Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #26 
@kevin, what is your rationale for believing there is no pecuniary interest in regard to 80 Salisbury?

As well, when you write things like "and if Mr. Stone succeeds in his goal, (this time)", you sound like you're condemning Mr. Stone of orchestrating a witch hunt!!!

If you so willingly offered $20.00 to "the cause", then why would you take a shot at Mr. Stone.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #27 
Enough,   My interpretation was that Kevin,s offer of $20.00  was offered insincerely. kinda like mocking the whole issue.
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnoughAllready
@kevin, what is your rationale for believing there is no pecuniary interest in regard to 80 Salisbury?

As well, when you write things like "and if Mr. Stone succeeds in his goal, (this time)", you sound like you're condemning Mr. Stone of orchestrating a witch hunt!!!

If you so willingly offered $20.00 to "the cause", then why would you take a shot at Mr. Stone.


You are reading too much into my post. Mr. Stone has made a previous attempt at having someone removed from City hall and was unsuccessful. Nothing more meant in the reference.

As to my reasoning, when someone makes an appeal to SDAB, the City has a predefined notification radius for property that will be affected, the property owned by Crouse Developments is not within this radius.


__________________
 
1
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #29 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG
Enough,   My interpretation was that Kevin,s offer of $20.00  was offered insincerely. kinda like mocking the whole issue.


That thought never even remotely entered my mind, in fact I though it was a sincere offer and intended to start the ball rolling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
You are reading too much into my post. Mr. Stone has made a previous attempt at having someone removed from City hall and was unsuccessful. Nothing more meant in the reference. As to my reasoning, when someone makes an appeal to SDAB, the City has a predefined notification radius for property that will be affected, the property owned by Crouse Developments is not within this radius.


Just because the SDAB has  a predefined distance in place does not by any means make it reasonable or right. It is in fact far too confined.

By way of example that monstrosity of a car wash in Akinsdale failed that test miserably as houses who were never notified of it's pending doom now sit in the late afternoon shadows of the building and are subjected to the noise level of pressurized equipment outside the building. They were left not notified and now live with something they should have been able to object to.

30 metres is laughable. Try 300 and it becomes fair to a neighbourhood. The SDAB has failed the citizens of St. Albert by not revising such a glaring error in judgement internally, unless they have no foresight for a realistic notice at all.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #30 
If 30 metres was the metric for contaminated soil, why the big hoopla about pipelines and oil spills.

30 metres is just a number but does not in any way define affected properties!
1
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Honcho



That thought never even remotely entered my mind, in fact I though it was a sincere offer and intended to start the ball rolling.



Just because the SDAB has  a predefined distance in place does not by any means make it reasonable or right. It is in fact far too confined.

By way of example that monstrosity of a car wash in Akinsdale failed that test miserably as houses who were never notified of it's pending doom now sit in the late afternoon shadows of the building and are subjected to the noise level of pressurized equipment outside the building. They were left not notified and now live with something they should have been able to object to.

30 metres is laughable. Try 300 and it becomes fair to a neighbourhood. The SDAB has failed the citizens of St. Albert by not revising such a glaring error in judgement internally, unless they have no foresight for a realistic notice at all.


100% sincere and I fully intend to offer the twenty to Steve should we ever cross paths. As much as I am not in agreement with all of the suit, I want this resolved once and for all.

While I am also not in agreement with the 30 metre notification radius, that is what it is and that is my reasoning. I don't know what is going to happen when the suit goes before a judge, but if it gets quashed will that be accepted by the participants in this forum?


__________________
 
0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #32 
The Subdivision board routinely issues radius notifications of 100 - 200 meters. Why would environmental contamination qualify for a minimum radius notification? In my opinion it should be at the upper end of the range not the minimum radius. If this is the sole argument for Crouses defense he will likely be citizen Crouse very soon. 



0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #33 
The 30 meter radius just doesn't seem right. I got a notice last week from the City saying the city wants to change the zoning of the remaining park space in Eldorado Park where the francophone school is going in. If it's 30 meters or 100 feet then only about 4 houses total would get the notice.
0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #34 
@willy;

The irony is that to have some of Councillor Herons backyard chickens council voted on a radius notification of 60 meters. So environmental contamination qualifies for the minimum of 30 meters but backyard chickens is 60m or for us imperial guys 200 feet. The argument makes no sense.


0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #35 
I'm wondering if the 30 meters is actually correct. Not someone just throwing that number out there to try and distance them selves from the property in question and trying to validate a no pecuniary interest defence. Hell if I lived anywhere on Salibury I would not be happy over the extra traffic the illegal mechanic shop would have brought. It's a residential neighborhood not a commercial/industrial one. If I lived 40 meters away I would not be affected? Umm ya.
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Honcho


In fairness to the Gazette, the story occupies the bottom strip of the front page of today's edition. Good on them.Screen Shot 2016-11-16 at 8.14.51 AM.png  


Thanks Don, I saw Teds link this morning too. Nice to see the Gazette gave it the space and place this story deserved. It would be interesting if local radio and tv pick up this story and give it any air time too.
0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #37 
http://pbtech.org/clients/stalbert/attch/stalbertcc04072014/6.3_Radius_Not___Public_Not_Policy_Revisions.pdf

Here is an interesting city document that talks about radius notification. Essentially it says that if the matter is small it can be 15-60 meters if its a larger issue it can be up to 400 meters.

I think its tough to say that an issue of environmental contamination is a small issue.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #38 

It seems to me that all this discussion about the SDAB and 30 metres is nothing but an irrelevant distraction. Aside from the fact that 30 metres is just a minimum and that the SDAB regularly stipulates other distances for differing problems, the DAB requirements have nothing to do with the pecuniary interest problem that confronted Crouse. When the motion came up to offer to pay for phase 2 environmental testing, the question was this: would publication of this motion affect land values in the neighbourhood? Crouse obviously thought that publication could be detrimental to land values because at the time he sent an email to Skarupa stating that that was the very reason why the matter was being dealt with in camera. So Crouse was fully aware of the pecuniary interest problem he had and in complete disregard for the law chose not to recuse himself..... end of case.

Secondly, it seems that one major fact is being overlooked in this discussion namely: Stone has alleged that Crouse breached the pecuniary interest rules in relation to 3 separate matters namely (a) the double dipping matter, (b) the Draper v. Hennigar et al lawsuit matter and (c) the 80 Salisbury matter. These are 3 separate incidents and that fact raises the following questions:

1. how is Crouse going to persuade the Court that he didn't have a financial interest in the outcome of a motion for an independent audit on his double dipping?

2. how is Crouse going to persuade the Court he didn't have a financial interest in the outcome of the lawsuite when he was a Party to that lawsuit?

3. how is Crouse going to persuade the Court that he didn't have a financial interest in the publication of phase 2 environmental tests when he himself emailed Craig that this matter was being kept private because publication would affect land and land values?

If the Courts find Crouse in breach on any one of these separate and distinct incidents then Crouse is at risk of being thrown out of office. So his problem is not merely one of attempting to deal with the 80 Salisbury dilemma. No one in Crouse's camp seems to be indicating as to how Crouse can deal with these other two breaches.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #39 
A small point for those who are so sincere in their desire to see this matter settled.  When a lawyer is charging $ 2 to 300.00 per hour ..... how much of his time is paid for with a $20.00 bill???
0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #40 
@skeptic;

Good points I have no idea how Crouse deals with any of these points. At this point though I wonder how all his cronies are doing who in essence have facilitated his pecuniary interests with there voting to protect him.

One of the legal documents points out how Heron helped him by splitting motions and challenging his rulings to avoid an independent audit about his expenses. This situation does not look good for anyone who has blindly gone along for the ride in the Crouse wagon over the years.

Heron and council should have been going after Crouse for pecuniary interest a long time ago, not facilitating him to get into a pecuniary situations.

0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
A small point for those who are so sincere in their desire to see this matter settled.  When a lawyer is charging $ 2 to 300.00 per hour ..... how much of his time is paid for with a $20.00 bill???


Why you continue to try and engage is beyond me.

It was a suggestion the if we each contribute $20 we might be able to cover the $500 cost that you previously indicated.

It was suggested that I was insincere in this offer, I merely stated my $20 was still on the table.


__________________
 
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #42 
My parents taught me well over 60 years ago that it was not the amount that mattered, it was the gesture of giving. They were right then and I believe it is right now. That is enough about the issue. Please.
0
birdwatcher

Member
Registered:
Posts: 48
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy
I'm curious to see how much space and place the Gazette gives this petition. They can't ignore it but at the same time their dear buddy is on the ropes and we all know how they don't like to make him look bad. I'm sure the Gazette will spin this as grandstanding and frivelous. When I was a young teenager I delivered the Gazette for a couple years. Ernie Jamieson, publisher and founder, lived in Grandin and was one of my customers. He paid for his weekly paper just like any other subscriber then. Even had a nice Christmas bonus for his paper boy. I bet if he would be spinning in his grave if he knew how it was operated today.


Just a correction.

I was the third Gazette's paperboy; the founder's sons, Jon and Alex Netelenbos were the first. Wim Netlenbos founded the paper a couple of months before we moved to St. Albert in 1961.

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110618/SAG0301/306189991&template=printart
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #44 
Interesting tale on the Gazette. Here is a direct link to the same story in the Gazette:

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20110618/SAG0301/306189991
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 746
Reply with quote  #45 
Does anyone notice that anything to do with El Kabong entails LEGAL FEES - paid for by US - the citizen of $A?
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdwatcher


Just a correction.

I was the third Gazette's paperboy; the founder's sons, Jon and Alex Netelenbos were the first. Wim Netlenbos founded the paper a couple of months before we moved to St. Albert in 1961.

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110618/SAG0301/306189991&template=printart


I stand corrected, I thought he founded it too. He was owner/publisher when I delivered his Gazette to his home.
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #47 
The "Clarification" below is in today's Gazette. Says it lacked "clarity ... that while Crouse made errors in filing his expense claims - the staff led expense review showed the authority owed him more money than he claimed."
As I recall, maybe I'm wrong, it was Crouse who reviewed his expense claims and found more receipts that he forgot to claim. Not the staff led expense review. If he hadn't submitted those expenses he was not owed anything. How far back are you allowed to go to submit more expenses? How far back did he go to claim those forgotten expenses? Did anyone check to see if those forgotten expenses were claimed anywhere else? Were they legitimate receipts or post it notes?

But let's not confuse the issue with facts:
1) He double dipped, billing the city and the CRB for the same events, of which several were questionable to begin with.
2) He had his CRB remuneration paid to his private company not the city as he was supposed to. In doing so (in my opinion) he defrauded the the city of monies the City was supposed to have received. Was this money ever repaid to the City by Crouse?
3)He participated in, directed and voted in all aspects of the double dipping proceedings in which he very clearly should have recused himself of anything that had anything to do with said double dipping proceedings. He very clearly did not recuse himself.

But some how through all of this, due to his inept ability to keep proper records and file proper expense reports, that he overlooked some receipts - every thing is okay and all this is a non issue because, in the end, he should have claimed more expense money than he did.

Attached Images
png IMG_0627.PNG (52.70 KB, 15 views)

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 292
Reply with quote  #48 
Willy has done a very good job of summarizing the facts of the matter regarding the 'double dipping' by the mayor. Note, I have previously referred to this inappropriate behaviour as 'double billing' but I am now referring to it with the more pejorative term of 'dipping' since that is a more appropriate descriptor. The mayor's feeble attempts to convince us all that it was simply a matter of poor 'shoebox accounting' have no credibility. The 'correction' in today's (11/19/16) Gazette does nothing to change this.

What Mayor Crouse can't seem to fathom is that pecuniary interest deals with the potentiality of conflict. Even if he were truly 'squeaky clean' whether it be with the double dipping, the Hennigar lawsuit, 80 Salisbury Ave or the other incidents, he should have had the common sense, decency and forbearance to remove himself from any or all subsequently related items of business. His obstinate refusal to do so has brought the chickens (backyard or otherwise) home to roost.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #49 

There is an old maxim which says "if it ain't common sense ... it ain't common law."

So in a previous posts on this thread Murray Lambert expressed what, I think, most would admit is common sense. He said, in part:

"What Mayor Crouse can't seem to fathom is that pecuniary interest deals with the potentiality of conflict. Even if he were truly 'squeaky clean' whether it be with the double dipping, the Hennigar lawsuit, 80 Salisbury Ave or the other incidents, he should have had the common sense, decency and forbearance to remove himself from any or all subsequently related items of business. His obstinate refusal to do so has brought the chickens (backyard or otherwise) home to roost."

And here is what Justice Clement of the Alberta Court of Appeal has said about pecuniary interests"

The principle of law which underlies s. 30, [now 170] 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.”

Looks to me like the Justice Clement took the common sense as expressed in Lambert's post and transformed it into common law.

0
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #50 
It will be interesting to see how the Crouse Machine fights back. It looks like they are on full defensive with there humorous claim in the paper that somehow Crouse did not double bill his expense account. The Crouse defense is simply that is you rob a liquor and then when caught say I didn't get enough change when I bought some beer here 5 years ago.

Typical Crouse always unwilling to take responsibility but it is good to see him try and spin his double dipping again.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.