Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 292
Reply with quote  #76 
FYI Since2000, although there is a definite connection and involvement with this forum, the majority of the 'attacks' occurred on other social media such as Facebook and the like.

Back in the 'good old days' people not infrequently would settle such matters 'out behind the barn', which today would be unthought of as it might cause someone's shoes to be soiled. ................. Just Thinking!
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #77 
Agree Murray about bullying on Facebook and Twitter. I quit Twitter as it, in my view, is more nasty than Facebook. I experienced the bullying and saw others being bullied.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #78 
Since 2000 .... Surely there is a distinction between bullying and the case in which a moderator deletes comments which he/she considers may be defamatory.  The former (bullying) is a case of intimidation in which the bully attempts to shut down the victim simply because they have a differing perspective ... the latter is motivated by concerns by the website administrator to avoid defamation lawsuits.  
1
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #79 
Don:  If you want a form of colour...............compare the following. In St. Albert you get painted curbs, at one time  a painting on the road in front of the city hall, a road to nowhere, a traffic circle that does not make sense as well as a multitude of other 'projects' brought on by the four stooges - these all created more tax money that would be required. Looking back over the past ten years, each year an increase.  Well, today in the Sherwood Park local paper, the following headline appeared "RESIDENT TAXES FALLING"  Council considering a 2.17% tax decrease in '17."  See what common sense can bring about.   
0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #80 
Warmodel  -- I drove that traffic circle today.. My god, what kind of stupidity is that?!?!  What a waste of money.  Unbelievable.  The next election we better see some new faces on council or this city is finished.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #81 
Since 2000 .....Yup, the traffic circle is insane. I was following a car who stopped, looked, stopped, looked again. He couldn't figure it out. Why didn't the awesome 4 just burn the 6 million dollars. At least there would be something positive ....heat and maybe time to cook a weiner.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #82 
I've noticed the the road off of the traffic circle seems to be just a glorified parking lot. Never see any cars driving through, ever.
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #83 
Just a theory...............perhaps the traffic circle was created whereby drivers could test the turning signal on vehicles or maybe late at night attempt doing "wheelies" with bikes...........just a thought.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #84 
That traffic circle and the road to nowhere will likely stand as a permanent reminder of those members of council who will be defeated at the polls in 2017. [wave]
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #85 
We can only hope. It is sad to see elected officials use taxpayer monies on selfish dreams.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #86 
After reviewing the Affidavits in the Stone Application, it is difficult to determine what will be Crouse's defence ......if he has one.  The breaches of the pecuniary interest laws appear to be indisputable.  The Crouse gang don't seem to have put forward any argument which would constitute a viable defence so it will be interesting to see his lawyers response.  
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #87 
Hopefully this doesn't drag on until the election.

This needs to be dealt with promptly so the people in St. Albert know this man for what he is.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #88 
Apparently some folks were having trouble joining as a member, so I have reverted to the style that has always worked well. Sorry for the inconvenience.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #89 
My bad, I found the issue that prevented folks from registering to become a member. It was my fault entirely, apologies. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sheesh, sometimes I can be such a klutz.
0
LowerTaxes

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #90 
Crouse can claim to be the mayor all he wants but he is not MY mayor.  How this man can still be mayor after everything that has been brought to light is unbelievable!!  When I get my next tax bill, I'm going to take the cash to city hall and throw it in the garbage.  That is what this council does with my money anyways so I might as well save them a step!!!!!!!!!!
0
allabout

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #91 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Honcho
My bad, I found the issue that prevented folks from registering to become a member. It was my fault entirely, apologies. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sheesh, sometimes I can be such a klutz.

No problems. I appreciate the fact that you helped me go step by step until it was figured out. Thank you for all your help
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #92 
In case anyone missed it ... Councillor MacKay filed two Notices of Motion namely (a) a motion instructing the administration to cooperate with both sides of the pecuniary interest lawsuit in relation to documents, information, etc. and (b) a motion instructing the city's insurers not to cover the Mayor's litigation costs in this latest lawsuit.
0
LowerTaxes

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #93 
Dumb question - sorry.  Can council limit the actions of the insurance company?  If they can, it would be nice to see this motion come with a decrease in premiums we pay!!!!!
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #94 
Lower Taxes: Can you decide not to make a claim to your insurance company when you get into an accident?  If so ... maybe not so dumb.
0
LowerTaxes

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #95 
@theSkeptic:  Ah yes good point, thanks.  Just to clarify, I was not referring to your comment as dumb, I was referring to my question [smile]

It sure it great to have MacKay and Hughes on council fighting day in and day out for the people of the city!!
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 746
Reply with quote  #96 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Honcho
That traffic circle and the road to nowhere will likely stand as a permanent reminder of those members of council who will be defeated at the polls in 2017. [wave]


IMHO, El Kabong is simply waiting to stamp his name on at least one project before he does the honourable thing and STEPS DOWN.

Hmmmm... "Nolan's Way", "Crouse Circle", "El Kabong's Folly"; any one or all don't sound that bad. 

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 292
Reply with quote  #97 
What about something more appropriate such a sanitary waste transfer station or the like?
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #98 
A man of integrity who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar usually does the honourable thing and resigns.
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #99 
Head Honcho:

Just my opinion but I could never see the word "integrity" and the name CROUSE used in the same sentence........................
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #100 

Willy had pointed out this posting in the Gazette entitled "Clarification" a few days ago which said"

"A story (St Albert Gazette November 16th) called "Application alleges pecuniary interest" lacked clarity about the status of Mayor Nolan Crouse's expense claims with the City of St. albert and the Captial Region board. While Crouse made errors filing his expense claims between 2011 and September 2014 a staff led expense review showed in the end the authority owed him more money than he had claimed."

The Gazette's "clarification" of Crouse's double billing incident would appear to be an attempt to revise history. Relying on people having short memories and altering the historical facts with the intention of altering peoples perceptions of events is as old as propaganda itself. Therefore it seems useful to set the record straight.

First the suggestion that Crouse's double billing was simply a result of carelessness is clearly open to question because the double billing was so frequent and the duplicate charges were so obvious. The internal review conducted by the City's bookkeeping department (which had no auditing expertise) uncovered 37 separate questionable billing incidents which included double and triple billing for the same event. On several instances Crouse openly admitted there was a double billing.

Secondly, the suggestion that this "internal review" by the city staff showed that the City owed him more money than he claimed is merely Crouse revisionism.

The facts are as follows:
1. When the double billing first became public, Crouse responded by doing his own "self audit" in which, astonishingly, he discovered an additional $3096.00 in unclaimed expenses. He then submitted a claim for an additional $1217.00 and considered the matter closed.

2. The City staff then did their "internal review" and discovered 37 questionable expenses on Crouse's part.

3. This internal review prompted a second "self audit" by Crouse in which he admitted that he had over billed the City $1294.00 and claimed an additional $488.00 in unverified expense claims.

4. Crouse then subtracted the unclaimed and unverified expenses of $488 from the self proclaimed over billing of $1294.00 and gave the City a cheque for the difference namely $806.45

None of the foregoing "self audits" were ever subject to a proper audit by a qualified independent auditor. Councillors Hughes motion to conduct an independent audit was defeated by Councillor Heron's parliamentary maneuvering.  She challenged the Chair's (i.e. Crouse's) acceptance of Hughes motion and with the collusion of Brodhead and Osborne and Crouse (voting against his own ruling in violation of the pecuniary interest laws) they made sure the motion for an independent audit never came on the floor for discussion and decision.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.