Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 8     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next
Rick F

Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #101 
Quote:
In 2017-2018 we will be spending up to $100 million for a library, rink, and swimming pool because less than 600 residents involved in a controlled and biased survey said these three capital projects were our top priorities.


It's worse than that. At the last Bannister "public engagement", I asked how many people were surveyed --- The answer was 466 or .72% of 64,000.

When I asked if this was really a good % to base such spending on, I was told that it falls within significant statistical numbers. To which I countered BS but was told what do you know of statistics.

Well, "lies, damn lies and statistics".
0
Ann

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #102 
I watched last Monday's council meeting and Kevin is correct about Councillor Russell revealing "in camera" information. It was during the discussion about the proposed branch library, and Bob revealed the name of a developer that might be interested in building a library branch, information that has yet to be made public for whatever reason.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #103 
I'd love to know how St. Albert compares to other cities when it comes to in cameras. Seems way to high here.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #104 
@Rick, manipulating stats is a full time profession for some. Look at the global warming, sorry, climate change phenomenon.
0
RobertRussell

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #105 
You will be pleased to know that prior to Christmas I filed a Notice of Motion to have future major capital projects included in a plebiscite for the next municipal election. I received more complaint calls on the survey than any other issue other than the traffic circle.
Bob Russell
0
RobertRussell

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #106 
Regarding the land issue respecting the library. Councillor Mackay had a motion before council with some requisites to be resolved prior to a decision regarding  the acquisition of land for the branch library  and I was aware that a development firm had sent in a proposal and I wanted to make certain that all developers had a final opportunity to submit. I revealed no details  so I think it is a stretch to call this an 'IN Camera" . matter...a process that is over used with this council.
Bob Russell.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #107 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann
I watched last Monday's council meeting and Kevin is correct about Councillor Russell revealing "in camera" information. It was during the discussion about the proposed branch library, and Bob revealed the name of a developer that might be interested in building a library branch, information that has yet to be made public for whatever reason.


I realize that Crouse described the matter as being "in camera" however, my understanding is that the Landrex matter was never discused in camera.  I understand that Landrex sent a letter to Council respecting the library project.

 That letter was marked "confidential"  which as the Landrex official said means that the confidential details and particulars of that proposal were intended to be confidential.  The President of Landrex is quoted in the Gazette as saying "Sheasgreen said details of the proposal are confidential for the time being." [emphasis added]

So that raises the question ... did Coun. Russell release the details of the proposal by Landrex?  My understanding is that all he said is that he did not want to make a decision until the Landrex proposal was properly analyzed.  

If the foregoing is correct Counc. Russell did not release "in camera information" and he did not release the details and particulars of the Landrex proposal.  All he did was make public the fact that Landrex had made a proposal ... It was not the fact that Landrex had written a letter to the City relating to the Library matter which was secret ... it was the details and particulars of their proposal which they wanted Council to keep confidential.  

Hence, it seems the accusation against Russell is unfounded.

[The on going attempts to divert attention from Coun. Heron's recent public relations blunders over the Municipal Inspection motion seem to keep failing]
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #108 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Kevin:  Since you  have alleged that Councillor Russell has released "In Camera" information, it would seem incumbent upon you to provide some particulars to support that allegation.  You wouldn't want to be a party to a negative unsubstantiated smear campaign after all your bloviating about being positive would you?


The support to my statements is the recording of this past Mondays council meeting, where it is stated that Councillor Russell released In Camera information. Sadly Councillor Russell does not even acknowledge it.

It is item 14.1 and takes place just after the 2 hour and 42 minute mark on the meeting recording.

Edit:

As you have already replied to Ann, it is interesting that I never tried to deflect from Councillor Heron's Gazette comment, I asked why this Bob Russell issue wasn't a concern to any of you? I am glad the air seems to be cleared on this "In Camera" issue.

The funny part is that if this is actually the true answer, why didn't Bob respond with this at the time? Why did Bob let Mayor Crouse amend the motion to take the name Landrex out? 







__________________
 
1
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #109 
Kevin:  Does the agenda for the in camera meeting indicate that this matter was discussed in camera .... or are you just relying on the comments of Mayor Crouse in the public meeting?  
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #110 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Kevin:  Does the agenda for the in camera meeting indicate that this matter was discussed in camera .... or are you just relying on the comments of Mayor Crouse in the public meeting?  


There are plenty of in camera agendas items that indicate "Land Matter".

__________________
 
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #111 
"Land matters?"

Isn't that what got this mayor into his pecuniary interest problem?
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #112 
I have written evidence that explains the mayor was in error when describing Russell's comments as in camera. Since it is only copied to me by way of background I will give opportunity for the Gazette to release it. If they do not on Wednesday, I will release it here.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #113 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin


There are plenty of in camera agendas items that indicate "Land Matter".


O.K.  so you have no evidence that the Landrex letter was discussed in camera and furthermore you have no evidence that Russell contravened some in camera matter by merely indicating in a public meeting that he wanted the Landrex letter (without disclosing the details and particulars of that offer) considered.  

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #114 
For what it is worth, I have now received the following information given council about an hour ago that clearly shows that councillor Russell did nothing wrong in terms of an in camera breach.

The mayor's email also contained the email from councillor MacKay to the Gazette that I was holding, but that point is now moot and I am releasing the details to make clear the real facts.

Those so critical of councillor Russell can now retract their accusations. He knew what he was doing all along and acted properly during that council meeting. It should also be pointed out that the 'light on' issue raised concerning Russell was also legitimate and the mayor recognized his misunderstanding of the light and addressed Russell correcting the matter in the video. Both incidents were proper and above board.

Here is the proof of the supposed 'in camera' breach:

From: Mayor of St. Albert 

Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 4:08 PM

To: Cathy Heron <cheron@stalbert.ca>; Wes Brodhead <wbrodhead@stalbert.ca>; Sheena Hughes <shughes@stalbert.ca>; Tim Osborne <tosborne@stalbert.ca>

Cc: Cam MacKay <cmackay@stalbert.ca>; Robert Russell <rrussell@stalbert.ca>

Subject: Fwd: Library article

For your info

Sorry that I was in error, I had thought the matter was indeed in camera 

It must not have been

See below

Mayor Nolan Crouse

City of St. Albert, The Botanical Arts City

 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Cam MacKay <mackaycam@shaw.ca>

Date: January 14, 2017 at 2:14:12 PM MST

To: dneuman <dneuman@stalbert.greatwest.ca>

Cc: Robert Russell <robertr@telusplanet.net>,  "Mayor of St. Albert" <mayor@stalbert.ca>,  Jim Sheasgreen <jim@landrex.com>

Subject: Library article

 

Doug;

I was contacted by a resident about the Library article in the Gazette and as a result I want to point out a clarification. In the article Mayor Crouse is stated as saying that "If I recall, that was an in camera proposal,” in regards to the Developer Library amendment Councillor Russell had made to my motion. That proposal was never brought before council on an "In Camera" basis and as a result the recollection of Mayor Crouse is not accurate. 

We did receive a proposal from a developer to consider an alternate Library construction option and we were asked to include this proposal for consideration within our deliberations. The contents of this proposal were labeled confidential, however the correspondence asked us to bring forward this proposal for consideration and that is exactly what Councillor Russell did. This was done without disclosing any of the details of the proposal as was requested by the proponent. In fact there is no other way to bring this to council for consideration outside of a public motion which is what Councillor Russell did. I realize there was some confusion at council but these are the facts in this situation. I did not have a problem with this being included as an amendment to my motion as I felt it was an option we could consider nor do I feel that any confidences were breached as no details of the proposal were mentioned.

Thanks for all your good work Doug, you did not get anything wrong I just wanted to clarify the comments of Mayor Crouse and the context in which they were made.

Feel free to use this information however you wish.

Cam MacKay

 

0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #115 
@theskeptic - Cameron I really have worked my way under your skin haven't I? Not sure where the bee is in your bonnet? 

I merely inquired why the release of in camera information wasn't a concern for this group. I got the discussion started and we ended up finding out that it was not in camera information as was thought and stated in the council meeting.

Glad to have this issue cleared up.

__________________
 
2
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #116 
Thank goodness for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt! A person's handshake or good word is not enough anymore.

Kevin, You "accused" Bob Russell of releasing in camera info without facts. Sad. But I too am pleased that a couple of people on this website straightened things out. Kudos.
0
LowerTaxes

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #117 
I made a mistake joining this forum. I thought this was a discuss group. It's not. No discussion can be had here. It's a fan club for a few councillors and a hate group for the others. It's irrational, illogical, unorganized and concerning. I hope you all realize that it is possible to loath Nolan Crouse and still be critical of all the councillors. That's the cornerstone of democracy.

Goodbye.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #118 
Bye!
1
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 299
Reply with quote  #119 
When I read 'Lower Taxes' most recent post, I resisted the knee jerk reaction of replying with something like; "Don't slam the door on your way out!" or "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!" Whoever 'he' or 'she' may be they may not totally realize that like newspapers or television networks, blogs such as this one reflect certain political leanings in what they report or comment on, and to think otherwise is being somewhat naive. No matter what one's political rank may be, no one is beyond reproach and comments concerning them be they positive, negative or even neutral are of value and should receive due consideration. Those providing rebuttals must realize this  and act in a like manner without devolving into conflicting personalities.

With the above being said, just about anything in today's world is political to some extent and quite often things can get ugly. Organized politics has always been but is becoming ever more, a dirty and nasty business no matter what the level. Our St. Albert municipal government has certainly been no exception and as we take sides there exists among us a natural division of opinion. What some observers and critics of SAP do not realize is that the motivations underlying the positions many of us take have been come by quite honestly through actual experience for which we seek a meaningful and effective remedy.



0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #120 
Lower Taxes. It is a shame you feel this way. Discussion forums have people whose opinions vary. Facebook is no different than this forum. Twitter is worse. You are not going to like some comments but you should have stuck around to give your opinion whether you agree or want to counteract others opinions.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerTaxes
I made a mistake joining this forum. I thought this was a discuss group. It's not. No discussion can be had here. It's a fan club for a few councillors and a hate group for the others. It's irrational, illogical, unorganized and concerning. I hope you all realize that it is possible to loath Nolan Crouse and still be critical of all the councillors. That's the cornerstone of democracy. Goodbye.


I think too many people toss around that 'hate' word without considering the true definition of the term.

If used in conjunction with a hate crime, it becomes an offensive and dirty thing.

If used in conjunction with a politician it is often misunderstood. The average person surely does not 'hate' a politician. Most don't even know the person. I take hate that way to mean an intense personal dislike.

What most people mean when they use the term in that manner is that they hate what politicians do that affects either their lives or pocketbooks, not the person (politician) him or her self.

I think using the term to describe what goes on here is much too strong a word. Admittedly there may be someone here who has a hatred for a person based on some form of personal mistreatment by that person in the past, but I suspect that is very rare.

If you want to see hate and bigots, look no further than Facebook or Twitter. It is rampant over there if you want to look for it.

I see no hate in the daily postings here. I see raw emotion, intense dislike for policies and actions, but nothing that even comes close to the hatred the word really means.

There is a big difference between hating to get out of bed in the morning and hating Muslims.

The former is evidenced here, the latter on other social media.

And yes, political discussion gets heated. As the old saying goes, never discuss politics or religion in a bar. I think they ought to add 'internet' to that saying.
0
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Honcho


I think too many people toss around that 'hate' word without considering the true definition of the term.



Thank you for this post Don. I agree that hate is a strong word and that it is becoming much to common in its usage. I am guilty, I have just gone back over the posts I made over the last 4 months and found too many instances where I have used it. There were a couple times that it was the correct word to use, but for the most part not. Looking at the posts where I did use it, it was during the most emotional interactions.

What is done is done, hopefully moving forward I will catch myself a little more often.

__________________
 
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #123 
I found Twitter to be a discouraging site. I quit it because it made me feel depressed. Too many bashing each other.
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #124 
HH:  Here is a subject matter that as far as I can tell has never been discussed on this forum in the past - and that is the city can find money for a road to nowhere, a traffic circle that does not make sense, painted curbs, and the list can go on and on. Why has no thought been given for a heated and covered passenger terminal for the main transit stop near Mcdonalds on the St. Albert Trail. Compare what is here versus what Edmonton has at a number of major stops as well as the Bethal Transit Terminal in Sherwood Park. Perhaps some members of council and in particular the Mayor should try standing out in the cold when it is minus 30 celsius early in the morning............after all there is taxpayers who use this service.  It would be interesting to hear the response.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #125 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin


Thank you for this post Don. I agree that hate is a strong word and that it is becoming much to common in its usage. I am guilty, I have just gone back over the posts I made over the last 4 months and found too many instances where I have used it. There were a couple times that it was the correct word to use, but for the most part not. Looking at the posts where I did use it, it was during the most emotional interactions.

What is done is done, hopefully moving forward I will catch myself a little more often.


Now THIS is hate on Facebook:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/greenpeace-alberta-mike-hudema-comments-1.3937108
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.