Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 8      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #51 
I'm sure there is nothing illegal about it. Just seems really unethical. Wait until the election. Heron will have ads covering that page.

Just wait and see.

Some people can't even go on their page let alone write a comment.
0
LowerTaxes

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #52 
"Some people can't even go on their page let alone write a comment."

The same also applies to this group as well, does it not?
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerTaxes
"Some people can't even go on their page let alone write a comment."

The same also applies to this group as well, does it not?


For the record, various versions of this forum have been online for eight years now and only one person has ever been permanently banned.

I have admittedly given other posters suspensions of up to a week or two for outrageous or potentially libellous comments, name calling or insulting other members as a form of discipline to maintain decorum here.

While I retain the right to edit posts here, members will likely agree that it is rare that I do so, and is usually due to legal concerns. All political views are welcome here. I do not restrict any candidate's comments over another during an election campaign. Nor do I remove comments that may be favourable or unfavourable regarding any politician provided they are made in a fair and rational manner.

Posters can avoid any such disciplinary actions here by following this simple self test before posting a comment:

Is it true? Is it accurate? Is it fair?

If it passes that test, your comment will be fine.

And finally, avoid rumours at all costs. - HH



0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #54 
Personally I see a big difference but can understan what you're saying.

This site is privately owned and has conditions set by the owner.

A Facebook page isn't.

But the biggest difference is the community page is blocking people without some people ever posting anything ever on their page. I know people that have been cordial and respectful and are blocked.
0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #55 
I was blocked from the Facebook site, as I was told - John Carle does not like you.  Seriously. 

Does the city need to look into this site? It's name gives  the impression it represents the City of St. Albert.  

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #56 
Just a heads up that the front page has been changed with the addition of a letter to the editor from councillor Cam MacKay as well as a copy of the letter to council from the ministry of municipal affairs. - HH

Link:

http://mybirdie.ca/files/d6e39901a2c725018719a7b656f1d472-1871.html
0
LowerTaxes

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnoughAllready
Personally I see a big difference but can understan what you're saying. This site is privately owned and has conditions set by the owner. A Facebook page isn't. But the biggest difference is the community page is blocking people without some people ever posting anything ever on their page. I know people that have been cordial and respectful and are blocked.


I don't agree with banning anyone or censoring, but the facebook page is "privately" owned you could say.  It is not affiliated with the city, it is a group that Carle started.  Much like Head Honcho here, little Johnny Carle can do what he wants.  I mean little in a few ways
0
Rick F

Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #58 
My take is a little bit different;

mybirdie is HH's and has no pretense of representing anything but peoples views.

OTOH the StAlbert Facebook page intimates, just by its name, that it represents all of StAlbert citizen's views. Which it obviously does not want to.

IMO it is a mis-representation.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #59 

Soooo it looks like Councillor Heron brought a motion for an inspection without even reading the relevant provisions of the Municipal Government Act. In the Gazette she expresses surprise and disappointment that the Province is charging the City for an inspection which the City itself requested!! However, section 579 expressly authorizes the Province to charge for this service. Section 579 says:

Fees
579(1) The Minister may charge fees in connection with any service, program or other thing done by or under the authority of the Minister under this Act or the regulations.
(2) A person who receives a service, program or other thing done by or under the authority of the Minister is liable to pay the fee established under subsection (1) to the Government of Alberta and the fee may be collected by civil action for debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

It doesn't seem that S.579 creates a relationship of "big brother and child" as she said in the Press [whatever that is supposed to mean] it looks more like S 579 creates an adult relationship between two levels of government in which ... if you ask for a service from the other level of government you get to pay for that service. Who woulda thunk it???

All of which leaves open the question ..... "So does Heron have the intellectual gravitas and business experience to be our next Mayor?

0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #60 
Politicians should think things through thoroughly and do some research before spouting off. Being accountable to taxpayers and relaying the facts is so important. Giving us half truths does everyone a disservice.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #61 

In relation to the Facebook Page named " The Community of St. Albert" it seems that there may be concerns because it uses the City's logos and branding image on its Page. This raises the spectrum as to whether they are liable under the tort of "passing off."

A "passing off" action can exist where the defendant promotes their product or business in such a way as to create the false impression that their product is in some way approved by the Plaintiff.

So it seems that the only party who has a legal complaint against the owners of the Facebook Page for using the City's logos and branding is the City itself.  The prospects of them doing anything to stop this practice are remote to say the least.

0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic

Soooo it looks like Councillor Heron brought a motion for an inspection without even reading the relevant provisions of the Municipal Government Act. In the Gazette she expresses surprise and disappointment that the Province is charging the City for an inspection which the City itself requested!! However, section 579 expressly authorizes the Province to charge for this service. Section 579 says:

Fees
579(1) The Minister may charge fees in connection with any service, program or other thing done by or under the authority of the Minister under this Act or the regulations.
(2) A person who receives a service, program or other thing done by or under the authority of the Minister is liable to pay the fee established under subsection (1) to the Government of Alberta and the fee may be collected by civil action for debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

It doesn't seem that S.579 creates a relationship of "big brother and child" as she said in the Press [whatever that is supposed to mean] it looks more like S 579 creates an adult relationship between two levels of government in which ... if you ask for a service from the other level of government you get to pay for that service. Who woulda thunk it???

All of which leaves open the question ..... "So does Heron have the intellectual gravitas and business experience to be our next Mayor?



Skeptic: Considering no Councillor has the ability to pass a motion without support it raises an interesting scenario to your question.
It is my understanding, as of today, no Councillor has declared themselves to be running in the next Mayoral race, although Councillor Mackay has publicly expressed interest in doing so. I believe he, along with all Councillors excepting Osborne and the current Mayor, also supported Heron 's motion for the Municipal Inspection.
Would your question regarding intellectual gravitas and business experience also apply to those supporting the motion and perhaps seeking to be elected Mayor of St Albert?
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #63 
Dennis, you're confused.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #64 
Did Heron do her homework before making the motion for a Municipal Inspection?
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #65 
Perhaps OMG....but what about those supporting the motion. My question would be did they indeed do their home work on the matter? After all Councillor Russell wished to move a motion asking for an inspection. Would the result been different had his motion gone forward?
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #66 
You're missing the point!!!

If Russell's motion went forward, I'd doubt you'd be hearing him question the costs in the Gazette like Heron did.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #67 
Dennis,......... Heron made the motion. When one presents the motion that person should research any info needed to back up the motion and be able to answer any questions presented. She stated in the Gazette that she would not have presented the motion if she had any idea that there was a cost attached. It is stated in the MGA that there is a cost to the Municipality. Did she refer to the MGA? She said that she was surprised by the nature of the inspection. What did she think an inspection was going to be? Did she think it was only going to deal with Prefontaine and the government was going to bring back a decision that everything is A OK? I have seen some councillors propose motions with plenty of facts and info contained in backgrounders.

As for Heron running for mayor, she has made it clear to many that this is her intention.
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #68 
Don't think I'm missing the point at all. Did those that supported the motion do their homework? The original premise in this thread was that Heron did not. Surely those supporting her motion would not blindly follow her lead on this if she was remiss or erred in putting the motion forward.
0
Rick F

Member
Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Surely those supporting her motion would not blindly follow her lead on this if she was remiss or erred in putting the motion forward.


Old military dictum: "When your opponents are making a mistake, don't interrupt them."
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #70 
You indeed are missing the point. Did the other councillors who supported this motion get quoted in the Gazette as not having a clue as to the cost?

No, only Heron did.

That's the point. This has nothing to do with the other councilors. Absolutely nothing.

The other councilors may have actual read the MGA and realized there was a cost so this was not news to them.

They may have seen the value of integrity and accountability above the cost? I don't know. All I know is Heron put the motion forward and had no clue as to what her own motion entailed... Which is pretty scary considering her potential political desires.
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #71 
EnoughAllready:
The MGA states the Minister "may" charge a fee. It does not say the Minister will, shall or must charge a fee. Other Municipalities (I believe Thorsby is one) have had an Inspection with no fee attached. There seems to be enough flexibly in the wording of the legislation to leave fee determination to the discretion of the Minister.
I do not recall Councillor Russell's proposed motion setting a limit on fees if applicable.
I am in favor of the Inspection and am hopeful it will bring an increased level of integrity, cooperation and commitment to our City Council. Deflecting this matter to a matter of whether the cost is reasonable or even if an associated cost would be applicable, is essentially that...an attempt at deflection. Let the Inspection proceed, Municipal Affairs do their part and we'll see what the results are when the report is presented.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #72 
Defection? You're are the one deflecting. Questioning about the other councilors when only Heron was quoted in the Gazette saying she had no idea of the cost.

Nobody else was questioning the other councilors other than you. You know why?

Because the person that brought forth the motion was Heron, and Heron was the one in the Gazette acting surprised about the costs associated!

0
kellex98

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 171
Reply with quote  #73 
I don't think this is really about cost. I don't know what Councillor Heron expected would happen...maybe that after their preliminary interviews they would determine an inspection was not warranted? Or that the inspection would only focus on what she thought they should focus on? But inviting them in opened up the whole gamut. You are right Dennis that the MGA says a fee might be charged. The motion asking them to inspect was open ended and could have gone in any number of directions. I think what made Heron sound ridiculous in the paper was commenting on having to pay and on the scope of the inspection followed by her comment that she would not have brought the motion forward if she had known this was the direction it was going to go in. Sounds silly, immature and like she was uninformed. As for some of the other councillors, I think they are fine with the fee to have the government come in, do their thing and determine once and for all what is good and what is bad. Hopefully this will allow the next council in the Fall to start with a clean and clear slate! I think if she had not brought the motion forward, Councillor Russell would have, because he, Mackay, and Hughes all really wanted the inspection.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #74 

Dennis: I recognize that the only possible defence of Heron is to attempt to employ the over used "moral equivalency" argument. That is ... If Heron should not have introduced this motion then all those who voted for the motion are equally in error.

However, as is often the case, the moral equivalency argument doesn't bear up to analysis because the two situations attempting to be compared are not logically comparable. That seems to be the case in this situation.

Heron: brought a motion because:
1. Her friend/hero/buddy, Patrick Draper, had suggested that he would be glad to have a municipal inspection. Draper, the consumate game player probably assumed that either (a) the province would refuse to do the inspection or (b) if they did an inspection he would get to talk and influence the ultimate report because it would be a bureaucrat to bureaucrat thing.

2. It was probably the foregoing reasoning that influenced Heron to bring the motion as she was prepared to take any steps necessary to sweep the Prefontaine problem and Crouses many problems under the rug. (At the time she attempted to justify the motion with her story about Councillors bullying and intimidating staff)

3. Heron, it seems actually didn't want the inspection and didn't think an inspection would be ordered for a large city, brought the motion so that when the Prov. declined to do an inspection she and the other 3 could say ..... "see .. no problems.

4. In contrast, MacKay, Russell, and Hughes, wanted the inspection and voted for it even though there would be costs.

Consequently, there is not an "equivalency" between Heron's position and the others on Council because they are not equivalent.  However the concern remains as to Herons intellectual gravitas and business experience since she seemed perfectly happy to execute Draper's suggestion that they ask for a municipal inspection but,obviously, didn't consider the cost or the possibility that it may come to fruition.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #75 
Dennis:  You said in part:

"The MGA states the Minister "may" charge a fee. It does not say the Minister will, shall or must charge a fee. Other Municipalities (I believe Thorsby is one) have had an Inspection with no fee attached. There seems to be enough flexibly in the wording of the legislation to leave fee determination to the discretion of the Minister. "

This raises a question "did Thorsby pass a motion asking for an inspection ... my recollection is that the citizens put together a petition asking for an inspection ... and it was as a result of this that the Province initiated the inspection. 

If the foregoing is true then it seems that the Provincial policy is that when a council asks for an inspection ... they pay ... but if it is not asked for by Council the Province doesn't send them a bill.  That would seem to be a judicious manner in which to exercise the discretion
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.