Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 10     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #101 
Kevin;


It appears that you have been misled. I pointed out quick cleverly that both Gwen and Nolan Crouse seem to be quite comfortable with conflict of interest situations. One sees it appropriate to head a committee to head to council for funds of which her Husband is the Mayor and the other votes on matter of which he has a conflict of interest.

If you want to dismiss my points as partisan go ahead. I do not like politicians that do not look after the public interest.

0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #102 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellex98
Kevin, you said "Gwen Crouse has nothing to do with 80 Salisbury avenue, nor does Crouse Developments." I disagree with you because they/Crouse Developments own the property close by that is possibly affected by the structure and/or possible contaminants.  They would be concerned about their investment (as anyone in the area would be).  So I feel that they would have had discussions about the 80 Salisbury property as husband/wife/company owners.  They (via Crouse the Mayor) were just in the position to do something about their investment (ie: keep information hidden from the public).

I stand corrected, it was not you that mentioned Crouse stating he did not know he owned the property.  That was posted further down by another poster.


Yes Gwen Crouse should be concerned about 80 Salisbury and yes so should Nolan Crouse. But why does Gwen Crouse having a concern about whether or not her property value might be affected give Prairie Fire the right to attack her and make disparaging comments about the residential schools Healing Garden?


__________________
 
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #103 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrairieFire
Kevin;


It appears that you have been misled. I pointed out quick cleverly that both Gwen and Nolan Crouse seem to be quite comfortable with conflict of interest situations. One sees it appropriate to head a committee to head to council for funds of which her Husband is the Mayor and the other votes on matter of which he has a conflict of interest.

If you want to dismiss my points as partisan go ahead. I do not like politicians that do not look after the public interest.



I don't know what "quick cleverly" means.

Please provide evidence that Gwen Crouse is complicit in anything here other than wanting the Healing Garden project to be completed.

__________________
 
0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #104 
"Please provide evidence that Gwen Crouse is complicit in anything here other than wanting the Healing Garden project to be completed."

Sure, she is the head of a committee coming to council asking for hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and her husband is the Mayor! Can you say conflict of interest?
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #105 
I have to wonder; when any discussions with respect to handicapped housing were put forward to city council, did Crouse vote on these matters OR did he abstain?

How many more properties does Crouse Developments rent out to handicapped organizations in this city? 

Is Crouse floating the balloon that there was/is no conflict of interest, because he wasn't even aware that his company owned the property AND he didn't use any of his abilities as the mayor to collect insider information?
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #106 

Since considerable effort has been made to create distractions and take the focus off of Nolan's problems, it may be useful to get back on issue.

The allegation is that Crouse breached his obligations as a councillor by voting on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest.

The minutes show that Council moved in camera to discuss a land matter regarding 80 Salisbury Avenue. Further a recommendation (which is the equivalent of a motion when operating in camera) was made on this land matter. That recommendation was amended. Council then returned from their in camera meeting and passed a motion that the recommendation as amended by approved. That motion was passed 6 - 1 and the record shows that Crouse voted against that motion. Hence it is indisputable that Crouse voted on a land matter relating to 80 Salisbury Avenue.

At all material times Crouse's private corporation Crouse Development Inc. was the registered owner of 86 Salisbury Avenue which is about 150 feet from the potential contamination. Crouse was aware or should have been aware of the concern that 80 Salisbury Avenue could have hazardous substances leaching from the sump tanks. Crouse was aware or should have been aware that publicity of this potential hazardous substance leaching could detrimentally affect the value of his corporation's property. Hence Crouse had a duty to recuse himself which he did not do as the record shows he voted against the motion relating to 80 Salisbury Avenue.

All the rest of this discussion is simply designed to be a distraction since it does not appear Crouse or his minions have developed a defence to this pecuniary interest problem.

 

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #107 
For Kevin's benefit and that of anyone else, in today's world the term 'bigotry' is widely regarded as being associated if not synonymous with 'racism' which I do not believe was the intent of the initial reference to the 'Healing Garden'. None the less, whether by design or default, what may have been a simple difference of opinion devolved into an ad nauseam diatribe or if you will excuse the crudity, a 'pissing contest'. The end result of this argument for argument's sake is that little if anything was resolved concerning the original issue surrounding conflict of interest.

In closing, I ask that you show some restraint by simply agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment without needless elaboration as I refuse to be baited into that to which I refer. 



0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #108 
Sorry Murray, but it would seem that the federal government has provided a considerable amount of money designed to assist in programs such as Healing Gardens.

http://www.ahf.ca/faqs

Not to mention the apologies coming from the Anglican, United and most recently the Catholic churches.  There is also the apologies coming from the federal and provincial governments, to boot.

Not to be called ignorant about the situation, I still have to wonder about all the people who lost their land, homes, were treated poorly and who only recently received apologies for the way they were treated upon arriving in Canada. 

Sadly, many of these same people didn't have their property returned to them, nor were there any financial reparations provided.
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #109 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
All the rest of this discussion is simply designed to be a distraction since it does not appear Crouse or his minions have developed a defence to this pecuniary interest problem.



I can agree with this statement. As I have already stated, I believe that Crouse may have a pecuniary interest. I agree he voted on a land matter, but as it was in camera and I don't know what the actual matter was, I don't know if there is pecuniary interest in play here.

I also stated, that it is a forgone conclusion (in my opinion only) that council will do nothing about this. So if anyone here is so sure about it, put up the $500 to challenge this in the courts.

Also, as I have also stated. If you can get twenty four people to throw $20 in each (or whatever combination of donors), I will gladly throw in the last $20 to make the $500 total. This is all this is worth to me.


__________________
 
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #110 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray Lambert
For Kevin's benefit and that of anyone else, in today's world the term 'bigotry' is widely regarded as being associated if not synonymous with 'racism' 


The only place I will ever use the word bigotry is when it is associated with racism. And my comment still stands.

Prairie Fires intolerance and ignorance of the Healing Garden is a racist comment. 

A simple apology for the comment would go a long way, it really seems that people are scared to say "sorry that wasn't intentional, I wasn't thinking". I make stupid statements (which are often racist related) when I catch myself or they get pointed out, I apologize. Bigotry is not intolerance of other peoples political beliefs as Don wants to call Dana and I bigots, but so be it.

I guess I am just one of the social justice warriors that you don't like. 

__________________
 
2
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #111 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrairieFire
"Please provide evidence that Gwen Crouse is complicit in anything here other than wanting the Healing Garden project to be completed."

Sure, she is the head of a committee coming to council asking for hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and her husband is the Mayor! Can you say conflict of interest?


"Ah Crouse developments is back In the news again. Perhaps the double dipping and the pecuniary interest is just another publicity stunt by Nolan and Gwen crouse to bring awareness to this beautiful gem of a small business in the botanical arts city. Perhaps the wise economic development team we pay for at the city is behind this interesting or manoeuvre.

Perhaps we can all go to Gwen crouses healing garden to forget about this?"

Maybe we should slow things down a bit here, you were talking about Crouse Developments as related to 80 Salisbury, which is what is in the news. Crouse Developments has nothing to do with the Healing Garden.

You may also want to note that the Healing Garden Committee is NOT a committee of council.

You just decided to randomly attack Gwen Crouse for no reason and made a bigoted/racist remark (whether you meant it or not).

Just apologize for the remark and move on.

__________________
 
1
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #112 
Where was the racist comment. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't see it.

You can't go throwing that term around that easily.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #113 

There is a suggestion that there is doubt as to the nature of the motion itself which Crouse voted on. However, the Council Minutes clearly indicate the motion was a land matter relating to 80 Salisbury Avenue. Therefore the details are unnecessary to establish a breach of the pecuniary interest. Crouse's error was in not recusing himself from the matter in which he COULD have a financial interest.

Secondly, it has been suggested that a member of the electorate should immediately bring a Court application. However, the Act provides a set sequence to follow in these cases. First, the impugned Councillor is given an opportunity to resign, then Council is given an opportunity to bring a Court Application if he won't resign, and lastly the electorate is given the opportunity to bring a Court Application to get the Councillor removed.

This sequence gives the Council an opportunity to do the right thing and bring an Application to have Crouse removed from Council. Surely Cathy, Tim, and Wes deserve the opportunity to show the electorate as to whether they are in favour of the rule of law or in favour of ignoring the law when it suits their political purposes don't you think?

0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #114 
Not one cent of city taxpayer money should go towards a healing garden.  This was not a city program.  Our taxes stolen by the Feds can pay for anything related to this.  Anyone using terms like racist and bigot for this issue is a pathetic troll who resorts to those terms to try and shut you up.

Crouse resign? Ha.  That's funny.
1
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #115 
Kudos to the Gazette for keeping this serious matter involving our esteemed mayor in the public eye. Well done local community paper! Way to put the time in to lookIng into a potentially huge story by doing some investigative journalism.

Thanks for keeping the readers informed.

On another note........
People have survived the infamous train whistle for decades upon decades.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #116 


It would seem to be incumbent upon Cathy Heron to give us some indication as to her idea as to the City's next steps in Crouse's pecuniary interest problem.  Does she favour  bringing a Court Application since Crouse is not resigning or is she planning to attempt to ignore the law and try to sweep this matter under the rug.  After all, if you are planning to run for Mayor the electorate is entitled to know if you can make the difficult decisions.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #117 

It is interesting to watch the usual Crouse minions struggling to come up with a defence for Nolan on his pecuniary interest problem.

Their latest argument seems to be that under the planning act, the regulations require notification to the neighbouring property owners who are within 30 metres of the property if one is making the land use application. So they are speculating that because Crouse's property is in excess of 30 metres from 80 Salisbury Avenue that he somehow doesn't have a pecuniary interest problem. Good luck with that!!!

A pecuniary interest arises when a matter before council COULD monetarily affect the councillor. Crouse knew that there could be hazardous waste contamination leaching from 80 Salisbury Avenue. Crouse knew that the mere publication of the possibility of environmental contamination in the area could affect the value of his land. Therefore the land motion relating to 80 Salisbury Avenue was a matter which could monetarily affect Crouse. Hence it was his duty to disclose his ownership at 86 Salisbury Avenue and recuse himself from the discussion and not vote on the matter. All of the foregoing has nothing to do with some regulation under the Planning Act relating to notification to neighbours about a land use application.

Secondly, the environmental problem of which Skarupa is concerned is a separate and distinct issue from the pecuniary interest matter. Whether or not there is in fact hazardous waste leaching has nothing to do with an application to have a councillor discharged for breach of the pecuniary interest provisions. Hence the argument that Skarupa has to prove that there is hazardous waste leaching from 80 Salisbury in order to make the case for breach of a pecuniary interest is illogical to put it mildly.

0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #118 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic

It is interesting to watch the usual Crouse minions struggling to come up with a defence for Nolan on his pecuniary interest problem.

Their latest argument seems to be that under the planning act, the regulations require notification to the neighbouring property owners who are within 30 metres of the property if one is making the land use application. So they are speculating that because Crouse's property is in excess of 30 metres from 80 Salisbury Avenue that he somehow doesn't have a pecuniary interest problem. Good luck with that!!!

A pecuniary interest arises when a matter before council COULD monetarily affect the councillor. Crouse knew that there could be hazardous waste contamination leaching from 80 Salisbury Avenue. Crouse knew that the mere publication of the possibility of environmental contamination in the area could affect the value of his land. Therefore the land motion relating to 80 Salisbury Avenue was a matter which could monetarily affect Crouse. Hence it was his duty to disclose his ownership at 86 Salisbury Avenue and recuse himself from the discussion and not vote on the matter. All of the foregoing has nothing to do with some regulation under the Planning Act relating to notification to neighbours about a land use application.

Secondly, the environmental problem of which Skarupa is concerned is a separate and distinct issue from the pecuniary interest matter. Whether or not there is in fact hazardous waste leaching has nothing to do with an application to have a councillor discharged for breach of the pecuniary interest provisions. Hence the argument that Skarupa has to prove that there is hazardous waste leaching from 80 Salisbury in order to make the case for breach of a pecuniary interest is illogical to put it mildly.



Skeptic you are a coward and a liar. If you have something to say, say it in the forum that the original statements were made.

Are you scared of being proven wrong on a public forum? The posts you refer to, Dana explicitly states the 30 metre radius does not apply to pecuniary interest. However, you just want to make your pompous ass look like a hero on these forums. 

You are pathetic!

__________________
 
3
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #119 
Oh no ... Oh no ... Kevin is back to his name calling again ... oh dear me ... oh goodness gracious ... I'm so deflated [rolleyes]

I recognize that Justice Clement's opinion probably shrinks into oblivion when compared to the social media speculations of Crouse's minions, but for those who are interested in what the Alberta Court of Appeal has said about the pecuniary interest laws ... here is an excerpt from Wannamaker v. Patterson 37 D.L.R. (3d) 575 in which Mr. Justice Clement stated:

"The principle of law which underlies s. 30, and indeed all similar statutory provisions, is expounded in Reg. v. Hawrelak (1965) 53 W.W.R. 257, affirmed (1966) 55 W.W.R. 320. It is sufficiently expressed for the present purposes by a part of the quotation taken therein from Bowes v. Toronto (City):

It was incumbent on the Appellant * * * not to place himself voluntarily in a position in which, while retaining the office of Mayor, he would have a private interest that might be opposed to the unbiased performance of his official duty.

Throughout the years the courts have applied, and continued to apply, this principle with unabated rigor. No erosion of it, nor of its application, can, in my opinion, be permitted if confidence is to be maintained in the electoral process in democratic institutions. Integrity in the discharge of public duties is and will remain of paramount importance, and when the question of private interest arises, the court will not weigh its extent nor amount in determining the issue."

So the question arises ...did Crouse place himself voluntarily in a position in which while retaining the office of Mayor, he would have a private interest that might be opposed to the unbiased performance of his official duty?  It certainly seems that he did.

0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #120 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Oh no ... Oh no ... Kevin is back to his name calling again ... oh dear me ... oh goodness gracious ... I'm so deflated [rolleyes]


It is sad that I succumbed to the bait of an internet troll, and a very pathetic one at that.



__________________
 
3
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin


It is sad that I succumbed to the bait of an internet troll, and a very pathetic one at that.




And the question is ... "so who is 'team angry' .... I'm confused.
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #122 
To whom it may apply?

Regardless of what side (or both if such is possible)) of an issue one might profess to be on, they should refrain from 'throwing rocks' until they have assured themselves that they do not live in a 'glass house'. In that regard; "If the shoe fits, wear it".
0
Mark Cassidy

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #123 
Hey Murray it says you're a senior member that's suits you and your grumpy man image.Hah!
Don it can't take that long to be a senior member Murrays only been on here since 2014.
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #124 
Kevin:  Calling someone a liar on this site is going too far.  Perhaps you should crawl into your shell and give some thought to what you are going to say in the future.  
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #125 
You're absolutely correct Mark and I'm getting even more senior every day. Besides, there are much worse things one could be than a grumpy old man.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.