Well, I missed the last council meeting, unfortunately, so this little rant will be based on the reporting in Smiths Falls This Week. Apparently, Don Page has written to Council and asked them to pay an addition $7,500 in legal fees he incurred in the infamous lawsuit.
Council began to discuss this letter, but was interrupted by Bill Eckersley, who reminded them of the resolution passed at their first meeting, which stated that Council would put the matter of the lawsuit behind them and would "not initiate further action or discussion... unless legal proceedings dictate otherwise."
This now leaves Council with two problems. The first is a question of logic. Don Page's letter requires a response, whether 'yes', 'no' or something in between. How can Council reach a decision on the response without discussing the issue, and how can they discuss it when Mr. Eckersley's ill-thought out resolution has painted them into a corner? We may be treated to the ungainly spectacle of Council resolving themselves out of a resolution. A productive use of time, no doubt. Still, there is a silver lining in all of this - it is a first for Mr. Eckersley to prefer few words of discussion to many... many... many... many.... many...
The second question is what Council's response should be. I'm not in favour of Council paying Mr. Page any more legal costs. Firstly, the court decided that the $15,000 he already received was a reasonable amount; for Council to pay more would be to disregard the outcome of the lawsuit and the verdict of the court. Second, Mr. Page's friends mounted a legal defence fund for him at the time; we'd need to be sure that this fund was included before his out-of-pocket expenses were calculated. Third, while I think Mr. Eckersley's resolution was poorly worded, I agree with its spirit. The matter of the lawsuit is closed and should be laid to rest. Fourth, as a taxpayer, I feel that the previous council's blunders have cost us enough.
Having said all that, the next meeting of Council promises to be interesting. And on a final note, if I were Lita Richards, I'd be feeling that I peaked way too soon with that letter to This Week. She'd have had another piece of ammunition if she'd only waited a few days....
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
OHS Reformer: Taking Her Ball and Going Home
Beth Greenhorn, long-time Ottawa rabble-rouser and chief attack dog in a failed coup d'état at the Ottawa Humane Society, has had enough, is taking her toys and going home. Maybe now the shelter can get on with helping animals instead of defending itself against a smear campaign by three shrill individuals and their tame journalist friends.
One Liberal Broken Promise Rescues Another?
The federal Liberals' inaction on the environment might just be the saviour Dalton McGuinty is hoping for. If global warming can eliminate winter entirely, nobody will notice that the native occupation in Caledonia, which McGuinty said must not continue through the winter has, er, continued through the winter.
Mike thinks the federal government should be playing a bigger role; however, it seems likely from my research that the true problem is that Six Nations does not have any legal claim at all to the land in question. It's hard for the federal government to negotiate from a position of right with a group that is getting away with all kinds of criminal activity. Unlike McGuinty's government, our current federal leadership has some kind of spine and some kind of moral compass; they're not about to have land extorted from them. That being the case, the stalemate will likely continue unless forceful measures are used.
If the spring offensive does come in Caledonia, I think we will see McGuinty finally begin to pay an electoral price for his weakness; and public opinion will begin to harden against the natives. My hunch is that the occupation has achieved all it can do for the Six Nations and that everyone's interests, including theirs, would be best served at this point by withdrawal from the land.
Mike thinks the federal government should be playing a bigger role; however, it seems likely from my research that the true problem is that Six Nations does not have any legal claim at all to the land in question. It's hard for the federal government to negotiate from a position of right with a group that is getting away with all kinds of criminal activity. Unlike McGuinty's government, our current federal leadership has some kind of spine and some kind of moral compass; they're not about to have land extorted from them. That being the case, the stalemate will likely continue unless forceful measures are used.
If the spring offensive does come in Caledonia, I think we will see McGuinty finally begin to pay an electoral price for his weakness; and public opinion will begin to harden against the natives. My hunch is that the occupation has achieved all it can do for the Six Nations and that everyone's interests, including theirs, would be best served at this point by withdrawal from the land.
Bank Fees: Time For A Shakeup
Fellow BT's have been pooh-poohing Jim Flaherty's efforts to get the big banks to explain their hefty ATM fees. I, however, recall the imposition of these fees in the not too distant past.
It used to be that only independent ATMs charged the convenience fee; this was to pay operators such as convenience stores or gas station operators for hosting the machines. Then somebody at the big banks noticed; one-by-one the big banks introduced the $1.50 fee. Royal Bank led the way, as I recall, followed by CIBC, then Scotia and TD. (Royal seems to lead the way in all forms of new fees, as far as I can tell).
This is a case where the free market allows the banks to level up to a price, not down; if they all do it, consumers have no choice. The answer, in my mind, lies not in regulation or government pressure to eliminate fees, but in throwing open the doors to Canada's antiquated banking system with deregulation.
Margaret Thatcher's government deregulated consumer banking in the UK in the mid 1980s. Suddenly, all institutions - mutual societies, insurance companies, foreign banks, etc. could all offer retail banking services: chequing and savings accounts, Visa and Mastercards, personal loans, etc. The big four banks suddenly experienced real competition. Service fees disappeared almost overnight and free banking was the norm for at least a decade. It's time to open up the Canadian retail banking market to competition.
A cartel of four gigantic banks does not a competition make. Let the insurance companies and the Chase's, Citibanks, HSBCs, INGs, etc. of the world operate Canadian retail banks and then we'd have true competition.
It used to be that only independent ATMs charged the convenience fee; this was to pay operators such as convenience stores or gas station operators for hosting the machines. Then somebody at the big banks noticed; one-by-one the big banks introduced the $1.50 fee. Royal Bank led the way, as I recall, followed by CIBC, then Scotia and TD. (Royal seems to lead the way in all forms of new fees, as far as I can tell).
This is a case where the free market allows the banks to level up to a price, not down; if they all do it, consumers have no choice. The answer, in my mind, lies not in regulation or government pressure to eliminate fees, but in throwing open the doors to Canada's antiquated banking system with deregulation.
Margaret Thatcher's government deregulated consumer banking in the UK in the mid 1980s. Suddenly, all institutions - mutual societies, insurance companies, foreign banks, etc. could all offer retail banking services: chequing and savings accounts, Visa and Mastercards, personal loans, etc. The big four banks suddenly experienced real competition. Service fees disappeared almost overnight and free banking was the norm for at least a decade. It's time to open up the Canadian retail banking market to competition.
A cartel of four gigantic banks does not a competition make. Let the insurance companies and the Chase's, Citibanks, HSBCs, INGs, etc. of the world operate Canadian retail banks and then we'd have true competition.
Scientists Baffled By Montague Phenomenon
Doggerel Party scientists, taking a break from their ongoing research into sausage acquisition techniques, have noticed a surprising and alarming phenomenon in Montague Township. While sniffing the air regularly for their sausage research, the corgis have discovered sharp, unexplained spikes of carbon dioxide emission.
Closer evaluation reveals that these spikes are concentrated on the first and third Tuesdays of each month; however, in an apparent anomaly, no such spike was observed on Tuesday 20th February. As Tuesday 6th March draws close, TDPC researchers will be watching closely and hoping to pinpoint the source of the damaging hot air more closely.
Closer evaluation reveals that these spikes are concentrated on the first and third Tuesdays of each month; however, in an apparent anomaly, no such spike was observed on Tuesday 20th February. As Tuesday 6th March draws close, TDPC researchers will be watching closely and hoping to pinpoint the source of the damaging hot air more closely.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Latest Green Policy Initiative: Tin Foil Helmets for All
From Saturday's Letters to the Editor in the Ottawa Citizen:
There's more, but it's not worth the space.
Loonies. Driving the issue of the next election. We're not making this up.
Paul Hellyer is correct that governments should come clean about UFOs. And he is right extraterrestrials possess technology that could save us from global climate change. Yes, we need and want that knowledge, but Mr. Hellyer assumes that extraterrestrials would be interested in sharing it with us. If they are as intelligent as he indicates, then they would be silly to trust such treacherous
and warlike humans as us.
There's more, but it's not worth the space.
Loonies. Driving the issue of the next election. We're not making this up.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Welcome Mike
If you enjoy The Doggerel Party, then I strongly suggest you head over and pay a visit to a newcomer on the scene. Mike at Rideau Reflections has been an active commenter and regular contributor here, and has finally taken the plunge into blogging for himself. For smart, insightful and opinionated coverage of events in the Rideau valley, there's not a better place to go. And I also know that when Mike weighs in on the federal or provincial scene, it's well worth listening to what he has to say.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Mike. I hope you get as much out of it as I have.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Mike. I hope you get as much out of it as I have.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
It Was Too Quiet....
Well, just when we thought we could breathe a sigh of relief that old feuds were beginning to die away in Montague, former councillor Lita Richards rises from the political grave to offer her unsolicited opinions to Smiths Falls This Week. Ms. Richards has 'concerns' about how the new council is, or is not, living up to election campaign promises. Let's take a look.
Firstly, she comments that the new council has as many in-camera sessions as the old, so far. This, it must be said, is indisputable, however, council is only going in-camera when legally required to do so. Rightly or wrongly, there was a perception that the previous council used in-camera sessions more liberally than they had to. The new council is at least open about when and why in-camera sessions are required. However, it does seem that this is a case where new councillors are discovering that their election promise might not be so easy to live up to. Score one for Ms. Richards.
Secondly Ms. Richards 'hears' that John MacTavish is relatively silent in council meetings; I have to agree that this has been my observation in the limited number of meetings I attended so far. I did not vote for Mr. MacTavish, and as I said at the time, I was very surprised by his victory. Score two for Ms. Richards.
Thirdly, Ms. Richards takes Peter Kavanagh to task for not following through on 'complete support for our seniors'. This from a woman who as a councillor voted not to donate a mere $25 to the Forget-Me-Not club. The fact is the new council is taking time to consider and develop a policy for funding of all community groups and organizations, so that situations such as the petty rejection of the $25 by bitter and vindictive councillors should not occur in the future. Support for the seniors is strong, but council wants to get this one right, and so they should. Score one for council.
Fourthly, Mr. Kavanagh apparently did not attend a meeting about Rideau Regional in Smiths Falls recently, and this is apparently evidence that he has abandoned a campaign promise to fight for the RRC. No word on whether Mr. Kavanagh was actually invited to, or notified of this meeting. No word on who organized it, or attended. It could have been anything, official or unofficial - we don't know. Nor do we know if Mr. Kavanagh had County business at the time. On RRC, we know that various groups are fighting for a future, and our council is among them. Ms. Richards attempts to make it look otherwise are at best disingenuous. Score two for council.
Fifthly, Ms. Richards seems upset about the appointment of a new auditor, and makes the bizarre claim that this will result in a 3% tax increase. Given the experiences of recent years with all levels of government, and the lax fashion in which parts of township business were handled under the previous council, with no accountability required of township officials for money spent, I'm happy to see more safeguards. The 3% claim is bogus, I suspect, but even if true, it's buying accountability and certainly buying more than the $60,000 Ms. Richards voted to spend on a doomed and unconstitional assault on free speech. Score three for council.
Then (losing count) we move on to the best... an all out assault on the Montague Ratepayers Association. And here Ms. Richards exposes her essential hypocrisy. As we all have seen (and welcomed) the MRA has changed its leadership and is seeking to re-invent itself as a community organization, pursuing a number of very worthwhile initiatives. Isn't this what Ms. Richards and her fellow councillors wanted? Council minutes from Ms. Richards' time are full of questions about the MRA's community role. Now it seems Ms. Richards has changed her mind and doesn't want the MRA to do worthwhile and constructive things.
She points out that the new council voted themselves a pay increase, but doesn't mention that this is only due to her and her fellow lame duck councillors being petty and vindictive enough to roll back compensation - earning a stern editorial rebuke from the very paper in which she's writing now.
Ms. Richards accuses Dianne Coates of wanting a comparative review with other municipalities to see if compensation can be pushed higher. Here, Ms. Richards has overstepped the boundaries - if she'd been to council meetings instead of relying on hearsay, she'd know that the opposite was true. Dianne Coates voted against the increase for the new councillors, wanting the review to take place first to ensure that the increase would be in line with other local municipalities and not too high. I know, I was there. But why let truth get in the way of a good old personal vendetta?
Overall then, it seems the intention was to stir the pot and to keep old emnities alive in Montague. Way to go, Lita, thanks for the contribution. I think This Week might have done well to mention that Lita was a member of the previous council and is the girlfriend of the previous Reeve, but a careful read of what she wrote, as compared with the truth, might reveal that anyway.
Firstly, she comments that the new council has as many in-camera sessions as the old, so far. This, it must be said, is indisputable, however, council is only going in-camera when legally required to do so. Rightly or wrongly, there was a perception that the previous council used in-camera sessions more liberally than they had to. The new council is at least open about when and why in-camera sessions are required. However, it does seem that this is a case where new councillors are discovering that their election promise might not be so easy to live up to. Score one for Ms. Richards.
Secondly Ms. Richards 'hears' that John MacTavish is relatively silent in council meetings; I have to agree that this has been my observation in the limited number of meetings I attended so far. I did not vote for Mr. MacTavish, and as I said at the time, I was very surprised by his victory. Score two for Ms. Richards.
Thirdly, Ms. Richards takes Peter Kavanagh to task for not following through on 'complete support for our seniors'. This from a woman who as a councillor voted not to donate a mere $25 to the Forget-Me-Not club. The fact is the new council is taking time to consider and develop a policy for funding of all community groups and organizations, so that situations such as the petty rejection of the $25 by bitter and vindictive councillors should not occur in the future. Support for the seniors is strong, but council wants to get this one right, and so they should. Score one for council.
Fourthly, Mr. Kavanagh apparently did not attend a meeting about Rideau Regional in Smiths Falls recently, and this is apparently evidence that he has abandoned a campaign promise to fight for the RRC. No word on whether Mr. Kavanagh was actually invited to, or notified of this meeting. No word on who organized it, or attended. It could have been anything, official or unofficial - we don't know. Nor do we know if Mr. Kavanagh had County business at the time. On RRC, we know that various groups are fighting for a future, and our council is among them. Ms. Richards attempts to make it look otherwise are at best disingenuous. Score two for council.
Fifthly, Ms. Richards seems upset about the appointment of a new auditor, and makes the bizarre claim that this will result in a 3% tax increase. Given the experiences of recent years with all levels of government, and the lax fashion in which parts of township business were handled under the previous council, with no accountability required of township officials for money spent, I'm happy to see more safeguards. The 3% claim is bogus, I suspect, but even if true, it's buying accountability and certainly buying more than the $60,000 Ms. Richards voted to spend on a doomed and unconstitional assault on free speech. Score three for council.
Then (losing count) we move on to the best... an all out assault on the Montague Ratepayers Association. And here Ms. Richards exposes her essential hypocrisy. As we all have seen (and welcomed) the MRA has changed its leadership and is seeking to re-invent itself as a community organization, pursuing a number of very worthwhile initiatives. Isn't this what Ms. Richards and her fellow councillors wanted? Council minutes from Ms. Richards' time are full of questions about the MRA's community role. Now it seems Ms. Richards has changed her mind and doesn't want the MRA to do worthwhile and constructive things.
She points out that the new council voted themselves a pay increase, but doesn't mention that this is only due to her and her fellow lame duck councillors being petty and vindictive enough to roll back compensation - earning a stern editorial rebuke from the very paper in which she's writing now.
Ms. Richards accuses Dianne Coates of wanting a comparative review with other municipalities to see if compensation can be pushed higher. Here, Ms. Richards has overstepped the boundaries - if she'd been to council meetings instead of relying on hearsay, she'd know that the opposite was true. Dianne Coates voted against the increase for the new councillors, wanting the review to take place first to ensure that the increase would be in line with other local municipalities and not too high. I know, I was there. But why let truth get in the way of a good old personal vendetta?
Overall then, it seems the intention was to stir the pot and to keep old emnities alive in Montague. Way to go, Lita, thanks for the contribution. I think This Week might have done well to mention that Lita was a member of the previous council and is the girlfriend of the previous Reeve, but a careful read of what she wrote, as compared with the truth, might reveal that anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)