pinery you knew how far away form the station you were. Hearing that the roads are not plowed and now that there is "no coverage" for fire protection is just totally out of context whining. The Pinery area has narrow roads, and it is farther from the fire station than some of the other roads are, and it gets plowed, although certainly not as quickly as some of the other roads, (The trucks can't be in all places at once) and it takes you longer to drive to Smiths Falls than if you chose to live on Code Rd or Roger Stevens Drive, or many other places within the township. Those are all facts I assume you took into consideraton when you chose to live in such a beautiful area. Right...? People need to focus on the issues. It's complaining like this that causes me to wonder if some people just want to be angry, no matter what.
I'm confused about this dirty laundry issue. Outside of a statement I recieved following the lawsuit dismissal, I never got anything in the mail from Mr. Doyle or the council other than a recent election flyer. I do know that I recieved countless MRA newsletters and some crazy thing from the Friends of Don Page about the fire but can you please let me know to what council documents you are referring as I would like to read these as well. Thanks.
To the person who did not receive the Township Letter, here is how you can bring it up on your computer: go to the Township Official Website that is on the right of your screen. After clicking on it, click on Council and Committees on the left hand side. Click “here” on the bottom of the paragraph that starts with “The Montague Township Council has written” etc.
This is the letter that we received in our mailbox. I would also like to say that this is the same propaganda from Council that they accuse the MRA of taking part in. By the way, I am not now or ever will be a member of the MRA, I don’t like this much controversy.
To the above blogger, I got that in my mail...but I do believe it was more of an information package as it contained dates of Mr Page's letters to many levels of government as well as his slanderous quotes. One thing I did read from The MRA and one of there news letters was statements such as the "fireman are expected to make every possible effort using OXYGEN masks if necessary" I don't know about the rest of you bloggers but The friends of Don Page..if they remember grade 9 science should have known that combining fire and oxygen makes for a really big EXPLOSION!! also in that same mailer from the Friends of Don page".. "that they need to go in and check to see if there is anyone inside and if so bring them out whether or NOT they are alive".....You people should tune into CSI and then you would know you don't remove anyone that is dead until the CORONER says so....I find it quite amusing that there are people who want to blame everything in our township on the current council and accept that they play no part in what has happened...You should look up the word Narcisitic in the dictionary. I think this behavior that it going on utterly childish. I think it is time everyone grew up and started talking about things that will have an impact us ongoing such as the RRC closure, recreation for our children and our seniors, fiscal management(which I might add is very positive)etc. I have looked up and got information on surrounding communitites to us and where they sit in comparison to us....I would have to say we are not to bad off....So people life can't move on if you won't stop living in the past and start moving your feet to the future...This is addressed to all especially the MRA members who want to use this fatality as part of there platform. Be adults and accept that you play a part in this controversay just as much if not more than our current council....
There is a great problem with Anonymous said... is this the same person doing all the talking or are these actual comment from many in the township. There is no way to tell, so you must try to read between the line (this is hard)and take your best guess.
Try using the "other" selection and sign with a number or something else.
signed #99
By the way be real and honest, don't pretend to be someone else people.
Post a Comment