NOTE: This is the audio only of the meeting because it takes the morons two weeks to post their video.
Lots of ‘deer caught in the headlight’ moments for this unqualified admin. The video should be quite entertaining. The Admin couldn’t recall the name of the person at “the ministry” who ok’d the Executive Meeting Bylaw. When I asked if it was Simon Rasmussen – ‘deer in the headlight’. Taking that as a yes. We’re being fed bullshit, folks.
Trustee Jacques looked like he was having a fit trying to butt in when Trustee Kaljur was questioning the watershed protection plan. The knowitall kept shooting his mouth off again.
This is an excerpt that starts out with Trustee Kaljur questioning why the board still hasn’t met with Koer’s regarding the new water treatment facility. Kaljur states this is her fourth request to find out what’s going on. Both the Chair and admin start making ridiculous claims that they can’t do anything if VIHA and Koer’s don’t want to meet with the board. The admin at one point claims VIHA canceled the meeting because of what was going on at the Executive meeting…WTF?
Looks like the cowardly, secretive UBID board with Simon Rasmussen’s help ‘tweaked’ Bylaw 263 to include Executive Meetings to prevent the electorate from witnessing decisions made on their behalf.
The board claims the public are a distraction and they are unable to get things done. They keep telling us how busy they are and the admin is too busy to answer correspondence. Why? Money has been spent in order to free up the admin.
Purchased 2 new computers.
Purchased the new water meter reading/accounts/billing software for $45,000.
Purchased a new Go Pro cameras to video record the meetings. Then why are we paying others to do the admin’s work? Why are we paying for a guy to come and turn the camera on at the meetings and sit behind it until the end of the meeting to turn it off, ever since the January 2018 meeting was not recorded claiming the camera malfunctioned?
Now hiring a deputy admin part time? Why? What has happened that would require hiring additional staff when all of the above was to streamline the workload?
Is too busy to collect delinquent water tolls and parcel taxes. Now a whopping $74,000. owed to UBID and no one is doing anything about it because this guy doesn’t want to do the collections – wants to hire a collection agency!
We should be replacing the current admin with an individual possessing the qualities UBID is looking for in their ad for the deputy admin.
Has the admin been sent for training on the new software? Will the admin assistant be sent for training in case an employee is off? Months ago when I first heard this guy talking about the new software and how wonderful it was going to be and how terrible the old software was, and knowing this guy is not computer savvy, I predicted he wouldn’t be able to learn how to use it. Let’s see if my prediction comes true.
When will we see an increase in accountability with this board? What are they so afraid of that they are changing bylaws to keep you from knowing what they’re doing?
This is the email where Simon offers to ‘tweak’ the bylaw.
VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C – British Columbia has introduced an act aimed at protecting it’s citizens from lawsuits that occur when one participates in public debate.
The Protection of Public Participation Act, instituted yesterday, will safeguard people from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, often known as SLAPPS.
According to former attorney general of British Columbia and former justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Wally Oppal, SLAPPS are lawsuits that target those who speak out on issues of public interest.
“The legal system is vulnerable to so-called SLAPP lawsuits that are intended solely to censor public opinion, to intimidate people and to silence critics,” said Oppal.
“SLAPP lawsuits strategically, and without merit, prevent free discussion on matters of public interest. I welcome today’s legislation.”
A key feature of the act is a process in which a defendant can apply to the the court to dismiss a lawsuit that if it infringes on their right to speak freely.
“Lawsuits that serve to silence and financially exhaust those exercising their right of expression exploit our legal system and only serve those with significantly deeper pockets,” said David Eby, Attorney General.
“We’re committed to ensuring a robust, healthy democracy that defends British Columbian’s fundamental rights – in part, by helping people who want and deserve the freedom to peacefully engage in public debate without fear of unreasonable and financially ruinous legal action against them.”
“British Columbians should have the right to participate freely in public debates without fear of retribution,” said Oppal.
In 2001, British Columbia became was the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact legislation of this kind, but it was subsequently repealed the same year.
Vista file photo of Ted Haraldson. Photo by James Wood/98.9 The Goat/Vista Radio
UNION BAY, B.C- Ted Haraldson has accepted a clarification from the Comox Valley Regional District.
Haraldson, who is the newly-elected chairperson for the Union Bay Improvement District trustee board, was faced with questions from his fellow trustee Susanna Kaljur in recent weeks, centred on a claim Haraldson had made in writing during his campaign.
“Joining the CVRD would mean our additional CEC [Capital Expenditure Charges] credits (connection fees) created by our new development would NOT stay within our community,” read part of the statement.
“Becoming a Municipality would mean we would keep them.”
Kaljur disputed Haraldson’s statement, and wrote to the CVRD’s chair Bruce Joliffe, who also serves as the director for Area A of the CVRD. According to Joliffe’s emailed response on May 3, Haraldson’s view was incorrect.
Joliffe’s response is included in full below.
The statement: “joining the CVRD would mean our additional CEC [Capital Expenditure Charges] credits (connection fees) created by our new development would NOT stay within our community. Becoming a Municipality would mean we would keep them.”is incorrect.
The tax dollars collected for a CVRD service stays within the service. This is mandated by the Local Government Act. Thus if a water service managed by the CVRD had a CEC for a new connections, the CEC for that new connection would be kept with that water service. The funds would be used for capital improvements for that water service. Those funds could not be used elsewhere. Funds collected for a service stay within the service.
If UBID chose to convert their water service to a CVRD local water service area the CVRD would enact a bylaw to set up a new service area with the same boundaries as the existing UBID water service area. The UBID water service operating and capital funds would be transferred to this new local water service. Those funds would continue to stay with the new CVRD water service area.
The above paragraph captures the financial aspect of transitioning to a CVRD service. As has been discussed with your Board in joint UBID-CVRD meetings, if your Board has an interest in understanding implications of transitioning your services to the CVRD your Board needs to send a letter to CVRD with that request. The CVRD would then identify funding to study the implications to your landowners for such a transition. Your Board could then use the results of this analysis to have an informed discussion amongst yourselves and your community on the pros and cons of transitioning your services to the CVRD.
I hope this helps.
Reached for comment on the matter, Kaljur indicated she wanted to see a public clarification from Haraldson.
“I believe that when it’s been brought to someone’s attention, that the statement that they’ve made is incorrect, I believe every person has an obligation tho clarify that, to correct it, to do so publicly,” said Kaljur.
Vista file photo of Susanna Kaljur. Photo by James Wood/98.9 The Goat/Vista Radio
“This is a very contentious issue, and the public needs to understand that the CVRD is not going to keep money and use it in other areas. That’s against the law.”
When contacted by the MyComoxValleyNow.com newsroom for comment, Haraldson indicated that he had received the clarification from Joliffe, and accepted it.
Defence chief promises to fix morale tours, plays down allegations of partying
As the lawyers like to say, I hold no particular brief for Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
But I was nonetheless delighted by the result of an independent investigation into complaints that May was a workplace harasser because it is such a rare victory for adulthood.
An executive summary of the report basically says that what May’s accusers suffered was nothing more than the rough justice of the ordinary office.
Boss doesn’t much like you? Supervisor dumps on your work? Colleague is mean? People exclude you at coffee? Superior swears and is gruff?
Suck it up, buttercup, is the message here — this is what happens in the real world and it doesn’t count as workplace harassment — and well overdue it is.
The allegations — that May created a toxic work environment by yelling at staff or publicly putting them down — were first made, in the modern manner, on the pages of the Toronto Star and The Hill Times last January.
Three former employees were cited by name — Rob Rainer, who was an interim executive director of the party and made nine separate allegations of harassment, seven against him personally; Vanessa Brustolin, who was on a three-month probation as an organizer, and Diana Nunes, the party’s former finance director, who apparently made no specific allegations of harassment but rather voiced general concerns and who claimed she spoke to the press only off the record and saw her name used despite her wishes.
The party quickly hired the Toronto law firm Torys to investigate, and a trio of lawyers headed by the formidable Sheila Block did so.
Though the full report remains confidential because it contains “sensitive personal information about a number of individuals,” including the complainants, the party Thursday released the three-page executive summary.
In the fashion of such reports, the lawyers interviewed widely and gathered extensive documentation, including the complainants’ human resource files and relevant email correspondence. But their mandate was limited to investigating the allegations of bullying from the three complainants.
Interestingly, the only one who declined to meet them was the one who had been with the Green Party for what was essentially a New York minute, Brustolin, who nonetheless issued a lengthy statement of her own Thursday, saying she didn’t participate because of course the fix was in.
“The Green Party of Canada would never have commissioned a report which would have been unfavourable to Elizabeth May,” Brustolin said. “The Green Party of Canada is Elizabeth May.”
Brustolin then cast aspersions on Block’s “credentials” to understand the legal test for workplace harassment, which is “a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker.”
In other words, it’s the ruthless targeting of an employee, often with the hope that they will be driven to quit.
Block about six years ago defended the former Manitoba judge Lori Douglas at the Canadian Judicial Council, which was probing complaints against her because her late husband had taken and posted intimate pictures of her on the web without her knowledge.
The Green Party of Canada would never have commissioned a report which would have been unfavourable to Elizabeth May
Some of those very pictures were, at one hearing, rather casually displayed by a witness, with the result that they were briefly visible to the public gallery: Now, that was truly vexatious conduct, designed to drive Douglas to quit the bench, and Block saw it first-hand.
(Ultimately, that hearing fell apart in circus-like fashion, and the CJC and Douglas reached an arrangement whereby the CJC declined to proceed with a second inquiry and Douglas agreed to retire early.)
In any case, Brustolin said, nothing will deter her from her own noble goal of seeing Ontario harassment legislation rewritten such that it “cannot be whitewashed through employer-led investigations in future.”
She also noted that her own job performance was never an issue.
Indeed, Block’s report suggests the real problem was not that May ever harassed Brustolin, but that “there was tension between her and her direct supervisor,” who was not May.
As for Rainer’s multiple complaints, the report concludes, “It is clear to us that Mr. Rainer and Ms. May do not like each other, and did not work well together. Ms. May attributes that largely to Mr. Rainer’s job performance. Mr. Rainer says it was because he was willing to ‘stand up to’ Ms. May.”
Block says that for the purpose of their analysis, the lawyers accepted the complainants’ allegations as true. They also accepted that all three “feel strongly that they were mistreated.” But even if true, Block says, they don’t rise to the level for a finding of workplace harassment under the law.
Genuine workplace harassment, of course, is a terrible thing.
I’m an adult now. I’ve got the problems of an adult on my head and on my shoulders. I’m an adult now
But what happened here, and in this section Block was talking about Rainer’s allegations, was less than that. The incidents he cited were “tense interactions between coworkers who did not get along, or situations where Mr. Rainer appears to have taken questions about his job performance personally.”
Then, amid the careful lawyer’s language, came this delicious bit: “Because he saw no fault in his performance, he concluded that he was subjected to an unjustified personal attack.”
Ahhhh; he saw no fault in his performance.
Now, there’s a man who took to heart what his parents said, about being special and being anything and doing anything he wanted.
Better he should listen to The Pursuit of Happiness, that great old Canadian band, who sang circa 1986 in their big hit: “I’m an adult now. I’ve got the problems of an adult on my head and on my shoulders. I’m an adult now.”
This is the beginning of the spending spree. Have attended the UBID office twice in the last couple of weeks. The first time the admin was sitting gabbing and the second time he was helping stuff the water bills in envelopes. Is this why he can’t respond to correspondence?
We have an admin who has no government experience and appears to lack many of the qualities needed to run a government office. Now we’re are going to pay for another staff member possessing the qualities that should have been met when they interviewed for the present admin.
Look at what is expected for this new position – the current admin doesn’t meet the standards. We’re gong to be paying for someone to do the admin’s job! The senior management team – there is one admin and an assistant. Now there is a senior management team?
The current admin doesn’t want to collect delinquent water tolls and parcel taxes. Wanted to hire a collection agency. Delinquent tolls $35,000. in 2015, $54,000. in 2016 and $74,000. in 2017, with the current admin claiming he hasn’t had time.
Can’t video record the meetings by turning the camera on and off so now we are paying for a guy to come in and turn the camera on and sit there until the end and turn it off. Still takes 2 weeks to post the video.
Can’t answer simple questions and responds with “I’m not going to argue with you”.
Too busy to answer correspondence. If you go to the office you’re told to make an appointment or send an email. Emails are ignored.
Gets visibly upset when questioned by a trustee. Claims to be badgered.
Refuses to admit to mistakes – lied about correct figures being posted for the water filtration project. Incorrect ones at the Mar. 1 and Mar. 3, 2018 open houses and correct figures not posted until Mar. 12, 2018.
Doesn’t have strong organizational skills
Doesn’t have problem-solving skills
Doesn’t have even mediocre interpersonal skills
Lacks oral and written communication skills
Lousy customer service skills
Lacks experience working with councils, boards etc.
No experience in local government sector
No experience and completely ignorant of parliamentary procedures, Community Charter, Local Government Act, Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act and Roberts Rules of Order!!! Absolutely clueless regarding Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act – zero training or interest.