Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 10      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
forchatonly

Member
Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG
Can't even fathom the struggle Craig Skarupa and family have endured. What a sorry mess. St Albert owes Craig/his family/neighbours big time.


Agreed. 

0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #52 

Quite frankly, this is nothing new on the part of our city administration.  In fact, I would almost bet that the so-called "inspector" was probably the same guy who told us that the sunroom on the side of our house being held up by car springs was an easy fix?  Yeah, that'd be the same sunroom that was also approved by the city in the Golden Bubble.

Most people I've spoken with have said that fighting city hall in matters such as this is like fighting a skunk.  Even if you win - you lose.  

Maybe El Kabong was doing Mr. Skarupa and his neighbours a favours.  Shhhhhh, don't say anything and your house prices won't go down.  Just leave it for some other unsuspecting sucker to swallow the damages.  Lord knows, Mr Cassidy wouldn't have said a word....

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #53 
For those interested, here seems to be the relevant provisions of the Municipal Government Act to which Mr. Skarupa referred.

172(1) When a councillor has a pecuniary interest in a matter before the council, a council committee or any other body to which the councillor is appointed as a representative of the council, the councillor must, if present,
(a) disclose the general nature of the pecuniary interest prior to any discussion of the matter,
(b) abstain from voting on any question relating to the matter,
(c) subject to subsection (3), abstain from any discussion of the matter, and
(d) subject to subsections (2) and (3), leave the room in which the meeting is being held until discussion and voting on the matter are concluded.

Reasons for disqualification
174(1) A councillor is disqualified from council if ..........
(g) the councillor contravenes section 172;

175(1) A councillor that is disqualified must resign immediately.
(2) If a councillor does not resign immediately,
(a) the council may apply to a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench for
(i) an order determining whether the person was never qualified to be or has ceased to be qualified to remain a councillor, or
(ii) an order declaring the person to be disqualified from council,
or
(b) an elector who
(i) files an affidavit showing reasonable grounds for believing that a person never was or has ceased to be qualified as a councillor, and
(ii) pays into court the sum of $500 as security for costs,
may apply to a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order declaring the person to be disqualified from council.

0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #54 
there is no conflict. the corporation is a separate legal entity.
0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #55 
Since2000 is right. Generally elected officials who have businesses that would by their nature conflict with their elected position, such as developers and what not, have to sign over control of those businesses to a third party until such time as they are no longer in office.

If that is the case, it would not be enough that the home was in the name of Crouse's company, would have to prove that Crouse still handles the day-to-day affairs of the company.

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #56 
Wouldn't that be a nice little technicality by which to squirm one's way out of a situation. Be that as it may, it's not as if this were an errant isolated incident on the mayor's part now is it? The track record here is not at all supportive of the mayor who seems to have little or no concept of 'doing things right' or for that matter 'doing the right thing'. Whether a final judgement on the matter comes from the courts or the ballot box, it will indeed come!
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
Since2000 is right. Generally elected officials who have businesses that would by their nature conflict with their elected position, such as developers and what not, have to sign over control of those businesses to a third party until such time as they are no longer in office.

If that is the case, it would not be enough that the home was in the name of Crouse's company, would have to prove that Crouse still handles the day-to-day affairs of the company.



I understand your comment, however I don't see how it would absolve him of any conflict of interest. Whether he has "control" or not he still is in a conflict of interest as it would still affect the value of his property or his financial investment. Because he is one step removed does not change how he is affected one way or the other.
When Martin was prime minister he owned a shipping company. While in office he turned over control of his company - but still could not participate in anything that could have a potential impact with that company. At the end of the day it's still his company. No different for Crouse.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Since2000
there is no conflict. the corporation is a separate legal entity.


Unless of course the lawyers who drafted the legislation were a step ahead of you ... which they were in this case.  See:

170(1)  Subject to subsection (3), a councillor has a pecuniary interest in a matter if

                               (a)    the matter could monetarily affect the councillor or an employer of the councillor, or

                              (b)    the councillor knows or should know that the matter could monetarily affect the councillor’s family.

(2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is monetarily affected by a matter if the matter monetarily affects

                               (a)    the person directly,

                              (b)    a corporation, other than a distributing corporation, in which the person is a shareholder, director or officer,

                               (c)    a distributing corporation in which the person beneficially owns voting shares carrying at least 10% of the voting rights attached to the voting shares of the corporation or of which the person is a director or officer, or

                              (d)    a partnership or firm of which the person is a member.

Crouse Developments Inc. falls squarely within this section and so the incorporation loophole is not available.

1
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #59 
If he can wiggle his way out of this, he should legally change his name to Houdini.
0
SweetLou

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 116
Reply with quote  #60 

Aside from the overt conflict, we have a residential property with potential hazardous, carcinogenic outcome.  There are two elementary schools within 200m of this threat and countless children passing by daily.  

What the hell is wrong with these people?  Let's begin a campaign about getting our children to school safely, but once they're at school neglect the fact that there is industrial waste in the immediate vicinity.  To me this is much worse than pecuniary interest.  

The hypocrisy of this man is staggering.

0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #61 
In Crouse's world it appears that money "trumps" anything else!
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #62 
Interestingly I found this description on the 'net for Crouse Developements. Lists Nolan Crouse as President, with 2 employees. It also states; "Providing training to the Oil and Gas Sector abroad in the areas of Environment, Safety, Leadership and Oil and Gas technology". A fulltime mayor the works 28 hours a day and his wife. Now I will admit I have no knowledge of his wife's qualifications but what training exactly does this 2 person corporation provide? And abroad too? With what I've seen over the last few years and this weeks developments - this is laughable. I don't know what he is smokin but to paraphrase councilor MacKay he has his own version of reality.

The house in Sturgeon is owned by Crouse Developments and yet he votes against doing the right thing regarding an environmental disaster and yet his corporation services are providing environmental and safety training. Again what is Nolans training and certifications to be an expert in these fields? Just wow.....
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #63 
On http://can-bis.com/alberta/crouse-developments-inc--41753.html

We are finest in the business management consultants area and definately will provide help to build your enterprise to new peak. Want to know how may we guide? Simply dial our advisor at (780) 459-6899 or stop by our place of work at 50 Deane Cres, St Albert, Alberta.

I would love to know just what companies have actually used their services.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #64 
Heard that Crouse's property is a group home for those needing support. You would hope that when Crouse learned about hazardous waste which could affect the health of people in the area....[5 cancer cases]...... He would advise these people to move and find another area to live?

@Willy...maybe Crouse could offer the services of his environmental expertise.
0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #65 
theskeptic - you assume revenue canada acknowledges that wording. it will not.
1
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swallow1

@OMG - a simple call to P&E would provide Crouse with everything he needed to know about the property BEFORE the purchase.

Another question I'd have to ask is - was the new neighbour made aware of the possibly illegal and potentially dangerous situation associated with the property next to him?  If not - where was his lawyer, the surveyor, P&E and possibly even the realtor during this whole transaction?

Sounds to me like they ALL dropped the ball.

Also, running your business out of your own home is hardly what I (or anyone else) might consider being at "arms length".

Mrs C: Dear, I'm having an issue with company X. 

Mr C: Dear, Just leave the file open on the kitchen table and, as always, I'll give you a roundabout sort of suggestion as to how to fix it.

0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #67 
@since2000

It's confusing. So because he formed a corporation that he is one of only 2 employees in, which owns a property very., very close to this house and voted against a motion that would devalue his companies property, there is no conflict?

This whole thing reeks of conflict of interest!!!
0
Rick F

Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #68 
OK, so it's in a corporation.

He says he DOESN'T KNOW what the addresses his properties are on?

Yeah right!

0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #69 
OMG!!!! How stupid does he think we are. Just like the double dipping. He just did not know how to organize/keep track of his receipts.....shoebox!
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #70 
OMG:  And to think he has the audacity to express statements such as 'he did not know' relating to various actions on his part over the years, makes one wonder  why citizens would even consider voting for and having him as the mayor. He should have been 'run out of town' years ago.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Since2000
theskeptic - you assume revenue canada acknowledges that wording. it will not.


And what would Revenue Canada's interpretation have to do with an Application under Section 175 of the MGA?
0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #72 
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?
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick F
OK, so it's in a corporation.

He says he DOESN'T KNOW what the addresses his properties are on?

Yeah right!



So where did Crouse say he doesn't know what the addresses his properties are on???
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrairieFire
Perhaps we can all go to Gwen crouses healing garden to forget about this?


The ignorance of this remark is uncalled for.

Whether you agree or not with the need for a Healing Garden or the expense of the Healing Garden does not give you the right to belittle the issue of Residential Schools.

Bigotry is alive and well in St Albert.

__________________
 
4
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #75 
What are your thoughts on this conflict of interest issue Kevin?
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.