TIME LINE RE ANDERSON SUBDIVISION BYLAW # 4739 Originally published 2003
Jan 27, 2003 (Harvey, O’keefe absent) Acting Mayor Jim MacGillivray
Bylaw 4739 passed.. Specified area approved Authorization to borrow $6,261,713.00 upon the credit of the municipality part of bylaw.
“---the costs of which shall be borne by the owners of the land in the said Specified Area,---“
(Original Sanitary Sewer Costs $1,029,394)
Feb 11, 2003 Public Input Meeting. Significant Capital Projects:
“Construction of roads, sewer and water utilities for the Anderson Subdivision. The project valued at over $6,000,000 will be the sole responsibility of the local property owners through a specified area”
Apr. 28,2003 OPEN COUNCIL MEETING: (all present)
$65,400 for oversizing is authorized for payment and a request to have the Greater Vernon Water Utility fund these costs in a estimated amount of $79,300.
July 14,2003 OPEN COUNCIL MEETING: (all present)
Mayor Harvey declared a conflict of interest with the following item and excused himself from the meeting. Councillor O’Keefe assumed Chair.
City confirms that it will pay the sewer oversizing costs and further that the $375,000 potential costs of future upgrade for the lift station and force main be deleted from the projects costs.
AND FURTHER, that the proposed sewer line to be installed by the specified area be designated as the North End Sewer Trunk Main and be declared a DCC transmission main project as outlined in the DCC bylaw, thereby allowing future development to receive a DCC Sewer Collection charge credit upon issuance of a building permit.
CARRIED,
with Councillor Cochrane opposed.
Aug. 1/ 2003 INCAMERA MEETING: (Harvey absent) Acting Mayor Pat Cochrane
“That the Anderson Subdivision Specified area costs be reduced by $738,796.71.
Oct 14, 2003 INCAMERA MEETING: (cochrane absent)
“Now THEREFORE Council resolves to fund $738,796.71 for the sanitary sewer works which will form part of the Anderson Specified Area pursuant to Bylaw No. 4739 from various general revenue sources as recommended by the October 6, 2003 Finance Committee.”
Nov 10, 2003 INCAMERA MEETING: (Nichol, Cochrane & Hall absent) “The Anderson Subdivision matter was removed from In Camera on November 10, 2003.” (e-mail from city clerk dated Dec 22/2003)
Nov 10, 2003 OPEN COUNCIL MEETING: (all present)
(Council minutes of November 10th were requested to be amended at the November 24th Regular Open Meeting to include this discussion)
· Councillor Beardsell advised that he believes that this Council has probably contravened the Local Government Act, and more, and certainly the spirit. The Act prohibits local government in providing assistance to an individual or commercial business undertaking.
· An offer was made to eliminate the requirement of a sewer lift station, estimated cost $375,000, but this was not good enough and now $739,000 has also been given away, along with $161,000 for oversizing of capacity for a total of $1.275 million. This has come out of the taxpayers pockets for the benefit of 10 owners of property and the majority of these owners were in favor of the specified area and the related costs
· Mayor Harvey responded that this cannot go without comment. There are several things that Councillor Beardsell suggested which the public needs to be very very aware of. Number One - the City of Vernon partnered with business in the specified area no differently than we did in the development of the downtown core revitalization.
· I do disagree with the source of funding for this project but the benefit at the end of the day far out-ways what we have contributed. My own preference would have been to use the existing money from the DCC’s, as it had been identified as a DCC project to service this. (cochrane)
No bylaw votes in a closed meeting (Sec 89 of BILL 14 -- 2003 COMMUNITY CHARTER)
242.4 A council must not vote on the reading or adoption of a bylaw when its meeting is closed to the public.
258.1 Unless otherwise provided,
(a) the power to adopt a bylaw under this or any other Act includes the power to repeal or amend the original bylaw,
(b) the included power to amend or repeal must be exercised by bylaw and is subject to the same approval and other requirements, if any, as the power to adopt the original bylaw, and
(c) the included power may be exercised in the original bylaw.
Limit on expenditures (Sec 173 of BILL 14 -- 2003 COMMUNITY CHARTER)
333 (1) A municipality must not make an expenditure other than one authorized under subsection (2) or (3).
(2) A municipality may make an expenditure that is provided for that year in its financial plan, other than an expenditure that is expressly prohibited by this or another Act.
(3) A municipality may make an expenditure for an emergency that was not contemplated for that year in its financial plan, other than an expenditure that is expressly prohibited by this or another Act.
(4) In relation to the authority under subsection (3), the council must establish procedures
(a) to authorize expenditures under that subsection, and
(b) to provide for such expenditures to be reported to the council at a regular meeting.
(5) If an expenditure is made under subsection (3), as soon as practicable, the council must amend the financial plan to include the expenditure and the funding source for the expenditure.
(6) For certainty, the authority under subsection (3) does not include the authority to borrow for the purpose of making the expenditure.
Financial plan
327 (1) A municipality must have a financial plan that is adopted annually, by bylaw, before the annual property tax bylaw is adopted.
(2) For certainty, the financial plan may be amended by bylaw at any time.
Definition of "assistance" (Sec 21/24/25 of BILL 14 -- 2003 COMMUNITY CHARTER)
181 For the purposes of section 176 (1) (c) [corporate powers — assistance] and this Division, "assistance" means providing a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance, including
(a) an exemption from a tax, fee or charge, and
(b) the forms of assistance referred to in section 185 (1) [publication of intention to provide certain kinds of assistance].
Prohibition against assistance to business
182 As a limitation on section 176 (1) (c), a local government must not provide assistance to an industrial, commercial or business undertaking.
Exception for assistance under partnering agreements
183 Despite section 182 and in addition to the power under section 176 (1) (c), a local government may provide assistance under a partnering agreement.
Publication of intention to provide certain kinds of assistance
185 (1) A local government must publish in a newspaper its intention to provide any of the following assistance:
(a) disposing of land or improvements, or any interest or right in or with respect to them, for less than market value;
(b) lending money;
(c) guaranteeing repayment of borrowing or providing security for borrowing;
(d) assistance under a partnering agreement.
(2) The notice must be published before the assistance is provided and must include
(a) the intended recipient of the assistance, and
(b) the nature, term and extent of the proposed assistance.
Right of elector to complain about accounting (Sec 172 of BILL 14 -- 2003 COMMUNITY CHARTER)
330 (1) An elector may complain in writing to the council or to the municipal auditor, if the elector considers that
(a) a disbursement, expenditure, liability or other transaction is not authorized by or under this or another Act, or
(b) there has been a theft, misuse or other defalcation or irregularity in the funds, accounts, assets, liabilities and financial obligations of the municipality or of one of its administrative bodies.
(2) If a complaint is made under subsection (1) to the council, the council must give notice of the matter to the auditor.
(3) If a complaint is made under subsection (1) to the municipal auditor, the auditor must give notice of the matter to the council.
Borrowing for specified area
648 (1) A council may, by bylaw, provide for the borrowing from any person or for the appropriation from the local improvement fund of money necessary to meet the capital cost of a service for an area established under section 646.
(1.1) For the purpose of determining the capital cost of all or part of a service under this Division, either estimated or actual,
(a) the cost factors referred to in sections 633 [items that may be included in the cost] and 634 [charges must be established in advance] as determined by the council apply, and
(b) the capital or other cost of the service must be reduced by the amount of revenue derived from the service.
(2) Division 4 [Expenditures and Liabilities] of Part 9 [Financial Management] applies to a bylaw under subsection (1) except that, if the assent of the electors or a counter petition opportunity is required under that Division, compliance with section 646 (7) [elector assent for specified areas] is deemed to be compliance with that requirement.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and section 649 [enlargement or reduction of specified area] and despite section 646 (3) [who bears cost of service], if the capital cost of the service is met out of money borrowed or appropriated under subsection (1), the entire capital cost of the service must be borne by the area specified in the bylaw.
(4) The cost of any capacity of the service in excess of that required for the specified area may be borne by the municipality unless the specified area is extended or merged and the full capacity of the service is required for the extended area or merged area, in which case the excess cost must no longer be borne by the municipality but by the extended area or merged area.
(5) A council may, by bylaw, provide that a part of the cost of the service for a downtown revitalization project approved by the inspector is to be borne by the municipality.
(6) [Repealed 1999-37-143.]
(7) Before adopting a bylaw under subsection (5), the council must provide the electors in the whole of the municipality with a counter petition opportunity in relation to the proposed bylaw.
(8) In addition to the information required by section 172.4, the notice of a counter petition opportunity under this section must include
(a) the total amount proposed to be borrowed,
(b) the part of the cost of the borrowing that is to be borne by the municipality, and
(c) the length of time for repayment.
Services for specified areas
646 (1) In addition to the exercise of the powers under Division 1 [Local Improvements] of this Part, a council may, by bylaw, undertake any service coming within the powers of the municipality for the special benefit of a specified area of the municipality.
(2) A bylaw under subsection (1) must define the area of the municipality that will be benefited.
(3) The entire cost, or a part of the cost of the service determined by the council and specified in a bylaw under subsection (1), must be borne by the owners of real property within the specified area or the users of the service, or by both.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), the council may impose within the specified area one or more of the following:
(a) a tax based on the assessed value of the land, or the improvements, or both;
(b) a parcel tax;
(c) other fees or charges provided in this Act.
(5) Subject to this section, Part 10.1 [Taxes, Fees and Charges] applies in respect of taxes, fees and charges imposed under subsection (4).
(6) A council may, by bylaw,
(a) provide that a parcel tax imposed under subsection (4) (b) may be commuted for payment in cash,
(b) set terms and conditions for a commutation under paragraph (a), and
(c) specify circumstances in which a commutation under paragraph (a) may be refused.
(7) Subject to the Waste Management Act, before a bylaw under this section is adopted one of the following requirements must be met:
(a) the bylaw must have received the assent of the electors;
(b) the service to be undertaken must have been requested by a petition and, for these purposes, sections 631 [petition to council] and 632 [sufficiency of petition] apply;
(c) the service to be undertaken must have been proposed by the council on its own initiative, and, for these purposes, sections 629 [council initiative] and 630 [petition against work] apply.
(8) The power to adopt a bylaw under subsection (1) may not be exercised through the adoption of a comprehensive general bylaw under section 259.1 and a bylaw under that subsection may not be consolidated into a comprehensive general bylaw under section 280.3.
Borrowing for specified area
648 (1) A council may, by bylaw, provide for the borrowing from any person or for the appropriation from the local improvement fund of money necessary to meet the capital cost of a service for an area established under section 646.
(1.1) For the purpose of determining the capital cost of all or part of a service under this Division, either estimated or actual,
(a) the cost factors referred to in sections 633 [items that may be included in the cost] and 634 [charges must be established in advance] as determined by the council apply, and
(b) the capital or other cost of the service must be reduced by the amount of revenue derived from the service.
(2) Division 4 [Expenditures and Liabilities] of Part 9 [Financial Management] applies to a bylaw under subsection (1) except that, if the assent of the electors or a counter petition opportunity is required under that Division, compliance with section 646 (7) [elector assent for specified areas] is deemed to be compliance with that requirement.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and section 649 [enlargement or reduction of specified area] and despite section 646 (3) [who bears cost of service], if the capital cost of the service is met out of money borrowed or appropriated under subsection (1), the entire capital cost of the service must be borne by the area specified in the bylaw.
(4) The cost of any capacity of the service in excess of that required for the specified area may be borne by the municipality unless the specified area is extended or merged and the full capacity of the service is required for the extended area or merged area, in which case the excess cost must no longer be borne by the municipality but by the extended area or merged area.
New Community charter highlighted items not in old LGA
Borrowing in relation to a local area service
217 (1) If all of the costs of borrowing for the purposes of a local area service are to be recovered by a local service tax, the loan authorization bylaw does not require the approval of the electors under section 180 [elector approval required for some loan authorization bylaws], but it may only be adopted if
(a) the borrowing has been proposed by petition in accordance with section 212 [petition for local area service],
(b) the borrowing has been proposed by council initiative in accordance with section 213 [local area service on council initiative -- subject to petition against], or
(c) the bylaw has received assent of the electors in accordance with section 214 [local area service on council initiative -- subject to elector assent].
(2) If part of the costs of borrowing for the purposes of a local area service are to be recovered by a local service tax,
(a) a separate loan authorization bylaw is required for the borrowing in relation to which costs are to be recovered by the local service tax, with the bylaw adopted in accordance with subsection (1), and
(b) a separate loan authorization bylaw is required for the borrowing in relation to which costs are to be recovered by any other means, with the bylaw adopted in accordance with Part 6 [Financial Management].
Friday, November 18, 2005
FOR THE RECORD
SOME OF THE LINKS ARE BROKEN AND I AM FINDING NEW ONES .
Friday, November 18. 2005
FOR THE RECORD
I went and saw Kay Stamboulieh's film, 'Vernon Under Siege' at the Vernon Auditorium last night. It was well produced and provocative but extremely fair. It basically suggested that the developers in our city had highjacked the agenda.
I was especially interested when the movie brought up the matter of the $2.3 million in DCC'S and stated that Sean Harvey had convinced the council to switch their previous decision of one week earlier costing the taxpayers $2,300,000 and only 2 councillors had resisted this decision. As I remember, the camera had panned to a picture of the council chambers and showed the faces of those two councillors who had stood their ground, namely Barry Beardsell and Jim MacGillivray.
This set of facts was correct but in the interests of accuracy Coun. Patrick Nichol was absent during the second vote and when I asked him afterwards back in October of this year he assured me that he would have resisted and reconfirmed his first vote, i.e no extension of the deadline. As that second vote was 4-2 to extend, his vote wouldn't have made the difference.
Greg Armour had been recognized earlier in the evening and had received a standing ovation and rightfully so. After the Screening the people from the audience took to the mikes to express their concerns and solutions and beefs. Most were constructive and informative and the responses that were attempted by some of the candidates present who chose to speak were supportive of changing how City Hall served the people.
Some of the crowd took the opportunity to take some verbal potshots at the incumbents and since Barry Beardsell was the only councillor present he was "slagged " by some audience members. It was suggested that it was his job as the self appointed watchdog to catch all the financial wrongdoings, raise the flags, complain loudly on the steps of city hall and even call in the cops.
I had stood up at the first forum at the Shubert centre and defended Mr. Beardsell and was the first candidate to publicly bring up the details of the $2.3 million DCC fiasco and and mentioned it again at the Arts Center Forum and I thought that was enough. I was silent.
I should have stood up and told the crowd some of the facts about the going ons at City Hall and the interconnections that brought us to the point where a citizen Greg Armour was forced to fight City Hall and achieved success only when he got the "right" media's attention.
This is the speech I should have given, (most of which was and still is available in many sections of my blogsite.)( I will try to keep it short and concise and provide some links to the point I am making.)
When the downtown revite was first proposed in 2001 (I believe) there was a meeting for the public and specified area owners and I asked the following question to Mayor Harvey (as a reporter stood beside the mayor writing on his always present pad.).
"As the taxpayers don't have a right of counter-petition, if I persuade the owners to turn down this idea will not that save $600,000 and help reduce the residential tax load? "
"Bob, you know that if that happens we'll find a way to spend that money. "
When that meeting was reported in the "newspaper" no mention was made of that flippant remark. For me, that day foreshadowed one man's regard for my tax money and the "reporting" style of that newspaper.
Anderson sub division: Jan 2003-Aug 2004
Most of the background can be found at TIME LINE RE ANDERSON SUBDIVISION BYLAW # 4739 . This link shows you the details and the various sections of the municipal act that were violated. I asked for a section 330 investigation of this matter in Nov. of 2003 and it took 2 lawyers and a set of accountants 7 long months until August 4 of 2004 before the report came back. http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_vernonblog_archive.html)
and the quote from Sean Harvey "It was an expensive opinion but it's important when doing the public's business to do it in a transparent and open fashion," said Harvey. The only councillor raising shit about this use of taxpayers money was Barry Beardsell. His initial reaction is best found in the minutes of http://www.vernon.ca/council/documents/2003/minutes_031110.doc where Beardsell stated his opposition to this use of taxpayer money without regard to their consent. Later on when the whitewash report of my 330 complaint came out he once again spoke out about his opposition to its findings. Barry pursued it up to the Provincial government level and both of us exchanged letters with this level of government who refused to step in.
The MORNING STAR on at least 2 times was given the TIME LINE RE ANDERSON SUBDIVISION BYLAW # 4739 in writing and I also brought it up at the 2004 budget meeting until I was ruled out of order.If the incompetence of the City Administrator who is the legal guidedog for council had been put under public scrutiny we might not be debating today why his contact was renewed.
Beardsell and Spiers went internal and the local Newspaper ignored the story.
The $2.3 million DCC Fiasco:
The timeline for this nightmare can be found at Don Quixote presented the cost of slot machines to the Vernon Community The basis facts are that at the Dec 13/ 2004 meeting the council voted 5-1 to put the new DCC rates in effect. (this was 7 months after the developers had an input meeting about these rates on May 10/04). Mr Harvey was absent at this meeting and called a special meeting at 8 AM on Dec 20 and (with Councillor Nichol now absent) had the implementation date changed to March 1/2005. This was carried by a 4-2 vote with only Councillors Beardsell and MacGillivray opposed.
Beardsell demanded a report from staff of the cost to the taxpayer of this vote and a staff report was published on March 2/ 2005 and is available to the public. I published comment about this in my article The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight. DCC RATES IN EFFECT OR NOT???. I made this known to the local newspaper but they chose to ignore it.
Later on after I got hold of this report I used it in October to chastise the council about their right to make any decisions until after the election and with reporters from both newspapers present detailed the facts about the $2.3 million. Neither newspaper picked up on this story but the Daily courier published my letter in which I outlined the details. (The Morningstar has yet to publish this letter.)
I mentioned both the Anderson and the DCC $2.3 million at the first public forum at the Shubert centre and the Morningstar's comment was :Vernon Morning Star P.A10 Friday Oct. 28: Bob Spiers called for the city to take a tougher stand with developers and not to provide them with financial support. "there's been a couple of (questionable) decisions of council," he said
The The Daily Courier P.1 Friday Oct. 28: The topic of the charges was also on the minds of another prospective councillor with Bob Spiers suggesting the charges have cost city taxpayers $2.3 million as developers saved money after former mayor Sean Harvey called a special meeting of council and delayed the then-increases to development cost charges. The courier also did a detailed story on Page 1 entitled 'Watch dog' tells how city lost millions. at http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_vernonblog_archive.html
Beardsell and Spiers went internal and the predominate local Newspaper ignored the story.
Conflict of Interest:
View the Media Release and Report from Lidstone, Young, Anderson Barristers and Solicitors. http://vernonblog.com/exit.php?url=aHR0cDovL3d3dy52ZXJub24uY2Evd2hhdHNuZXcvZG9jcy9wcjA1MDUwNS5wZGY=&entry_id=1072
This report that dragged on for many months was initiated by Mr Greg Armour and you can judge the result by looking at the report. Once again somebody had gone the internal route.
Expense Account Allegations:
Mr Armour did show these receipts to Mr Beardsell and was told to run with them. Internal procedures and looking to the local press had failed before. If this had gone internal again it would have moved into in-camera and the house cleaning that happened might have been just a dream.
Mr Armour and an investigative CHBC reporter set the proper wheels in motion and the world unfolded as it should. They are to be commended
However don't look to one watchdog councillor to be the one asleep on the job, look instead at the local "newspaper".
That paper is free. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
Friday, November 18. 2005
FOR THE RECORD
I went and saw Kay Stamboulieh's film, 'Vernon Under Siege' at the Vernon Auditorium last night. It was well produced and provocative but extremely fair. It basically suggested that the developers in our city had highjacked the agenda.
I was especially interested when the movie brought up the matter of the $2.3 million in DCC'S and stated that Sean Harvey had convinced the council to switch their previous decision of one week earlier costing the taxpayers $2,300,000 and only 2 councillors had resisted this decision. As I remember, the camera had panned to a picture of the council chambers and showed the faces of those two councillors who had stood their ground, namely Barry Beardsell and Jim MacGillivray.
This set of facts was correct but in the interests of accuracy Coun. Patrick Nichol was absent during the second vote and when I asked him afterwards back in October of this year he assured me that he would have resisted and reconfirmed his first vote, i.e no extension of the deadline. As that second vote was 4-2 to extend, his vote wouldn't have made the difference.
Greg Armour had been recognized earlier in the evening and had received a standing ovation and rightfully so. After the Screening the people from the audience took to the mikes to express their concerns and solutions and beefs. Most were constructive and informative and the responses that were attempted by some of the candidates present who chose to speak were supportive of changing how City Hall served the people.
Some of the crowd took the opportunity to take some verbal potshots at the incumbents and since Barry Beardsell was the only councillor present he was "slagged " by some audience members. It was suggested that it was his job as the self appointed watchdog to catch all the financial wrongdoings, raise the flags, complain loudly on the steps of city hall and even call in the cops.
I had stood up at the first forum at the Shubert centre and defended Mr. Beardsell and was the first candidate to publicly bring up the details of the $2.3 million DCC fiasco and and mentioned it again at the Arts Center Forum and I thought that was enough. I was silent.
I should have stood up and told the crowd some of the facts about the going ons at City Hall and the interconnections that brought us to the point where a citizen Greg Armour was forced to fight City Hall and achieved success only when he got the "right" media's attention.
This is the speech I should have given, (most of which was and still is available in many sections of my blogsite.)( I will try to keep it short and concise and provide some links to the point I am making.)
When the downtown revite was first proposed in 2001 (I believe) there was a meeting for the public and specified area owners and I asked the following question to Mayor Harvey (as a reporter stood beside the mayor writing on his always present pad.).
"As the taxpayers don't have a right of counter-petition, if I persuade the owners to turn down this idea will not that save $600,000 and help reduce the residential tax load? "
"Bob, you know that if that happens we'll find a way to spend that money. "
When that meeting was reported in the "newspaper" no mention was made of that flippant remark. For me, that day foreshadowed one man's regard for my tax money and the "reporting" style of that newspaper.
Anderson sub division: Jan 2003-Aug 2004
Most of the background can be found at TIME LINE RE ANDERSON SUBDIVISION BYLAW # 4739 . This link shows you the details and the various sections of the municipal act that were violated. I asked for a section 330 investigation of this matter in Nov. of 2003 and it took 2 lawyers and a set of accountants 7 long months until August 4 of 2004 before the report came back. http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_vernonblog_archive.html)
and the quote from Sean Harvey "It was an expensive opinion but it's important when doing the public's business to do it in a transparent and open fashion," said Harvey. The only councillor raising shit about this use of taxpayers money was Barry Beardsell. His initial reaction is best found in the minutes of http://www.vernon.ca/council/documents/2003/minutes_031110.doc where Beardsell stated his opposition to this use of taxpayer money without regard to their consent. Later on when the whitewash report of my 330 complaint came out he once again spoke out about his opposition to its findings. Barry pursued it up to the Provincial government level and both of us exchanged letters with this level of government who refused to step in.
The MORNING STAR on at least 2 times was given the TIME LINE RE ANDERSON SUBDIVISION BYLAW # 4739 in writing and I also brought it up at the 2004 budget meeting until I was ruled out of order.If the incompetence of the City Administrator who is the legal guidedog for council had been put under public scrutiny we might not be debating today why his contact was renewed.
Beardsell and Spiers went internal and the local Newspaper ignored the story.
The $2.3 million DCC Fiasco:
The timeline for this nightmare can be found at Don Quixote presented the cost of slot machines to the Vernon Community The basis facts are that at the Dec 13/ 2004 meeting the council voted 5-1 to put the new DCC rates in effect. (this was 7 months after the developers had an input meeting about these rates on May 10/04). Mr Harvey was absent at this meeting and called a special meeting at 8 AM on Dec 20 and (with Councillor Nichol now absent) had the implementation date changed to March 1/2005. This was carried by a 4-2 vote with only Councillors Beardsell and MacGillivray opposed.
Beardsell demanded a report from staff of the cost to the taxpayer of this vote and a staff report was published on March 2/ 2005 and is available to the public. I published comment about this in my article The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight. DCC RATES IN EFFECT OR NOT???. I made this known to the local newspaper but they chose to ignore it.
Later on after I got hold of this report I used it in October to chastise the council about their right to make any decisions until after the election and with reporters from both newspapers present detailed the facts about the $2.3 million. Neither newspaper picked up on this story but the Daily courier published my letter in which I outlined the details. (The Morningstar has yet to publish this letter.)
I mentioned both the Anderson and the DCC $2.3 million at the first public forum at the Shubert centre and the Morningstar's comment was :Vernon Morning Star P.A10 Friday Oct. 28: Bob Spiers called for the city to take a tougher stand with developers and not to provide them with financial support. "there's been a couple of (questionable) decisions of council," he said
The The Daily Courier P.1 Friday Oct. 28: The topic of the charges was also on the minds of another prospective councillor with Bob Spiers suggesting the charges have cost city taxpayers $2.3 million as developers saved money after former mayor Sean Harvey called a special meeting of council and delayed the then-increases to development cost charges. The courier also did a detailed story on Page 1 entitled 'Watch dog' tells how city lost millions. at http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_vernonblog_archive.html
Beardsell and Spiers went internal and the predominate local Newspaper ignored the story.
Conflict of Interest:
View the Media Release and Report from Lidstone, Young, Anderson Barristers and Solicitors. http://vernonblog.com/exit.php?url=aHR0cDovL3d3dy52ZXJub24uY2Evd2hhdHNuZXcvZG9jcy9wcjA1MDUwNS5wZGY=&entry_id=1072
This report that dragged on for many months was initiated by Mr Greg Armour and you can judge the result by looking at the report. Once again somebody had gone the internal route.
Expense Account Allegations:
Mr Armour did show these receipts to Mr Beardsell and was told to run with them. Internal procedures and looking to the local press had failed before. If this had gone internal again it would have moved into in-camera and the house cleaning that happened might have been just a dream.
Mr Armour and an investigative CHBC reporter set the proper wheels in motion and the world unfolded as it should. They are to be commended
However don't look to one watchdog councillor to be the one asleep on the job, look instead at the local "newspaper".
That paper is free. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)